Conclusive as to what exactly? Not every person that's lost his head has anger management issues.
- Status
@JK-27
So your plan is to fire people that can't find work elsewhere?
Jamie finding another job should have no bearing on the matter.
He's been convicted of 2 previous road rage incidents as well, he doesn't deserve any sort of leeway here.
He clearly has anger management issues that needs to be addressed.
So your plan is to fire people that can't find work elsewhere?
Jamie finding another job should have no bearing on the matter.
He's been convicted of 2 previous road rage incidents as well, he doesn't deserve any sort of leeway here.
He clearly has anger management issues that needs to be addressed.
If he's sacked I cant imagine they'll be a queue of UK stations waiting to pick him up, may need to go the Talksport route and then maybe a pundit for another countries PL coverage
Give this video a watch.
Carragher has demonstrated enough in his playing and post playing career for me to know that there’s some stuff that needs to be worked on as far as his emotional intelligence goes. Disputing it shows a complete and utter disregard for biological physiology.
Yep, maybe a job out of the public eye is what he actually needs for a while. He obviously can’t handle this culture of filming everything and every celeb people see, which although I don’t do I know others love it. It seems the new version of autographs, I was never into those either.
There is football and there's this.
Are we talking about incident itself or some deeper issue with Carra's mental state?
In the case of the of former, everything. The video provides all the evidence one would to need pass judgement on the incident. The guy with the camera shouts "2-1 Jamie, unlucky lad" to a clearly rattled Carra, who in turn responds in the most natural manner possible - winds down his window and precedes to direct an unGodly amount of phlegm at the offender, misses his target, and catches the guys daughter in the face.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.
His reaction to me is very strange. Tell the guy to f off or something, or better yet, just ignore it.
It's a total overreaction unless this is something he's used to doing, so he didn't think twice about it.
A difficult situation as it seems not even the guy want him to be sacked by Sky.
Perhaps the humiliation is enough, but it's a scummy way to respond no matter how you look at it.
It's a total overreaction unless this is something he's used to doing, so he didn't think twice about it.
A difficult situation as it seems not even the guy want him to be sacked by Sky.
Perhaps the humiliation is enough, but it's a scummy way to respond no matter how you look at it.
Probably why he won't resign
Knows it will be a very hard route back to a good punditry job
I still think he will have decent options if he resigns and comes back after a year
Get your head out of your arse.
The initial point was that he has deeper underlying anger management problems, which I argued can't be proven with a 30sec video, which we barely know the context of or what preceded it.
With regard to the incident itself, of course the evidence is conclusive enough. No arguing there.
My heads not up my arse. I just know what I’m talking about.
Fairly logical to say that Carragher probably wouldn’t have wanted to do what he did, right? So why did he? Get your head into some books and some basic human behavioural studies, and you’ll understand where I’m coming from.
“You don’t know the situation so you can’t comment”
Absolute horse shite mate.
That’s fine, but what about my other point? That’s the thing I find most puzzling. The girls life is being put in danger, but no one is talking about the guy driving with his phone out filming. Doesn’t that seem kinda odd?
I never said you couldn't comment on the situation, I argued you can't say what's caused his reaction with the likelihood that you did. And I stick by it, but fair enough if you think you have it figured out. It might just as well be anger management issues for all I care, but it could be a hundred different things as well.
Oh I see, well he always comes across level-headed enough on MNF, certainly nothing that would suggest he is mental case anyway, then again he cannot be entirely stable considering his reaction to extremely mild banter. I mean, imagine his reaction were it something serious.
Still it would be unfair to condemn the guy as a mental case based on 30 seconds of video, unless evidence could be provided to the contrary of course. Which I personally do not have.
He could've been harrassed all the way since leaving Old Trafford for all we know, and the video was just the straw that broke the camel's back. It's hard to tell without a proper context, but if it was only this incident it's a proper mental reaction to something quite minor, which is why I think there is more to it than what the video shows.
This is part of the issue here, because that’s NOT what I’m saying at all.
