Sunday, 28 February 2010

Losing a grip on reality?


I am normally the first person to lay into a bad tackle or a bit of media bias, the few people who read this blog around the time of the Eduardo injury will appreciate this. What I have to say on the Stoke game and the Shawcross tackle may therefore surprise some of you. It would be easy for me to join the others who are calling for Shawcross' guts on a spike, I don't choose easy options, I will give my honest frank opinion objectively whether it annoys people or not.
Firstly I have a bit more knowledge when it comes to injuries and leg breaking, this is my background and training. The picture above tells a lot of the story, also look at the video carefully before commenting or making up your minds. The photo shows that Aaron's tibia broke as a result of a torsional force, a rotational type of force. With medical insight this awful injury was more down to very bad luck than the recklessness of the tackle, look how Cisse sustained a very similar injury just because of the torsional force without a tackle.
I am no Shawcross fan, he has been guilty of some absolute shockers in recent years, however this was not one of them. The video and photographic evidence all show that he went in late and hard, but he was not off the ground, he was not out of control, he didn't have his studs up, it was a bad tackle no doubt, but you see much worse every week that doesn't break tibias, the point is that you cannot judge a tackle based on its consequences because the consequences are more based on random luck than the recklessness of the tackle. Shawcross' tackle on Adebayor last season was far worse, yet it didn't break any bones, the consequences of tackles correlate poorly with their malignancy.
There has been a lot of hysterical over reaction to this tackle from a lot of Arsenal commentators since last night, there has also been a lot of very well reasoned reaction too. In doing this we will not make ourselves look clever or objective. I can forgive Arsene because he had just lost one his best young players to a horrendous injury, but horrendous injuries frequently occur without horrendous tackles. The media have been appalling in the past in condoning some shocking acts of violence, this time I don't think they have covered things too badly at all. Other than Sky's censorship of events, something I strongly disagree with, the tackle has generally been called what it was, a bad tackle but not a horrendous reckless effort.
Saying that the media have blood on their hands is unfair. In fact some of the criticism I have had on this blog already for daring to claim that Shawcross' tackle was not as bad as some have made out has showed that some Arsenal fans are behaving just like the tabloid press in sensationalising something and then refusing to listen to any reasoned criticism of their opinion. I have no problem with people disagree with me, anyone can come here and argue their point just so long as it is done politely, but please don't come here and subject me to irrational sensationalist drivel. The boy who cried wolf was eventually eaten, if Arsenal fans cry wolf too many times about the media then we will be eaten too.
What should come out of yesterday's game is that the Arsenal players showed a lot of commitment, fight and character to come out of a very tricky game with three points. Overall we made it very hard for Stoke to play, we pressed them high up the pitch and forced them to give the ball back to us very rapidly. Bendtner scored a fantastic header, several players had fine games, although the crucial second goal came thanks to a slightly dubious penalty, overall our performance was outstanding, Stoke were completely outplayed and outfought. I am gutted that Aaron has sustained such a nasty injury, but scapegoating Shawcross will not help Ramsey get back to fitness any quicker, likewise slagging off the media will not win us any fans or praise. Anyone who understands the biomechanics of tibia fractures would realise that this injury was more down to terrible fortune than anything else, let's wish Aaron Ramsey a quick recovery and move quickly on.


77 comments:

Obsinho said...

1979 are you saying that the position of Rambos leg relative to the tackle was the critical part of the situation? From te picture (can't tell if it was before or after contact) it looks as is Rambos leg has gone already. I thought that last night watching MOTD as well.

I disagree on the press. In isolation it is not that bad a tackle, and unfortunate. But as the third in four years in away games against a side that has publically stated the mantra of "they don't like it up em" before the game, it is not unfortunate. It is avoidable. The press have lovingly fostered this approach to playing Arsenal, the refs have incompetently allowed games to be played in a fashion where you know that a bad tackle is coming, and the managers of the opposition sides who play this way should be villified.

The tackle should not be viewed in isolation. I would happily see us pull out of all FA events (cups etc) refuse to talk to all the press and boycott all media outlets bar our own. I believe something needs to change and think we should behave with less reserve than we are famous for. Enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

Disagree strongly Shawcross plays for the dirtiest team in the league as they finished bottom of the fairplay table. He is statistically the dirtiest defender in the league. He has prior with the adebayer incident. There is a premeditated intent from the players and manager looking at previous comments in the press to play the player instead of the ball. Which leaves the club, manager and player all responsible for this incident as all the previous increases the probability of this happening and is within their control.

Shard said...

I agree with Obsinho. I do think the media really are to blame for this. While i agree the tackle wasn't that bad, the fact that you see such tackles so often in English football should be a cause for concern anyway. Taken in connection with the theory that the press propounds of getting at Arsenal, Arsenal lack strength to win the battle etc, and with the comments by stoke's own Ricardo Fuller pre match about having a kick at Arsenal it seriously needs to be looked at by the FA. After all they are supposed to uphold fair play. In practice they only act when the media carries out a witch hunt.
The media is the reason that even the referees accept the default position that its ok to kick Arsenal out of a game.
Shawcross' tackle, as Obsinho said, should not be taken in isolation but as a symbol of all that is wrong with the English game.
3 leg breaks in 4 years really cannot just be coincidence.

Anonymous said...

The first thing that needs to be done is to stop the "KICK ARSENAL" campaign shamelessly bandied around by some despicable managers and players like Fuller and shamelessly applauded by the grey-haired media pundits who have won nothing outside their island!

Shard said...

Just to clarify, what i mean by the tackle not being that bad is that it wasn't much worse than lots of tackles that we see in the league(which doesn't say much about the league) and that it certainly wasn't anything like the Taylor tackle on Eduardo. But it was a bad tackle.

Anonymous said...

sorry mate you are talking bull shit , come on mate 3 players on 5 years. how much more can arsenal take ? then again the press are saying arsenal cant take it how can you take some1 like these monsters shawcross , taylor , these players should be banned till the victim is ok to play again ,

Anonymous said...

The referee is responsible for this incident because he condone the rough play by Stoke, There were so many reckless tackles and fouls including two clear penalties but he wave play on. He simply gave a blind eye to the fouls committed by Stoke City like he couldn't careless and Stoke players got bolder and wilder as the match progress which culminated to the Ramsey finale. Yes the REFEREE is to be blame because he is like an irresponsible police officer who refused to keep law and order.

redandread said...

Yes, we must be rational about the incident but if someone doesn't make some noise about it how will we ge rid of these types of challenges in the English game. It is very hard to believe that 3 such like injures in 4-5 years is bad luck.

There should be a very lengthy ban for the perpetrators of such crimes-say 3-6 months. The punishment should fit the crime. See how fast that would wipe out these possibly career altering/ending tackles. Then the managers wjo espouse "gettiing sruck into them? would be less than eager to incite their players to play is such an overly aggressive manner.

