ChatterBank2 mins ago
Roy Keane
When Roy Keane tackled Alf-Inge Haaland, and effectively ended his career, he stated in his book he deliberately aimed to injure him in revenge for a similiar tackle by Haaland on Keane in 1997.
Whilst I believe both players to be no more than petty thugs, surely Keane should have been arrested and charged with GBH-with-intent?
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by Andy008. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I agree. I've never understood why he wasn't charged.
By the way, Haaland never did a similar tackle on Keane. What happened was Keane did his knee in whilst attempting to foul Haaland. While he was rolling on the floor in agony, Haaland stood over him and said something like 'get up you big jessie, and stop faking'. It was that remark that Keane sought revenge for by kicking Haaland after bearing a weird psychotic grudge about it for many months.
I'm not - surprised.
In the 70s. confessions were sort of looked on as the way ahead. A confession alone could not base a conviction in Scots law but it could in English Law, and......then in the seventies there were around a score of terrorist cases who obligingly confessed to all sorts of horrific crimes. These were cases in which it would have been reasonable for people to realise that they couldnt have done what they wer confessing to.
But instead the victims/criminals spent up to 20 yrs in prison.
Now (ha!) judges will not allow a case to go forward if there is nothing to back up a confession.
Don't know why this is in News. Maybe an anniversary. Nevertheless...
Anyone who saw the tackle could see he wasn't going for the ball. The significance of the book (which Keane didn't even write) was overblown.
Haaland retired because of a long-standing injury to his left knee (Keane�s horrific tackle caught him on the right) and a civil action never materialised.
Keane got a long punishment from the FA which is preferable to a court of law, in my opinion. A prosecution would add a unwelcome litigious element to competitive sport.
Remember wounding or inflicting greviuos bodily harm is the most serious offence short of causing death. Examples might include include: a fractured skull, permanent loss of a sensory function, injuries causing a substantial loss of blood. Charging Standards urge that minor wounds should not come within the definition. 'Intent' to cause some harm (if not the actual harm which resulted) is a prerequisite of GBH and not constitute a separate offence.
I understand what you say, but Keane surely set out to cause injury to Haaland. Haaland of course made his own bed with his stupid previous comments to someone as volatile and childish as Keane, but I was always under the impression that Keane deliberately, right from the whistle set out to injure Haaland, without any intention of a footballing tackle. Hypothetically, Keane may have stated he was provoked (which he was) but verbal provocation is no defence in UK law for assault (or it would of course be statutory for every assault up and down the country). It just seems to me that Keane did one thing, and if I went and did the same tomorrow night on a busy High Street, I would likely go to court, and he would walk scot-free..why?
remember that these players are insured against injuries for millions of pounds.
in my opinion, it's ridiculous asking for players to be arrested. they play football - it's a game, sometimes things get heated because of commitment and passion. but even with intent, so what? aren't there more pressing matters for police to deal with?
I�d be seriously p�ssed off if my house was burgled, or girlfriend raped/beaten and to find that police resources were being utilised sorting out a spat between two blokes kicking each other on a play-ground.