His choice to spit on this girl comes from issues within his ability to process his emotions effectively enough. I refer to that as an extension of anger management. The term “anger management” doesn’t imply you are a mental case as you put it, just that there are some issues that need to be worked on.
Read up on the amygdala hijack. It’s physiological science. What Carragher did is as clear an example of a hijack as you could ever hope to see, and we 100% get hijacked because of underlying issues that need attention, I.e. in this case stuff beneath the “anger management” heading.
First we have Slippy G now we have Spitty C.
:stolen off facebook
:stolen off facebook
Do you not think that maybe you want to believe there is more to this than the video suggests? Carra is a Liverpool legend after all, it's only natural to find yourself defending those you worship. Even if it is a little missguided. All we know is Jamie has been caught out lying already, making his "this went on 3/4 times before I lost it" claim that much harder to believe. Even if he is telling the truth this time, it doesn't excuse his reaction.
No of course it doesn't, and I definitely don't worship him either btw
I think I'd have the same reaction if it was Neville for example - it would be a serious overreaction if it was just this incident, but it's certainly possible yeah.1) He had no reason to even acknowledge the guy filming.
2) He had no reason to lower his window.
3) He had no reason to not raise his window, when he didn't like what he heard.
4) He had a choice to ignore what he heard or respond in a lighthearted manner.
5) The volume of spit suggests he was stockpiling for his action, rather than it being a reflex action.
6) He had a decision to make on what to do after all these other decisions, and he chose to spit, in the direction of a child.
These are the only things that need to be examined as to his part in the incident.
Whether another person was breaking a section of the road-traffic act by using a phone, or how other celebrities have been treated in unrelated, dissimilar events, have no bearing on the matter. NONE!
What he did is a crime. (Assault)
His victim was a minor.
It was repugnant, and an extreme response to a relatively innocuous comment.
The CPS will determine is the crime will be pursued, which would be unlikely, as the victim's don't appear to wish to press charges.
The question then is for his employer.
Do Sky wish to be associated with that behaviour?
This isn't a backroom member of staff. This is the public face of Sky, and as such, is seen to reflect the company's values.
If they decide to terminate his contract, it would be fully justified, and a decision that I would agree with.
It is, however, solely their decision.
It is not my right, or anybody else's, to demand it.
As for those saying that he won't do anything like that again so let him be. It is his third road rage incident.
Also, the same could be said when sentencing anyone to prison, so why do we bother?
2) He had no reason to lower his window.
3) He had no reason to not raise his window, when he didn't like what he heard.
4) He had a choice to ignore what he heard or respond in a lighthearted manner.
5) The volume of spit suggests he was stockpiling for his action, rather than it being a reflex action.
6) He had a decision to make on what to do after all these other decisions, and he chose to spit, in the direction of a child.
These are the only things that need to be examined as to his part in the incident.
Whether another person was breaking a section of the road-traffic act by using a phone, or how other celebrities have been treated in unrelated, dissimilar events, have no bearing on the matter. NONE!
What he did is a crime. (Assault)
His victim was a minor.
It was repugnant, and an extreme response to a relatively innocuous comment.
The CPS will determine is the crime will be pursued, which would be unlikely, as the victim's don't appear to wish to press charges.
The question then is for his employer.
Do Sky wish to be associated with that behaviour?
This isn't a backroom member of staff. This is the public face of Sky, and as such, is seen to reflect the company's values.
If they decide to terminate his contract, it would be fully justified, and a decision that I would agree with.
It is, however, solely their decision.
It is not my right, or anybody else's, to demand it.
As for those saying that he won't do anything like that again so let him be. It is his third road rage incident.
Also, the same could be said when sentencing anyone to prison, so why do we bother?
I don't understand his reaction at all. The guy wasn't being abusive, it was good humored banter. Totally out of order to react like that.
I'm not saying he's telling lies but some of what he has said obviously isn't 100 % pure truth.
Not seeing / knowing the girl is there being the obvious example. But mainly he doesn't have a lot he can say. ''I wasn't aiming for the girl'' - doesn't sound good, half-forgetting (not seeing) her is a bit better
Similarly, any defence of it seems based around his tremendous punditry or minor traffic violations by SuperDad. (see also Carragher for minor traffic offences). Oh, and how other people get treated, Kirsty was very fortunate but people don't consider drink-driving as 'orrible as spitting at people.