My thoughts are with Aaron, his family & Arsenal FC,

1979gooner said...

'you are talking bullsh*t"

this is precisely the type of moronic comment I was talking about,

explain your position politely, or go elsewhere, it's that simple, if you cannot politely reason your side of the story then come back when you can show some respect,

the context of the game should be seen,

there was hardly a bad tackle all game, stoke were playing fairly and within the rules, this was not like some games where we have been repeatedly intimidated by bad tackling,

this 3 players in 5 years stuff as the sum of an argument is very very weak stuff,

the diaby and eduardo injuries were completely different to ramsey's,

Obs- yes, it was the position of his leg and the rotational force that did it, it wasn't the tackle so much like with taylor or smith

3 in 5 may sound catchy and gimmicky,

this one was an unlucky freak injury in a relatively clean game,

this was not part of the trend of Arsenal being thugged out of games,

that is my point

actually refs have been clamping down on dangerous tackles much much better in the last couple of years, this is something even the most biased fool would acknowledge,

we see red cards regularly for straight legged tackles, this did not use to be the case

Anonymous said...

watched the game live seen the video. he new what he was doing. maybe he did not mean to break something but he ment to hurt him. he can see ramsey had beaten him to the ball so fuck the ball and play the man. he fell to floor like he had been fouled also if you watch the clip. he was crying because he wish he hadnt done it. i feel sorry for ramsey. shawcross is a little shit and a coward he would not do that to song or cambell but he saw little ramsey coming and went in hard on him. ramsey is probably on a drip were shawcross is crying to his mummy. who is concerned if he is a nice lad or not. the media thought john terry and lampard were good lads. shawcross will always be known as a dirty cunt who goes out to break legs, history says so.

shawcross is scum

1979gooner said...

the referee was not responsible at all

why does everyone feel the need to have someone to blame?

the ref had a decent game in my opinion and stoke didn't commit any bad tackles until the Ramsey tackle

blaming the ref is foolish and short sighted

again, this injury was rather freak and more due to the rotational forces through his leg, his leg was externally rotating even before the tackle came in as Obs points out

1979gooner said...

ps if you want 3-6 month bans for Shawcross' tackle then you'll have several players banned like this each week, it's a ludicrous argument

look an Nani's tackle the other week, far worse than Shawcross, but because Nani was lucky enough not to break a leg no one goes on about it,

again for those who are too bloody minded to listen to reason

THE CONSEQUENCES OF A TACKLE ARE POORLY CORRELATED WITH THE MALICE OF THE TACKLE

judging a tackle by its consequences is plain foolish

Anonymous said...

Having followed your advice, I forced myself to watch the tackle several times to clarify what I thought I initially saw during the match. You claim that the injury is more down to a 'torsional force' than the actual tackle by Shawcross. I categorically disagree with you.

As the video and not the photograph clearly highlights, Shawcross's poor touch left him in no man's land as he knew Ramsey had beaten him to the loose ball. Now, instead of simply stretching his left leg to attempt to touch the ball away, he threw his body into the challenge and swung his left leg to stop Ramsey, perhaps hoping to break up a certain counter attack, with no attempt to play the ball. We all know what happened after.

The photograph is merely the aftermath of the challenge and shows Shawcroft's leg contracting after the challenge after it had extended to swipe Ramsey's supporting leg. You must remember, that the impact causes Shawcross to rotate away, making him face the opposite direction to where he was running towards, which further indicates that there was powerful contact in the first place and not as you suggested 'a torsional force' caused by him rotating with his studs stuck in the ground.

But I think more tellingly is your frank self description as a person who doesn't like to "choose easy options". In stating this, you have clearly verified that you are trying to find an alternative view of the incident other than the most obvious one, that the tackle was mistimed and likely to be intentional. To what degree that intention was is up for debate as none of us are Shawcross. But the intention to stop Ramsey continuing his run is evident enough.

There is absolutely no hiding away from it...the tackle was badly timed with intent.

1979gooner said...

"you have clearly verified that you are trying to find an alternative view of the incident other than the most obvious one"

oh have I, thanks for the amateur psychology

actually I have looked at the incident in the cold light of day and said what I think, I have not tried to find an alternative, my view is my view, it may differ to yours but to claim that I have deliberately sought an altnernative to your 'norm' is insulting and patronising

I respect your opinion

I disgaree with it though

Shawcross only had his eyes on the ball and only missed it by a fraction

he was not trying to clatter Ramsey and not the ball, he mistimed it

actually if you look at it again, Ramsey was just very unlucky with the way in which he was hit at that particular moment,

if he had been earlier or later into the tackle he would have been ok,

he also wasn't fully committed into the tackle which meant that his leg was more prone to buckling, he nicked the ball away brilliantly, this then left him in a very vulnerable position

shawcross was hard and late, it was a bad tackle,

however it was nothing compared to smith or taylor or nani, or many other much worse tackles,

it was a very unfortunate injury, but I don't blame Shawcross, it was more just one of those things

Anonymous said...

I always have respect for a man who has the courage to offer a contrary opinion.

But you're deluded if you say "
THE CONSEQUENCES OF A TACKLE ARE POORLY CORRELATED WITH THE MALICE OF THE TACKLE".

The laws of the game quite rightly try to prevent grievous injuries to football players.

The laws state that endangering your opponent is serious foul play.

Malice is irrelevant. It is assumed that all players play without malice.

However players are required to show due care not to use excessive force.

I think you have to be deluded to suggest that a player hasn't used excessive force if he's broken an opponent's leg.

In football, we do not want to see injuries like these.

Anonymous said...

who is concerned about the science of how it was done. who cares. study shawcross's movements.
to blame ramsey is abit thick. maybe u are related to the cunt.
you are correct though it was a rough game but not many bad tackles, but like rats who are opportunist they or he saw an opportunity to hurt someone. abit like ridgewell and theo. arsenal are quick so when we play our game we leave the opposition chasing shadows. i think english football needs to improve. instead of kicking arsenal they should follow. might as well forget about the world cup if this is the attitude of so called proffessionals. english football like it the easy way from long balls to kicking lumps out of each other. funny thing about it they glorify it and moan about not producing any talent. shawcross has just taken talent out for a year plus. but hes a smashing lad ay. oh yes good luck for england. not. come on brazil and u gunners. get well ramsey. arsenal will look after u.
the sooner arsenal win the league the better for football

Anonymous said...

Great 1979 gooner ban them for 3-6 months for tackles like that. I bet you any money there will never be an Arsenal player banned because we don't tackle like that. Shawcross knew exactly what he was doing and he hit Ramsey's leg with enough force to break it completely. Lucky for Ramsey he didn't have his studs up as his leg would have been on the other side of the pitch if he did!

Why defend shitkickers like Shawcross? This is in his nature and it will happen again.. Do you even like football?

redandread said...

