The Football Association has lodged an appeal to extend Liam Roberts’ three-match ban for his horror challenge on Jean-Philippe Mateta.
Keith Hackett was among former referees leading calls for the Millwall keeper to face a five-game ban over a high kick which hospitalised the Crystal Palace forward. Steve Parish, the Palace chairman, described it as the “most reckless challenge on a football pitch I’ve ever seen”.
Telegraph Sport reported on Sunday how the FA would weigh up seeking an extension to an initial three-game ban handed to Roberts. The governing body, which had a deadline of lunchtime on Tuesday to make a decision, has now confirmed in a statement that it “submitted a claim seeking to increase Liam Roberts’ sanction following his sending off in the FA Cup tie”.
“The goalkeeper was sent off for serious foul play around the sixth minute,” the statement says. “The FA claims that in the circumstances the standard punishment for this offence is clearly insufficient. Liam Roberts has until Thursday, 6 March, to provide a response.”
The incident divided football. While many expressed dismay over the challenge, Millwall fans conducted a minute’s applause for the suspended keeper during a Championship fixture against Bristol City on Tuesday.
Mateta had been taken off on a stretcher after being caught in the face by a head-high challenge from Roberts who was sent off for the foul, but only after a VAR review. He appeared unconscious and received treatment for more than eight minutes before being taken to a waiting ambulance. He was taken to St George’s Hospital in south London, before being discharged on Saturday evening having had 25 stitches in his left ear.
‘He should be charged with assault’ – how Telegraph readers would like to see Roberts punished
By Ewan Harkness
Many readers felt that a ban from football was insufficient for such a dangerous action, arguing that the challenge appeared pre-meditated and should therefore be treated as it would be if it occurred outside of football. Reader Matthew Bond called for Roberts to be “charged with assault”, and he was not alone in expressing this view.
Michael Welsh, for instance, argued: “If the kick was caught by CCTV on any street in the UK it could result in an arrest. Why is it different because he was wearing a football shirt?”
Steve Williams shared this sentiment. He said: “That is a jail sentence if done in the street, the same should apply here.”
While that may appear severe, it is arguable that Roberts could have injured Mateta far worse than the 25 stitches the Frenchman received to his left ear following the game.
Reader David Dowling, who was at the game, contended that the challenge could have been fatal: “I was at the game and was about 30 yards from the incident. After 50 years watching football, this was the worst incident I have ever seen. Mateta could have died if he had not moved his head slightly at the last moment.”
‘He should be banned for life’
There is an argument that Roberts should be made an example of, to prevent dangerous incidents like this happening again. Reader Helene Murard asserted that the goalkeeper “should be banned for life”, and others weighed in similarly.
Andrew Kennard argued: “I think players who go out to seriously injure their opponents should be banned for life and prosecuted. They should have done that to Roy Keane to set an example all those years ago and maybe this wouldn’t have happened.”
Echoing this view, Opal Richard said: “The ball was nowhere near the player, this was a deliberate life-threatening kick which should have Roberts banned for life.”
‘Not a lifetime ban, but six months easily”
While some readers felt that a lifetime ban for the 30-year-old goalkeeper was too severe, they maintained that a lengthy ban is needed for Roberts to be held responsible for his actions.
Reader Cool Hand, a Crystal Palace fan, voiced that he did not believe the challenge warranted a lifetime ban:
“It was a terrible challenge, and he certainly needs to be punished beyond the standard red-card suspensions given its severity. Banned for life though? No, and I’m a Crystal Palace fan. I don’t believe he set out to hurt him, he just got overexcited about a big cup tie against local rivals and lost his professionalism.”
Jim Beese agreed: “I’m convinced the outcome was not intentional, but he has to be held responsible for his reckless actions, it has to be the most reckless challenge for the ball I’ve ever seen. Maybe not a lifetime ban, but six months easily, keepers cannot carry on like this it’s totally unacceptable.”
John Rogers also felt a six month ban was appropriate, he noted: “If Millwall are not going to discipline the player the FA should ban him for six months. Get this behaviour out of the sport.”
‘A three match ban is enough’
Millwall manager Alex Neil somewhat downplayed the issue in his post-match interview on Saturday, saying that he ‘certainly wouldn’t label it as the worst challenge’ that he had seen.
Reader Malcolm Moon made a similar argument in the comments, suggesting that the minimum suspension of three matches would suffice for Roberts.
“The keeper badly misjudged the play, but it wasn’t malicious. His sending off and the subsequent three match ban is quite adequate.”
Tim Davies comparably wrote that he believed the calls for longer suspensions were excessive: “It was a bad tackle, yes, but the hyperbole over the tackle is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe it was anything other than an over zealous challenge that did end in not a good way. I think a five-match ban would be sufficient.”
‘He got the ball’
In contrast, a minority of readers argued that Liam Roberts got the ball and that it was a fair challenge. Percy Dodson said: “Roberts made full contact with the ball. It was a great clearance.”
In a similar vein, reader Baron Forthright said: “He got the ball first but the follow through unfortunately caught the attacker. Witchhunts are not helpful, it was not intentional.”
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