The only sensible argument / discussion is whether he carries on the Sky work & how much his poor behaviour is inbuilt & whether he needs help with it.
As a 'top red' I think the clogging, coin-chucking, barely comprehensible footy guru should feck off into obscurity & concentrate on his Charity work.
Imagine the Scousers if this was Roy Keane,.
Far too fair a trial on here,
.
Not seeing / knowing the girl is there being the obvious example. But mainly he doesn't have a lot he can say. ''I wasn't aiming for the girl'' - doesn't sound good, half-forgetting (not seeing) her is a bit better
Similarly, any defence of it seems based around his tremendous punditry or minor traffic violations by SuperDad. (see also Carragher for minor traffic offences). Oh, and how other people get treated, Kirsty was very fortunate but people don't consider drink-driving as 'orrible as spitting at people.
The only sensible argument / discussion is whether he carries on the Sky work & how much his poor behaviour is inbuilt & whether he needs help with it.
As a 'top red' I think the clogging, coin-chucking, barely comprehensible footy guru should feck off into obscurity & concentrate on his Charity work.
Imagine the Scousers if this was Roy Keane,
.Far too fair a trial on here,
.Do you have an inability to read? I never said that all. I am not asking for him to be fired. Others are and I am questioning their motivation for wanting him fired from his job.
Re: his previous convictions and not deserving any sort of 'leeway'. What leeway do you mean? You want him fired?
Too much being made out of this now. Yes, spitting is vile but he wasn't obviously directing it at the girl and sacking him over this isn't called for. Sky should probably suspend for a weeks and allow the issue to cool down before bringing him back. He is a great pundit and I am sure Sky won't want him to lose him right now.
Best post in the thread, agree with everyword
I agree. Good post.
When one of the companies I represent recruiting executives we often use “real case scenario” to know who we are dealing with. It’s simple. The majority of our prospects are educated high performers who knows how to deal with tricky questions.
The key thing in these interviews is to catch our prospects off guard. There are various ways to this but we often ask a person multiple questions in high speed where we increase the complexity until a point where the answers starts to come by reflex, instead of being answered in a calculated way. (I hope this make sense..)
If there are two synchronized interviewers then these scenarios often goes quite fast.
The interesting part in this is that there are no right or wrong regarding the answers. In some situations a “doer” is preferable and in other cases a calculated personality is better.
I assume, without knowing anything except from what I been seeing from television, that Jamie Carragher in his playing days was a “doer”. From my perspective one of his main attributes was that he instinctively reacts to any danger in front of him. With that approach there are positives and negatives. In his case it comes with a high proportion of red/yellow cards, own goals and penalties. In Liverpool’s case they took the good with the bad. (Meanwhile in the United camp some of us smiled)
Finally coming up to the spitting incident. As a doer, scientist probably calls it someone who attacks, you react to what’s in front of you. Instead of thinking about the consequences Jamie Carragher did what gave him success in his playing days, he reacted, direct without hesitation. Boom!! In the face on a teenage girl.
Off course he regrets himself. Deeply. To be honest I think he probably doesn’t understand himself and why he reacted. But that’s part of the problem and why he needs anger management. What’s good in one situation can next time be a disaster. Let’s hope Sky keeps him because he’s a really good pundit and from my minimal view he looks like a good human being.
How is that sensible? The law requires someone convicted of spitting to pay a fine, that's it. Just a fine, it doesn't reuire someone to lose a job. However, he won't be convicted of breaking a law because he is not being sought by the police (yes, you read that right, the dad of the girl is not seeking any prosecution - you know why, because they are lot more realistic about this than most other people discussing this thread).
He has personally apologised to the girl and the dad. He has publicly apologised on multiple occassions and the people involved in the incident are happy with that and have ended it. The dad has also publicly stated he does not want Jamie to lose his job.