If it requires players to be out 3-5 months to eradicate this type of tackle then I say do it. Stoke are a team set up to play this way. They are a team bordering on the illegal with some of their tactics. Lest we forget, Liverpool lost 3 players after their Stoke game. The incident is a combination of lax refereeing, the footballing culture @ Stoke and the media's insistence that Arsenal "don't like it up 'em".

They are a dirty team and should be punished. such tackles will occur again as long as they are allowed to get away with an overly physical and aggressive type of game.

ReZnuK said...

It wasn't a 'dirty' tackle in the sense that I don't believe Shawcross went in with intent to injure. But.... this 'hard' tackle is part of a culture of 'hard tackling' tactics often aimed at dealing with Arsenal.

What needs dealing with is not Shawcross (or Taylor of Birmingham), but their managers who instruct their teams to "go in hard" on Arsenal and "get stuck in to them" - this doesn't happen as much with other teams, but is common for slow thuggish sides trying to deal with a better footballing side.

Unless the FA deal with the managers this will never stop.

1979gooner said...

to the last two rude anons,

if you cannoy be polite, then go elsewhere

firstly you can easily break a leg without an opponent near you, as explained in the original piece, i suggest you read and think before commenting

your comments betray a complete lack of understanding of how bones break

you can jump off a 1 foot wall and 999/1000 times you will be fine, one in a thousand times you will sustain a horrible fracture, this is down to freak bad luck and the way in which the force is transmitted,

malice is not irrelevant to this argument as many people are arguing shawcros was malicous, he was not

i agree it was a bad tackle and a red card,

however if you would care to read and think before writing your drivel, then you would see that i was simply stating his tackle was not malicious like a taylor or smith tackle,

the last anonymous, you clearly have no understanding of anything discussed here, I am not blaming Ramsey, I am just saying it was much more about very bad luck than anything else

'maybe I'm related to the c*nt'

well what sensible comments you come up with, if you can do no better than this then I suggest you never darken our doors again

Shawcross was late and his tackle was hard, it was a red, but it was not a horrendously reckless tackle, it was just one of those very unfortunate injuries that was more down to bad luck in my opinion

if some of you want to blame it all on the ref and shawcross then fine, next time one of our players mistimes a hard tackle like this and is unfortunate enough to see the opponent's leg broken then I suggest you give them the leniency you are extendint to shawcross other you would be nothing but hypocrites

Gallas' tackle on Davies was just as bad, it was just down to luck that Davies' leg wasn't broken and that's exactly the point that so many of you are missing

the consequences of a tackle not not correlate well with the nastyness or malice of the tackle

Get Well Rambo said...

What I can never understand is that pundits and fans of other clubs always seem to trot out the same "Arsene moaning again", "it's a physical game", "Arsenal don't like it 'up em" lines but I genuinely don't think players in the Premier League (not just Arsenal players) get enough protection from the referees.

As we get used to how Premier League games are refereed it seems to me that English players are not instilled with the right level of discipline.

Fans of other English clubs moan about us complaining about other teams foul play but yet when England go to the World Cup with high hopes we are surprised when our players (eg. Beckham v Argentina in 98 and Rooney v Portugal in 06) are sent off for petulance that would possibly get away with the Premier League. I doubt that some domestic refs would have the bottle to send Rooney off at Old Trafford etc.

If English Premier League games were run with greater discipline then England's national team would benefit in the long term.

1979gooner said...

anonymous 1234

the force of the tackle on its own didn't break his leg,

it was the force in combination with the rotation of Ramsey's leg,

this is what makes it a freak injury,

diaby and eduardo's legs were both done by the direct force of the tackles, this is why this one is a very different beast

1979gooner said...

this 'arsenal don't like it up em' is something i agree with,

but stoke were fair yesterday on the whole,

so going on about not liking it up em is not really relevant in my opinion this time round

goonerboy said...

NO MALICE !
Shawcross claims ''no malice'' in tackle

Why do people always claim - No Malice -
when they break Arsenal's players' legs?

Can a drunk claims "No Malice" when he or she drive and breaks someone's legs and then do not have to go to jail? Cry and show a little tear and that's it.

They know what they are doing - going into challenges hard and reckless like that. They know all they get is mebbe 4 match ban.....

By the way - Can i break your leg, Mr. Shawcross and I promise I will do it without malice, please!


I feel sick. Pray and hope that Ramsey will get well soon.

Anonymous said...

Lol...as it happens I have MSC in Psychodynamics from UCL...so I am actually well placed to analyze you based on both your initial blog and your just as enlightening reaction to my comments. I feel I have been very measured and balanced in my analysis and took heed from your initial prediction as to not insult you, but it does seem quite obvious...

You, as well as I, are entitled to your opinion, but it would also seem that from reading the replies to this blog not many people actually agree with your assessment of the events, regardless of how they choose to express themselves. But it is your blog after all and you can write whatever you please...just beware of the reaction. Enjoy!

Ted said...

I 100% agree with 1979. This was a bad tackle, but the mis-timing was a tiny fraction of a second. And any suggestion that Shawcross went in with intent is simply laughable. How the fuck do you know what he was thinking? It looked to me like he was trying to play the ball.

In fact, I think the tackle is almost identical to the one Gallas did on the Bolton player a few weeks ago. Except Gallas was probably slightly later and showed more studs. There were at least 5 tackles shown on MOTD last night that were worse. So lets ban all of them?

People must not judge tackles purely on the resulting injury. To do so is simply to encourage players to exaggerate the hurt. Instead, you have to look at the basic ingredients - does the player leave the ground? Do they show the studs? Shawcross did neither.

This incident is not about the media. Its not about Sky. Its not about the ref, who did a good job. Its not about "lets kick Arsenal", because Stoke are not a dirty side (physical yes, but not lets tar them with the Allardyce brush). And I wish any team the best of luck if they want to go to war against Big Sol and Tommy V.

Anybody who wants Shawcross to be banned needs to carefully think about what kind of game football is. If you ban a player long-term for a tackle like the one made by Shawcross, then thats the end of tackling in football.

Lets also not forget that Diaby put Wesley Schnieder out of action for 6 months (I think) for a bad (not horrendous) tackle against Real in a pre-season friendly last year. That was bad luck. As was this.

Shawcross got his deserved red card. I would also say he looked immensely remorseful, said sorry to Rambo before he went. Cohen deserves parise. And that the Stoke fans did well to give Rambo a standing ovation as he was carried from the pitch.

Ole Gunner said...

Calm down 1979 gooner.

I don't care about malice. It is irrelevant.

Everytime a challenge by one player results in a career-threatening injury to another,

You're digging in, when you're clearly wrong.

William Gallas's tackle against the Bolton player was not worse. The force applied by Gallas was not as much to start with, and the Shawcross challenge hit Ramsey on the shin, a clear sign he went over, and was reckless.

