To be honest @Zatara I was cool with Seamus going in and “consoling” Son because it seemed....indeed was....an honourable enough thing to do and exactly how a very honourable fellow like Seamus would react.
However, in light of the “appeal” which exonerated Son I am now not so cool with it.
Whilst accepting that Son did not mean to break Andre, he did make a snide challenge with no chance of playing the ball so either Son or Spurs or indeed both showed a distinct lack of sensitivity in appealing the red card IMO.
In legalese, the serious consequences of Son’s lunge were “reasonably foreseeable” in those circumstances and a three match ban would be getting off light IMO.
It wasn’t even like it was a proper “tackle” which went wrong as such......he was acting the snide and seeking “revenge”.
So, no.....I do not think our skipper should be in there consoling Son when Andre’s career might have ended as a result of his actions.
However, in light of the “appeal” which exonerated Son I am now not so cool with it.
Whilst accepting that Son did not mean to break Andre, he did make a snide challenge with no chance of playing the ball so either Son or Spurs or indeed both showed a distinct lack of sensitivity in appealing the red card IMO.
In legalese, the serious consequences of Son’s lunge were “reasonably foreseeable” in those circumstances and a three match ban would be getting off light IMO.
It wasn’t even like it was a proper “tackle” which went wrong as such......he was acting the snide and seeking “revenge”.
So, no.....I do not think our skipper should be in there consoling Son when Andre’s career might have ended as a result of his actions.