If the other man involved in the incident has publicly stated he doesn't want Jamie to be fired, why should he be fired? Because you, someone who has never met Jamie, never met that dad and won't ever meet the dad, never met the girl and won't ever meet the girl, weren't at the incident, don't know what went on before the filming, haven't been affected emotionally, physically, or financially in any way by the incident, and won't give a feck about any of this next week, want him fired? Get over yourself mate.
Too many keyboard warriors on here who can't handle the real world.
One day he's logically defending United from Souness (another case for a shrink) and on next spits on some girl because of mental hijack... It's a team of 11 Carraghers and everyone of them acting differently.
Why was there so much spit in his mouth though? Honestly he had more spit in his mouth than a camel.
Last edited:
@JK-27
You said this...
If he gets fired from Sky he will get another job elsewhere, and probably as a pundit and still in the public eye. So what does firing him from Sky achieve?
You clearly state that there's no point in sacking him since he could get a similar job elsewhere which is nonsense imo. If another company wants to take him on then so be it, he didn't do this on their watch so to speak. That shouldn't play into Skys decision.
Nobody thinks he should never work again btw, I don't know why you keep framing your posts around this point.
Nobody is saying he shouldn't get a second chance (fourth for Jamie actually) but that doesn't mean he shouldn't face the consequences for this.
I could lose my licence for drink driving tomorrow but that doesn't mean my real world consequences are served. The judge wouldn't order a review of my suitability for my job but a lot of bosses do fire you for it.
You said this...
If he gets fired from Sky he will get another job elsewhere, and probably as a pundit and still in the public eye. So what does firing him from Sky achieve?
You clearly state that there's no point in sacking him since he could get a similar job elsewhere which is nonsense imo. If another company wants to take him on then so be it, he didn't do this on their watch so to speak. That shouldn't play into Skys decision.
Nobody thinks he should never work again btw, I don't know why you keep framing your posts around this point.
Nobody is saying he shouldn't get a second chance (fourth for Jamie actually) but that doesn't mean he shouldn't face the consequences for this.
I could lose my licence for drink driving tomorrow but that doesn't mean my real world consequences are served. The judge wouldn't order a review of my suitability for my job but a lot of bosses do fire you for it.
Yeah that's the bit I don't get! I don't think Carragher should get sacked but it was a massive overreaction from him. I know the bloke drove up to him a couple of times but it probably warranted a finger sign at most.
This is a great post.
Should end all discussion really, this is the definitive take on it I think.
Why not just some good natured banter back FFS. He is a grown man that should be used to a little bit of flack from fans.
This is the part I want people to try and understand, as it’s pure neuroscience.
this
watched the full interview on this, and feck me what a grilling she gave him. You would think someone died ffs. Yeh it was shitty to do, its done, hes apologised , swipe some of his wages and move on.
Cheers guys.
Reading this thread, there are so many posts where people have determined what they want to happen, then constructing their arguments around that.
Only Sky and Carragher have a say in it.
Sackings are seldom carried out with the likelihood of the sackee 's future employment considered
If the disciplinary is proven, without valid mitigation, the person sacked is a victim of their own actions.
The employer is not to blame, neither is any victim.
I'd advise against good natured banter when you're driving along! Which is why the United fan here is in the wrong as well.
He always comes across as someone who is easily provoked for me. He may have been goaded multiple times that day, i don't know, but i'm talking more generally. He hasn't done anything to this degree since working at Sky (not to my recollection, anyway) but just little comments here and there, interactions on social media and the "banter" (fecking hate that word) he has with Neville. While most of it is harmless, he sometimes seems like he's on the verge of really taking it that little bit too far.
Obviously you got the nonsense with Danny Simpson a while back, and he always comes across as someone who can dish it out but sometimes responds badly when it comes back at him. Not in the sense that he can't take it, but he does say one to two things at times that escalates the situation. Nothing as egregious as this, but he always seems like he's teetering on the edge.
Obviously you got the nonsense with Danny Simpson a while back, and he always comes across as someone who can dish it out but sometimes responds badly when it comes back at him. Not in the sense that he can't take it, but he does say one to two things at times that escalates the situation. Nothing as egregious as this, but he always seems like he's teetering on the edge.
- Status