Irrespective of what you claim, it is a fact that 3 Arsenal players have had horrendous career-threatening injuries in away games against teams with a certain mindset.

No Arsenal player has done same to the opposition.

If Cesc broke Shawcross' leg due to a nasty challenge, and the consequences were a 10 game ban, then so be it.

We do not want to see grievous bodily harm meted on football players in the course of a game.

It is only a game.

Ted said...

On the somewhat dull debate regarding amateur psychology, there was simply no way that Shawcross 'intended' to hurt Ramsey.

The most you could ever say was that he had lost immediate control of the ball and was over-committed to winning it back. It was a tough, heavy challenge. And he got a red card.

But if he had taken the ball cleanly, then Shawcross would have been applauded.

And that fine line is the one that matters. This was not a particularly dangerous tackle.

But to say that the replays show that Shawcross deliberately went to hurt Ramsey is just stupid. The only person who can tell us what he was really thinking is Mr Shawcross.

Ted said...

Ole Gunner - i think you are right to say calm down.

But the idea that Gallas' tackle was very different to Shawcross is simply not right. At the highest its shades of grey between the two. So you must be very careful before using words like 'reckless' to describe what Shawcross did.

"Reckless' means performing an act with disregard to the high probability that the consequence will follow.

The consequence that everyone wants to pin on Shawcross is that he would hurt Rambo. But that is not correct. You cannot start saying that a player who stays on his feet but goes in hard is 'likely' to cause injury. So its not reckless.

And if I am wrong and Shawcross was reckless, then so was Gallas, and so was Diaby.

We also cannot have in both ways. Players like Eboue get massive amounts of stick from Gooners (not me) for avoiding tackles and generally not getting stuck in.

So which way do you really all want it? Sounds to me that its the way that suits you best at the time, rather than demonstrating any consistency.

Anonymous said...

Haha the Gallas tackle was nothing. Dirty with studs up but no power in it what so ever!

Shawcross comes in with full power over the ball and hits Ramseys shin. 1979gooner obviously it was the sheer speed and power of the tackle that broke the leg. Here in Sweden you could even hear the sound of the tackle as he collided with Ramsey.

The break had nothing to do with the rotation of Ramseys leg. It was down do his foot being planted and Shawcross dirty tackle. Plant a stick in the ground and kick it, it will break and then try holding it up in the air and kick and nothing will happen to it.

Ole Gunner said...

Ted,

I love your definition of the word reckless.

It perfectly describes what Shawcross' challenge was.

About Gallas; it wasn't as dangerous.

The standards for judging a dangerous tackle; did he go over the ball? Was he in control of his body and movement? Did he use excessive force? How high was the tackle. Did he have no chance of getting the ball. By non of that can you judge Gallas' tackle dangerous, and the ref saw it as such. It was a yellow card offence as he did hit the man.

The only Arsenal tackle that was dangerous that I've seen in the last 4 years was the tackle by Diaby on Steinsson. Perhaps the Eboue tackle on Terry, which was retaliation for a worse Terry tackle on Cesc in the very same passage of play.

Ole Gunner said...

Clarification: The only Arsenal challenge which could have broken a man's leg....not the only one which was dangerous.

Anonymous said...

you must be related to the cunt

im back.
i say what i say because anybody except for stoke people or fans of leg braking tackles can see he meant to hurt him. its abit like what masherano done to pieneer in that darby. if pieneer did not do what he did he could of got hurt. im glad masherano got hurt. anybody who goes in that hard is trying to hurt and cause damage. maybe ramsey should of done that instead of playing football he should of lifted up his studs for protection.
and 1979 u say you are professional but i think u are crap. i think we need a second opinion. just because u are qualified 'allegedly' does not mean u know what u are talking about. it is your opinion as well as mine.
normally i do not write on any blogs but to defend this incident i felt i had to on this occasion, sorry(not) to insult.
and i think that it is u who should not write again

get well soon rambo

1979gooner said...

"MSC in Psychodynamics"

well, enough said. I'm not trying to find an alternative view, I'm objectively anaylsing the tackle, something a lot of people seem completely incapable of.

Agree with Ted's comments 100%.

Some utter rubbish is being stated by some people here.

There have been some absolutely horrendous tackles dished out by Arsenal players in recent years,

Diaby nailed Schneider as Ted says, Daiby broke Campo's foot with a very nasty studs up tackle a few years back, there are numerous other examples to completely disprove your factually ignorant statement.

anonymous who claims the leg break had nothing to do with rotation is 100% wrong because it was a torsional fracture, it's obvious from the pictures, the tibia is clearly externally rotated as it cracks, I'd advise sticking to what you know of, you clearly know little of fracture mechanics.

Eboue broke Terry's foot with a very innocuous tackle, showing that the end result of a tackle often correlates very poorly with the malice in the tackle.

The debate is getting tired and endless comments are entirely missing the point.

Recklessness comes in degrees, it's not a completely black and white phenomenon.

Obviously there was a degree of recklessness in that he went in hard and didn't win the ball, fine.

However he wasn't high, he didn't have a straight leg, there were no studs up, he wasn't out of control in terms of flying in with his body off the ground.

It was mildly reckless compared to tackles like Smith on Diaby and Taylor on Eduardo.

The complete over reaction of some of you to this tackle is because many of you equate the outcome of a tackle to represent how bad the tackle is, this is not clever.

Look at the original article and look at Cisse's leg snapping.

There are many worse tackles each week and many of our own players do worse on a regular basis.

If you are going to over react to Shawcross' tackle, then you should do the same everytime someone does the same, I bet you do not.

Ted said...

Ole Gunner - yon fundamentally have not understood what reckless means. Go and read my definition again. The word "dangerous" does not appear. So either Shawcross and Gallas were both reckless, or neither were.

Within a few days, weeks, or even months, an Arsenal player will go in hard on an opponent. The player might get injured, but hopefully not. And what will ensue will be a back-lash against the Arsenal player in question. You will say its bad luck, that the Arsenal player did not mean to hurt them, that it was not a reckless challenge etc etc.

It happened recently to Gallas. Yet it seems that 99% of the people on this blog think Gallas' tackle was very different to what Shawcross did. For the record, I think you are wrong. The two tackles were very similar and could easily have resulted in a bad injury. Diaby's tackle on Schieder DID result in a bad injury.

To compare Shawcross with Mascherano v Pienaaer is just purile. I understand that people feel the need to defend Rambo, but you should also avoid the temptation as far as possible to spout bollocks.

Ole Gunner said...

1979 Gooner,

I forgot about that one tackle. That was nasty from Diaby.

But even that incident further underlines how these incidents always happen away to certain teams.

And you're running away from the obvious.

We all know it. Arsenal are always one of the most fouled teams in the league & always one of the least fouling teams.

There is a problem when 5 Arsenal players have suffered impact injuries this season; Walcott, RVP, Gibbs, Merida & Ramsey. All injuries from unnecessary, overphysical tackles. How many impact injuries have we meted out?

