Good point. Perhaps they could just vote "no" for that reason. It would help if there was a video taken of the incident! In fact, did the AU or DC United staff videotape this? Others might say that the injury that the kid sustained was too severe for it to be accidental or that Hristo has been petulant throughout his career. My guess is that he'll be suspended one year. His career is almost at an end anyway (unless he wants to play in an undeveloped, third division league somewhere).
It should be based on the information (which could be wrong!) that we have. Called offside Got mad at assistant Tracked down the ball and came in with a 2 footed studs up tackle on the plant leg. To me it sounds like a $20k fine and 8 match ban would be appropriate. And MLS should just give the fine directly to the kid whose leg was broken...
He shouldn't be suspended. He shouldn't be sued. He's very sorry for what accidentally happened. It's the nature of sport. He didn't intend to break the kids leg. See you opening day.
This is a preseason training game against another non-MLS team. MLS should not suspend. If DC United wants to suspend then that is there business, the league should stay out of it.
From what I've read and the quotes from Hudston, Petke et al, there was absolutely nothing accidental about the incident. If he didn't mean to hurt the AU player, he certainly meant to inflict pain. At the very least, Hristo should foot the medical bill. That said, a lifetime ban is a little harsh. A two year suspension should do it.
Kick him out of MLS. There is no place for retaliation like that in the league. The tackle was not a "mistake". He didn't mean to break the kids' leg but he meant for it to be a malicious tackle.....plain and simple. I hope they take him to court.
I have to agree with you, the league should stay out of it, since it was not a league game. Even though I'm a little biased, because Hristo has been my favorite player for almost 10 years, and I usually will defend him for his lack of control (what some people call 'passion') what he did (from the reports I've read) was beyond reproach. The league should not get involved, but DC United should suspend him for a lengthy period of time. However, since the league actually owns all the contracts and the players 'work' for the league, MLS probably will get involved. It's a very sad time for Hristo and, especially, the kid who's leg he broke.
i voted no no way i was at the mls rapids v galaxy game several years back with balboa snapped calichmans leg in half he wasnt banned for life got a nice suspension/fine deal but that was it on the other hand i do recall reading an interview with calichman recently and he is still pissed off about getting his leg pulverized (rightly so) it would not surprise me if the kid sues hristo and dc and mls for big bucks (not that i agree with this action)
Disagree. 1) DCU should do something about it and not let it get to MLS. What he did creates a bad image for DCU and MLS, and if the team does the discipline on the player it shows that this kind of action is unacceptable. 2) Teams go through MLS regarding any situation with an international game (protests, etc.) so the same applies here. In an MLS game this would recieve a stiff fine and penalty, so it should here. No matter who the opponent, Stoichkov was representing DCU and MLS when he committed this foul. He should be punished accordingly.
I'll preface my remarks by saying that I haven't actually seen the incident-- moreso than the rest of you, being about 11,000 miles away from Washington, D.C.-- and I doubt that I'm going to anytime soon. So I don't know much about what happened, in its proper context other than what I have read in the papers back there... Absolutely not, I say. It was just one of those things that happens on the athletic field, or on the soccer pitch, in this case, as every athlete knows that there are risks whenever they get between the white lines of play. Anything can happen, and sometimes does, during the course of any sporting event, and not just during a soccer match. Let me ask this, in an effort to draw an analogy (and I know people are going to have a go at me for saying this): Was there any high volume of outcry in 1985 or '86 imporing the banning of Lawrence Taylor for breaking Joe Theismann's leg? A pertinent question, only because it's a similar injury sustained, and nothing more. Answer: Of course not-- and it was reasonably accepted that what happened then was one of those things that happens on the battlefield. I feel sorry for the kid, to have had his leg broken in two places-- I've had my arm broken in four places once myself in a singular incident, so I know how he must feel-- but there's no need to sue anybody, or to seek Hristo Stoitchkov's banning or suspension whatsoever, IMHO.
Did Ray Hudson put him up to it? Because I could have sworn I saw Miami try these types of tackles against San Jose in the playoffs.....
I know what you mean, that injuries are part of the game, but here's why I think your analogy fails: Lawrence Taylor's job was to take down the quarterback and inflict pain. LT injured Theismann doing exactly what was expected of him, but to an extreme degree. The analogy would work only if LT had hit Theismann well after the whistle or the ball was released. By all accounts, the sole purpose of Hristo's two footed, studs-up tackle was in retaliation to an offside call with an intent to cause pain and/or harm, an act that is not part of a normal play.
This is ridiculous, who cares if it was on purpose or not, its a part of sports, who cares if some clown broke his leg, injuries happen in sports, if it were regular season he should get like a 2 game suspension, but this is pre-season, no suspension...
OK, that's a fair response. I didn't get that impression from reading the articles in either the Washington Post or the Washington Times-- but then again, I may not have read that part carefully enough, which is my fault, in my late-night and medication-induced haze over here. But still, getting back to my main point, I don't see any justification for suspension, as both players-- and all players, for that matter-- know full well that any kind of injury is the risk before they step out onto the field of battle. Yet in all fairness, I would like to see the incident in its proper context.
Ray Hudson said, "I don't know what he was thinking" Everybody at the game who has made a comment about it has described it as such. Opposing coach called it "criminal". Mike Petke called it "horrible" It was obvious to everybody on the field he was going in to do bodily harm to the opposing player. There was a big deal about the Diallo incident in years past, but I didn't see those sorts of comments from his teammates and that was in a real game...not practice...
We can all speculate as to what was going through his mind when he made the tackle, but we'll never know. Hristo is the only one and he will have to live with the results for the rest of his life (as well as the young man). Again, without seeing it, there's no way I can pass judgement. From the sounds of it, he went in studs first and did the damage...intent or not, the red card was justified as is probably a couple of games suspension and a fine. I also agree with giving the fine to the young man to help with the certain expensive medical bills. As for him trying to sue, chances are it won't go very far. They can argue intent, but there is no clear cut way to state that Stoichkov went in with the purpose of breaking the kid's leg. Peace...
I think there's a piece missing in your assumptions, though. All players know full well they could be injured in a game, but they step onto the field assuming that all the other players will play the game fairly and without malice, that is their actions will be confined to those actions which are defined as a normal part of the game. I have no more seen this incident with my own eyes than you have, but all the quotes I have read, including from Stoichkov's coach and teammates (who might be expected to put the best possible face on his actions), suggest that this was a malicious act, with a very high probability of causing serious injury, even if you give the benefit of the doubt and assume that injury was not part of Stoichkov's intent. In other words, when you step on the pitch, you have the right to assume that the other players will not try to hurt you beyond the normal knocks of the game. This incident clearly falls outside that definition. Therefore we can't say that all players willingly assume this risk when they play the game. Put it this way -- I don't care how many goals he's scored in his career, I wouldn't have this guy on my team.
Don't have to prove intent just have to prove negligence. I doubt there will be a lawsuit, but if there was one the circumstantial evidense and the eye witness accounts seem to be heavily against the mad Bulgarian winning...