I don't live in a world where malice is irrelevant. I'd say it's very relevant when looking at a player injuring another player.

So your point of view is that Sneyd from a stationary position has no knowledge for the potential outcome of his action. The action being the role and twist. That did happen that's a fact. That's why Mags is injured.

I don't think malice is important in this case. Even if he isn't trying to break mags anckle the tackle isn't a fair one he has no right to be putting undue pressure on the joint to slow down play or injure. The tackle was illegal not part of the game, malice in this case for me is irrelevant.

Clearly it's a bad tackle and has ended horribly for DM and I wish him a speedy recovery.



I can't agree that malice is irrelevant in any circumstance though. Why would we ever think that a malicious intent to injure is an irrelevance in RL?



I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with the tackle, but I struggle to understand malice being irrelevant. Why was Terry Newton on Sean Long so poor - it was the obvious malice and it is relevant to all actions on a RL pitch.



As poor as this tackle was (and it deserves a lengthy ban) I don't think it was done with malice (unlike the other twisting example from the Championship recently that was clearly a deliberate intent to injure).



That's an opinion, some will disagree (that's fine) and only Sneyd will know for sure.



Get well soon DM.

Can I put it like this. If you undertake an action which you have a comprehension of the potential outcome (a horrific one in this case) and you do it anyway, it's just as bad if you mean it or not. You know what might happen. It's a little daft but it's like Rocky 4 where he say with no malice "if he dies he dies" Sneyd knew what could happen and did it regardless.

Snivelling sickening Sneyd.

No malice? If you twist someone's ankle, on purpose, then there must be some sort of malice. To say there isn't, is like saying you weren't trying break someone's nose after punching them in the face.

Maybe I need to see a better video, I've only seen the vine on my mob on the way into work, but looked like he was trying to turn the player and slow the PTB.



Freely admit a better view might change my mind. . . . .

What does intent look like?



I'd also point out that whilst Sneyd may not have set out to injure anyone. All of his actions were deliberate there was nothing accidental to what he did.

Is delaying the Play of the Ball illegal? Yes.



Is rolling/twisting whilst holding someones legs illegal? Yes.



I don't really see what point Sneyd's defendants are trying to make, deliberate or not, malicious or not, nice guy or not, thug or not, he should be banned (imo) for at least as many games as his victim is going to miss.



As to McGuire being booked too for trying to stop someone from causing him injury, it's just laughable, or it would be if he wasn't in the end so seriously injured! Shame on the ref' and shame on Sneyd's advocates.

I don't know why people keep having to reiterate this, but it doesn't matter what he was 'trying' to do. He still DID what he did - he rolled a players legs not once, but twice in a crocodile roll, even as the player was trying to kick away. Most of the time, a player doesn't head out with the intention to injure another - unfortunately this was a lapse of judgement - but it doesn't mean you should brush it off because he was trying to do something else.

And I don't know how why I need to reiterate that IN MY OPINION there is a big difference between a) trying to turn over a player to slow down a PTB and b) trying to break someone's leg.



You may not see any distinction, I do -no more to it really. I've already said it ended up a bad challenge and he'll be punished accordingly but my view of him as a person and player is influenced by whether I think he maliciously set out to injure an opponent. Quite simple really.

I agree theres a difference, and that should be taken into account when the disciplinary meets, but, I still think his ban should be at minimum as long as McGuire's injury keeps him out for, because Sneyd's intention was always to cheat and in doing that he has seriously injured another player.

I can't see the relevance of intent or malice - neither of which are provable anyway; the fact is that Sneyd turned an opponents ankle through 360 degrees and appears to have inflicted catastrophic damage as a result - an entirely foreseeable and preventable outcome. That's unacceptable on the field and endless navel-gazing about whether he meant it or not doesn't advance the argument. He did it - and should have the book thrown at him - and only he'll know whether he's sitting out the rest of the season for an act of thuggery, or stupidity.



Grubby tactics like this should be dealt with in the harshest possible way - if for no other reason than to send a message to those coaches and players who still labour under the misconception that it's part of the game; it really isn't.