Face the facts.

Ted,

No, your definition of reckless perfectly explains what Shawcross did. He went in with too much force, and did not even try to pull out. That's reckless.

Gallas was completely in control of his body. So much so that he immediately turned, recouped the ball and set off the attack.

It was by no means reckless.

You've given no basis for your claim that it was similar to Shawcross' challenge.

And it's because there's no basis for your claim. Gallas did not hit Davies on the shin. his tackle was not over the top of the ball. Gallas did not use excessive force. There was no lunge. He was standing, as was Davies.

Ted said...

Ole - I will try once more. Lets see if you can understand this one instead.

"Reckless" describes a state of mind. It does not describe the action, or the result. Do you follow that? If so, then you might see that what you are saying is that a dangerous tackle (or one that causes injury) is almost always 'reckless'. That is not correct. A dangerous tackle might be done recklessly, or it might not. But lets leave it there. My point is simply that you should be careful calling Shawcross reckless - you simply don't know that.

The comparison between Gallas and Shawcross is easy. Both players were in possession, both slightly lost control of the ball, both over-reached trying to keep possession, both made heavy contact with the opponents leg. Neither tried to pull out. Both were fouls.

Gallas left the ground more than Shawcross. His studs were raised more than Shawcross. So, to that extent, Gallas' tackle was more dangerous.

On the other hand, Shawcross was probably moving faster than Gallas. So that factor is against Shawcross in terms of danger.

Gallas made contact just above the ankle. Shawcross in the shin. I would say thats about the same in terms of danger.

Gallas caused bruising but nothing serious. Shawcross caused a broken leg. As 1979 has been saying all day, that was mainly down to bad luck for Rambo. The severity of the injury is not directly linked to the 'danger' posed by the tackle.

The other point is that if you pause both incidents just before the contact made, then I would say its impossible to judge whether Gallas caused a broken leg or whether Shawcross did. If you can do that, then you are a better man than me.

Both tackles were very different from Taylor's straight leg lunge on Eduardo, or the sort of two-footed jump tackle that Mascherano specialises in.

What we are trying to say is that you need to look beyond the extent of the injury suffered by poor Rambo and ask yourself, as objectively as possible, just how dangerous Shawcross' tackle was. I would say - 'not that dangerous'. It seems that a lot of people disagree, but I am yet to see anyone give any reason why it was a particularly dangerous tackle. Its just an unfortunate accident.

Jeff said...

A still photo, as we all know, can be misinterpreted, so I wonder at your diagnosis.

That said, even if you are true, so what? It is the third such injury in less than four years. By a man who previously took out Franny Jeffers with a bad tackle. When does repetition of the same horrible incident add up to something more than coincidence?

Ted said...

Mainly when you feel that the world is against you and you have an axe to grind.

Ole Gunner said...

Patrick Braclay explains it very well here: http://www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/0,20144,12382_5991425_12382,00.html

If you're challenging for the ball and hit the opposition player on the shin, it's dangerous. if you're very late, miss the ball and hit the opposition player on the ankle, but with your foot on the ground it's another matter.

Graphic of Gallas' tackle: http://twitpic.com/zv125

I recommend you read the laws of the game. They even have illustrations of what is a dangerous tackle. Look at law 12.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lawsofthegameen.pdf

Compare that to the picture of Gallas' tackle....

Obsinho said...

I'm not bothered about whether Shawctoss intended to hurt Rambo (of course he didn't) or how bad a tackle it was (red card bad) but what does bother me are;

- media reaction focusing more on poor old Shawcross (tough shit moron, learn that your actions have consequences)
- the fact that I have already seen justifications for the tackle that re-enforce the "arsenal don't like it up 'em" crap that starts all this
- Kamara saying that it was a result of us being too quick, as if it were a comeuppance
- the fact the FA will not even review the punishment systems so that bad tackles (gallas' included) are more strongly punished than someone who gets a red card for pushing someone in the chest or calling the ref a cunt.
- the sheer base stupidity and hideousness of fans who revel in the hurt caused to a 19 year old kid. Some portions of our society fill me with such disgust.

Anonymous said...

1979 Gooner, for someone who is supposedly trained in some form of healthcare, you really do need to relax a little...I can't imagine what you project onto your patients...

As for sticking to what I know...well, I think in this debate I have. There is no evidence of rotation from Ramsey as he is striding forward. Shawcross comes at an angle when he swipes at him with his left leg. You don't have to be an orthopedic surgeon to see this.

You cannot use Cisse as an example, because that was a totally different scenario, because he was already turning, which eventually twisted his planted leg. You could compare Owen to Cisse, but Ramsey is a totally different scenario.

If you are basing your argument on the photograph alone, then obviously that is flawed, as we do not know exactly at what stage it was taken, what angle the photographer was in in relation to the players and even what kind of lens was used to take the photograph. All of which can drastically distort the perspective of the incident. I based my argument on the video footage. I suggest you take another look at it when you have calmed down.

I think the reason why people have reacted so negatively to your article and subsequently, to your replies, is again due to what I highlighted earlier. For reasons I can only assume, you seem intent in digging your heels in (as someone else so aptly observed), stating your opinion, but not open to the possibility that your opinion might be very far from what the majority of us witnessed. You're entitled to think whatever you want, but if you base your opinion on just your own irrefutable ideas, without taking in the data presented, then I am afraid that it is you who becomes open to the accusation of "Losing a grip on reality".

Furthermore, saying that people are over-reacting is incredibly patronizing. We aren't over-reacting. We are merely responding honestly to what we have witnessed and to what the overwhelming majority sense...that this simple is not acceptable.

Ted said...

Ole said: "If you're challenging for the ball and hit the opposition player on the shin, it's dangerous. if you're very late, miss the ball and hit the opposition player on the ankle, but with your foot on the ground it's another matter."

That is simply bollocks. Its exactly the same. They are both dangerous, or both not. It makes fuck all difference whether you kick the shin or ankle.

1979gooner said...

Again......

Ted has said it all, but briefly.

Ole, I am not saying we are not regularly bullied and fouled against, we are, but this didn't happen against Stoke.

I am not saying we aren't fouled against a lot, of course we are, if you read stuff here regularly you would appreciate this.

As Ted says you simply cannot pin all the blame on Shawcross for this injury, it was more bad luck than anything else, you see numerous tackles like Shawcross' week in week out that result in no injury at all.

Obviously you are more likely to injure someone if the tackle is more reckless, this is a very loose correlation when it comes to serious injuries though as the majority of serious injuries are caused by very innocuous incidents.

Shawcross' tackle had nowehere near the recklessness of a Taylor lunge, a Nani lunge or a Gerrard two footed stamp.

Gerrard has never broken anyone's legs but goes in two footed and off the ground routinely, his tackling is awful, it is just down to luck that he hasn't broken tibias, like it is more down to luck that Shawcross broke Ramsey's leg with what was a rather mild red card tackle in the grand scheme of things.

Jeff, I'm not just going on the photo, I've reviewed the video many times, still you have a point as in an ideal world we'd have more quality video from infinite angles, still from what we've got it was not that reckless a challenge in my opinion.

Ole you mention some other injuries sustained by our players this year and I agree with you on some of these.

RVP's ankle was nailed by a dangerous studs up lunge by that Cheillini lad. Gibbs was also done by a nasty straight legs studs up challenge.

Interestingly RVP and Gibbs were nailed by tackles that in my opinion were more reckless, they had players sliding in, out of control with straight legs and studs up.

Shawcross was very unlucky to break Ramsey's legs, very unlucky indeed.

Ole Gunner said...

Ted,

Reckless is jumping into a tackle with much force when you do not need to do so. I am using your definition and concluding that Shawcross, for whatever reason, jumped into a tackle with too much force disregarding the high probability that a serious injury could occur. That's reckless. It has nothing to do with judging his mental state.

Your characterisation of Gallas' tackle is wrong.

I pasted a picture above which shows Gallas' tackle was not over the top. In fact, Gallas' tackling technique was classical as taught by all coaches. And it is very likely that this orthodox approach is what saved Davies' leg unlike poor Merida who wasn't so lucky.

Also in the Gallas case, it was the Bolton player who had the ball.

Again; Gallas did not go flying in. He did not lunge. The force he used was moderate. he was completely in control of his body.He did not go over the ball. The tackle was not high.

Those are the standards established by the laws of the game for judging if a tackle was dangerous.

Shawcross' tackle went over the line on more than one count, Gallas' didn't one even one count.

You don't know what you're talking about, yet you're patronising me.

1979gooner said...

You are guilty of exactly what you patronisingly accuse me of.

If you look at people who have commented there ius actually a fair old split on this topic, it's not clear cut and this is amongst Arsenal fans.

If you took neutral fans then I reckon an even higher percentage would agree.

Before you start making yet more personal insults about my working life, something you have no right to do, I suggest you bother reading what I wrote initially before firing more of your ignorant psychobabble off.

I have never based my argument on one photo as you foolishly point out, read the article again, I have linked to the video and talked about this and the mechanics of the tackle. Your comments here are beyond foolish.

The frills of your argument may look attractive to the uneducated, however scratch beneath the surface and there is sod all there of any solidity.

I cannot mention the Cisse tackle? What are you on about? I damn well can and if you cannot see why, then you are yet again showing that you do not understand the basics of the point made about injury mechanism.

When it comes down to it your last little post basically says 'I'm right and in the majority and you're wrong'. You see your own argument and ideas as 'data', this is delusion.

That's no argument, in fact there is no clear majority opinion, even if there was then there are many times when the majority is blatantly wrong!

The fundamentals of this are that Shawcross' tackle was not that bad, you see far worse every week.

The massive over reaction is because the injury was horrendous and this was more down to bad luck than the tackle.

Stoke didn't bully us yesterday, they played a fair game overall, so this talk of us being persecuted in every game is not appropriate.

I'll leave it back to the Cisse tackle as it is so relevant, these nasty leg breaks are invariably down to very bad luck, take David Buust's too.

By the way I'm not angry or full of rage, I just get frustrated when people react inconsistently to the same kind of incidents just because of the people involved.

Shawcross' tackle last season on Adebayor was far far worse than his yesterday, Ade walked away with a fairly minor injury, this time Ramsey was done by a much milder late challenge, the fact that the injury was so much nastier was largely bad luck, this is the point I'm making. Take it or leave it.

If you don't like it then you can always go and chat with your 'majority elsewhere'.

Anonymous said...

Ooo...temper temper...lol

1979gooner said...

Ole,

Gallas and Shawcross were both mildly reckless in their tackles.

Gallas went in later than Shawcross and had his studs up, he also put a fair amount of force into it.

I also acknowledge that what made Gallas' not as bad as it could have been was the fact that he didn't throw his whole body into it, he was relatively in control of his momentum.

Still there was a degree of recklessness about it, it was definitely a yellow card, maybe a red in some people's eyes, I'd say it was a yellow personally.

Shawcross went in harder than Gallas, he didn't have his studs up, he was actually in control of his momentum, he didn't throw himself into the tackle in an out of control manner.

It was a hard controlled tackle that he just mistimed.

If he had got the ball and Ramsey had still broken his leg, it would have been a fair challenge as he didn't have his studs up, it wasn't high, he had no straight leg, and he was in control.

They were different tackles but both were mildy reckless.

The end results were just down to luck.

Davies had ankle ligament damage that kept him out for a bit, Ramsey was far less lucky.

However moving on look at Nani's tackle away to Villa.

This was way way worse than either Gallas or Shawcross.

Yet the player fouled escaped with less injury that either Davies or Ramsey.

This is the point, the tackle's recklessness does not correlate well with the outcome in terms of injury to the player fouled.

We should be punishing the tackle and not the fact that the unfortunate Ramsey broke his leg.

If Shawcross went in two footed and just bruised Ramsey's leg then I would be much much angrier with him than I currently am.

This is the point, I just wish a few more people coudl grasp it.

1979gooner said...

anon,

thine is the bleating of someone who has run out of anything meaningful to say,

temper, temper?

complete lack of an argument more like

Ole Gunner said...

I agree Shawcross' tackle wasn't the worst in the game. The worst was a 2-footed lunge at Eboue by Faye. Eboue was wise enough to get out of the way, and Faye got the ball so no penalty or foul.

I also agree Shawcross' tackle on Adebayor was worse, and Adebayor was lucky.

However, if you use too much force, go flying in, bad tackling technique....all the things you players are asked not to do, and it results in an injury, then I simply can't agree it was bad luck.

Maybe it was good luck that Shawcross didn't great Adebayor's ankle with that worse tackle.

Davi said...

Quality article.
I agree that the tackle wasn't as bad as it maybe appeared and it would be harsh to claim the defender had any intent, but I do feel the media does have some "blood on [their] hands" for all this as well as the ref.
We all know how they try to talk up teams stopping us by "being physical" and this seemed to have an affect on the ref yesterday.
He let so many Stoke fouls go unpunished including at least 2 penalty shouts, and it seemed to spur stoke on to just be more and more physical.
I agree the tackle was unfortunate rather than malicious, but given the atmosphere of the match, it was hardly surprising. This is what happens when the ref allows them to get away with fouling. It turns the match into more of a game of intimidation and test of physical strength rather than football, which of course is more likely to lead to injury.

1979gooner said...

Bit of both I reckon Ole, that was a very very bad tackle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A64068267

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A64064748

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A64061110

just scouted the bbc fora briefly and it's interesting to note that there is nowehere near a majority condemning the tackle

to me it seems that most people saw it as a freak injury, also a number of people have noted the position of his ankle just before contact

Get well soon Aaron.

1979gooner said...

Davi,

I agree in general about the media and the way in which they condone the intimidation of Arsenal at times.

Still, yesterday I thought the ref got most decisions right and there weren't that many nasty challenges.

As Ole points out a tackle that was worse is not even mentioned just because the victim managed to jump out the way.

It is the ludicrous way in which the outcome of tackles is judged as representing the seriousness of the tackle, this also encourages people fiegning injury to get the opposition carded.

A two footed lunge shoul be a red whether or not the player on the end of it manages to jump out the way, whether or not the player is injured.

It should be just about the nature of the tackle not the end result.

Davi said...

1979gooner - well I agree with that. The fa never clamp down on these sorts of issues, just let it happen.
They could end it so quickly by simply instructing refs to show red cards for fouls.
If they're going to retrospectively ban, they should do it for everyone. They missed a clear one with evans kicking drogba and I think breaking his rib, but even for stuff like the bolton players clearly trying to hurt fabregas in the 1st bolton game. That could easily have ended up like ramsey but nothing was said about that.

I disagree about yesterday though in that I thought the ref missed a lot of fouls on arsenal players. They may not have been too dirty but we had 2 good pen shouts turned down (1 on ramsey, 1 on eboue- I dont know why people say that waws a dive btw) and a few more outside the box. On top of that song got booked for something that was barely a foul. It was only after the injury that the ref started giving freekicks at the right times.

Anonymous said...

In fairness, it's a bit rich for the blogger to keep banging on about politeness while calling people's arguments 'drivel'.

1979gooner said...

Davi,

I think things have improved a lot in the last few years, there's obviously still work to be done though.

The nasty tackles do get red cards far more frequently than in days of old.

I still think the days when we had three players stretchered off at the Reebok are generally gone.

Yesterday the ref let a lot go from both sides, I though he did well, there were very few tackles that merited cards.

The refs need to keep improving but we should acknowledge that things have got a lot better.

Davi said...

1979Gooner - They've certainly got a lot better overall from a decade or so ago, but still I think there's a fairly clear difference with how arsenal games are ref'd.
Many sides have fouled our players continuously this season; and although not many of these fouls deserved cards on their own, the accumulation should be noted by the refs and often it doesnt seem to be accounted for.
Fletcher in the old trafford match is a clear example of how they fail to book persistent foulers against us.
On top of that I dont know how many times Ive seen song get booked very early on and/or for relatively minor offences.

Shard said...

Irrespective whether this was a 'freak' injury or not. The issue is larger than shawcross.

1979. your argument that we see tackles like or worse than that every week is exactly why I feel that its not just unlucky. The english league, fuelled by a largely xenophobic football media, does promote what they like to call english grit over the technique in the game. Arsenal are painted as 'foreign whingers' or 'softies' while we hear excuses such as 'Arsenal are just too quick' and 'he's not that sort of player.'
Clamping down on such tackles will not kill the art of tackling in the game rather will promote proper tackling. How often do we see such tackles in the spanish or even the German leagues? The officials there clamp down it and so it doesnt happen very often.

As regards the referee in this game. Im guessing the FA assessors are as benevolent as you to a referee that doesn't give 2 penalties, gives song a yellow card for having his arm pulled, and generally not keeping the game under control.
You may argue about shawcross tackle in isolation, but that is not what it is anymore. 3 leg breaks in less than 4 years is not a catchy phrase, its a bloody sorry fact. And Diaby and Eduardo still carry the ill effects of it.
Try as anyone might to portray it as an over-reaction it most certainly is not.

1979gooner said...

There has been a massive over reaction to the tackle.

I agree with the points about sides getting away with too much and refs being inconsistent. This is something about which I've written about a lot.

However the Shawcross tackle wasn't that bad, and in this context it is a very different event to the Eduardo and Diaby injuries.

That's why in my opinion it doesn't make us look clever to be going on about protection as Cesc did after such a relatively clean game and after such an unremarkable tackle, obviously the injury was not unremarkable, that goes without saying.

I'm basically saying that this Stoke game was not a good example of bad refereeing and us being intimidated, that's just my opinion of course.

The inconsistency is a good point, look at what Manu got away with against Villa in the final today for an example of this.

However I think as a club we need to pick out battles slightly more cleverly, otherwise it may end up biting us in the arse.

The overwhelming opinion of neutrals is that Shawcross' tackle wasn't that bad as well, we will not be winning over many neutrals at the moment.

Ted said...

Davi - I agree with you, especially about Song. Its players like him that will face the backlash if the "Shawcross is a savage" brigade have their way.

1979 - i reckon enough said by now. People don't usually agree with you anyway......

Shard said...

Any neutral without an agenda would want to see an end to footballers being injured. That's all they have to want to stop to get rid of the culture of stopping teams through 'getting stuck in' or having a 'kick at them'. And that tackle was a result of that mentality. I read a comment on some other blog which i completely agree with, that if it were Rooney instead of Ramsey, then Shawcross pulls out of the challenge. Its in that context that Fabregas is exactly right to demand protection.

Davi said...

That's the thing, you could see it coming in this game. I never felt the ref had any control over the game and his failure to call fouls and book bad challenges just played into stokes hands and fed their desire to "rough us up"
We DO need more protection from refs and this game is a perfect example.
The tackle itself was unfortunate but the guy did fly in recklessly. He was more concerned with showing strength than the safety of himself or ramsey.
If the ref had gained more control over the game would have been calmer, players would know that they couldnt get away with poor challenges and would have been less willing to go flying in recklessly like that.
Unfortunately we have a fundamental disagreement over the quality of the refereeing in this game.

Davi said...

The way shawcross tackles is really similar to other former Utd youth players like wes brown, fletcher and g.neville. The way they fly in at times with little regard for their opponents' safety. I notice it often with brown. He often goes in extremely hard for really simple challenges.
I think it's worth pointing out.

Shard said...

on an aside, the stoke manager tony pukish has proved once again that he has no class at all. Seems like making a personal assault on wenger is fashionable amongst the english managers (hughes, brown, allardyce). I really am disgusted by the general xenophobia that pervades the football establishment in Britain.

Anonymous said...

If a tackle doesn't broke a bone, it doesn't mean that It couldn't... I disagree strongly. Maybe Shawcorrs had no intention but it's called "imprudence" and it has to be punished.

Obsinho said...

this video us highly unsavoury, buy may prove a point. It is a shocking tackle, worse than Shawcross but not worse than Dan Smith (not yet decided about Taylor's). Have a watch, but be warned;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYs0XWHRjTc

now read this (not the best source but it gives the idea)

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Standard-Liege-midfielder-Axel-Witsel-banned-for-horror-tackle-article141121.html

To my mind the punishmet fits the crime. And that is where I think the FA are spineless half-wits. They could and should review the banning system (Taylor was banned for les time than Rio for slapping someone) so that a dangerous foul carries a ban of up to 20 matches, open to appeal. All it takes is for one player to get a 10 match ban and the message should get across.

I don't mind if it is an Arsenal player who gets the ban, as Ihonestly believe these fouls are a blight on the game.

Shard said...

I remember the Axel Witsel tackle. The Belgian FA were right to ban him for 11 games was it?Sorry, but can't be bothered to read the article right now..
You're absolutely right. The FA have no respect for fairness. Only rely on the media to either absolve someone of blame or find a scapegoat for them.
Its so so frustrating to face such injuries simply because the English media and former players are just too proud and stubborn to accept facts and introspect over the state of the game and the lack of quality among the english players and coaches.

1979gooner said...

fair enough,

i have no prob with being protected from dangerous studs up or straight leg tackles, or cynical stuff like shirt tugging

problem is that if you start protecting players too much from fair genuine attempts to play the ball then you are in danger of making the game non contact

shawcross' tackle wouldn't have been a foul if he had taken the ball, in that context i think these are the kind of tackles that we cannot be protected from, a hard fair tackle that takes the ball has to be part of the game

1979gooner said...

agreed Obs,

those kind of tackles need to have the bans upped to 6/12 games

the likes of Taylor and Smith should have had longer bans

I think 3 games is adequate given the nature of Shawcross' tackle

Sam said...

Nice. You claim unchallengeable expertise in biomechanics which renders your sanctimonious verdict inviolable. Then you tell your commenters that since they aren't as smart as you and don't share your extraordinary insights in biomechanics and the psychology of football players and the intentions of the media, their contradictory conclusions are ridiculous. Then, for good measure, you sniffily tsk-tsk them for being rude. I'm pretty sure there is Latin term that describes that particular rhetorical trick but the English expression for it is "being a dick". Well done.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with your assessment of the tackle. The question that should be asked is WHY is Shawcross making that type of tackle that high up the pitch. He was near the half line and he went in completely recklessy attempting to clear the ball into row z. Its rubbish football and this type of pumping up players has to be down to one person. The manager,Pulis. It wasn't as if Ramsey was bearing down on goal.

You expect some harsh challenges in the game but this borders on being totally pathetic from a person who is playing the game and should have more awareness and control than the average person.

The press can go screw themselves with their cliched responses. What their reaction have been if it had been Rooney?. What they be trumping out the usual nonsense. As for Shawcross, is this really the best England have to offer?. What will he do if he faces a pacy Spaniard or Brazilian, go flying in ?. Probably not because they don't stand for this type of nonsense. He will shown up for the pile of excrement that belies his talent.

Shard said...

1979. as I have said before. clamping down on irresponsible tackles(which this was, but thats besides the point) will only improve tackling not kill it. Do players from spain or Germany or italy not tackle? They do and they do it better. They don't just slide in or lunge in irrespective of whether they are more likely to win the ball or not. that is responsible. In England being irresponsible is called being committed.

Anonymous said...

1979 GOONER
i understand and agree with most of what you have said mate. but i have to disagree with the claim that the media do not have blood on their hands because truthfully they do, certainly to some degree.
tackles like this and several others that are as bad are a very direct results of the media propagating the whole roughhouse arsenal tactics employed by teams. if the OVER physicality was looked down upon and not encouraged as is the case (and you can't argue with that, it's a sad shameful fact) shawcross would not be flying into that tackle like he did.
also on a side note i also disagree with the penalty being lucky. clear pen mate his hands while on the way down are still raised. bendy should have had another too after that with that ridiculous push from collins.
that is all.

Anonymous said...

There's not enough data available to be sure whether Ramsey broke his leg due to a freak accident or because of Shawcross's leg. I'm not a professional by any means, but I think it's a case of Shawcross's left leg hitting Ramsey's right leg with a LOT of force. Ramsey's leg hit the ground and buckled under the pressure.

The basic arguement that most gooners are saying is that there's a 'kick Arsenal 'cuz they can't take it' culture. You 're countering it by saying that it wasn't a game like that, but here you're wrong.

There was a clear incident earlier when Shawcross was legally dispossessed, and he went ballistic. Shawcross is a 22 year old who has already broken 2 people's legs (Francis Jeffer was the other one) and blatantly tried to injure/intimidate Adebayor with a tackle that left him injured for 3 weeks. He has a history of parroting the aforementioned culture. He plays for a team which has used the same tactic before. He was personally mad at Arsenal (bizarre).

It was not a really bad challenge, you could easily point out a lot of worse ones. But, if you see the video again, after Shawcross lost the ball, he did not try to recover it by trying to take it past Ramsey. That's the normal reaction of a player who's just lost the ball. You don't go around trying to belt the ball into the stands, which has all Shawcross could hope to do by his wild lunge.

He meant to intimidate Ramsey. He didn't wanted to break his leg, but he wanted to 'leave his mark'.

When your opponents follow this policy of 'leaving their mark' for years on an end, is it surprising that we've had 3 leg breaks in less than 4 years?

Shawcross should not be demonized, but he should be punished.


There's a larger issue here, and that's the whole culture of English Football, i.e the 'if you can't match them in technique, kick them' mentality.

In any case, your whole argument is bust (and I'm saying this respectfully). If your opponents try to kick you for years on an end (indisputable) then the chances of a freak accident naturally go up.

Anonymous said...

Xavi Alonso took out cesc last year in a similar challenge. his intention was to give the ball the john smith "ave it" treatment(maybe he learned from carragher) in the middle of midfield after over running the ball.

similar to what happened to ramsey.
The guy lost control of the ball, seen ramsey was equally favorite to win it - ramsey tries to poke the ball away from him - shawcross then goes in to give the ball the john smith "ave it" treatment and was slightly late causing the impact injury.
He came in with excessive force and was in no way the same as gallas on the bolton player.

playing semi/pro football and even in the amature leagues skillfull technical teams are kicked of the park as a way of leveling the playing field. this outdated tactic belongs in the 60's - football has evolved majorly since then but the same outdated managers/coaches/pundits believe this tactic is effective hence the make up of their teams.

geegunner

Anonymous said...

Let me see now - suppose that tackle was being done on an England player (Rooney, Gerrard or whoever the current golden boy is) by a non-English one resulting in the England player's shattered leg, would you still be defending the foreign player?

Funny how whenever the perpetrator is English, all of a sudden he's the model professional who goes shopping with his mum and doesn't have a bad bone in his body. When the perpetrator's a foreigner, then all sorts of nonsense about how they're sullying the name of good, honest English football is bandied about.

Anonymous said...

A drunken driver causing the death of another person with his car did not have the "intention" of mowing down the victim either. Nor do most heat- of -the moment murderers.
However, intention or no intention the law punishes the two culprits above. Why should Shawcross be treated any differently?