Nibor Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Do you seriously think that when the Bolton, Stoke, Blackburns of the world play Liverpool or ManUre they think "not much point kicking this lot". But when they play Arsenal it's suddenly "let's go in 'ard. They don't like it up 'em". Yes I do and if you listen to managers get interviewed you will see why - they as much as admit it. You can see during the game that far more off the feet challenges fly in when a team players Arsenal. Excuse my ignorance but Eduardo, Ramsey and ??. Sorry but thats the only way to beat Arsenal, to get in their faces and press them as they dont like it. Wenger doesnt like it when teams do it to them because they are the 'pinnacle' of football. The Shawcross challenge wasnt malicious it was a 50/50 that badly went wrong. Diaby. You can beat Arsenal without being reckless, ManUre and Chelski do it regularly. The Shawcross challenge wasn't malicious - he wasn't trying to hurt him - but it was reckless and careless. He had both feet off the floor at pace, it was always going to snap something if he hit a planted leg. And he's a clumsy oaf at the best of times. You will see players like Shawcross who are physical attempt that kind of risky challenge far more often against Arsenal than other teams. I don't like Wenger's usual inability to see any incident his team commit and sometimes he overdoes the whinging but he was very straightforward and totally correct in his post match interview this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol North Red Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I don't think it was a bad challenge more a clumsy one 50/50 witch Ramsey won the race to. Hope Ramsey all the best in his recovery and what a night for Shawcross hour after the game he gets a England call up for wednesday friendly against Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted February 28, 2010 Admin Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Yes I do and if you listen to managers get interviewed you will see why - they as much as admit it. You can see during the game that far more off the feet challenges fly in when a team players Arsenal. Diaby. You can beat Arsenal without being reckless, ManUre and Chelski do it regularly. The Shawcross challenge wasn't malicious - he wasn't trying to hurt him - but it was reckless and careless. He had both feet off the floor at pace, it was always going to snap something if he hit a planted leg. And he's a clumsy oaf at the best of times. You will see players like Shawcross who are physical attempt that kind of risky challenge far more often against Arsenal than other teams. I don't like Wenger's usual inability to see any incident his team commit and sometimes he overdoes the whinging but he was very straightforward and totally correct in his post match interview this time. Oh come off it Nibor. I am not saying it's right to go in recklessly on Arsenal players (although I think most of us agree Shawcross' chellenge was more unfortunate that reckless) but surely you can see that there's other factors why Man U & Chelsea are able to beat Arsenal more easily than a Stoke or a Bolton can? Incidentally opposition players would go in "recklessly hard" on Ronaldo every time he put on the United shirt but because he "made the most of it" / "dived a bit" / "got Rooney sent off" people thought he deserved it and would turn a blind eye to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Oh come off it Nibor. I am not saying it's right to go in recklessly on Arsenal players (although I think most of us agree Shawcross' chellenge was more unfortunate that reckless) but surely you can see that there's other factors why Man U & Chelsea are able to beat Arsenal more easily than a Stoke or a Bolton can? Of course I can - does that make it acceptable for teams not as good to be reckless? Shawcross's challenge was completely irresponsible and it seems that Arsenal are on the receiving end of that more often than anyone else because their players are younger. If you watch the way Shawcross went in - even if he hadn't been so clumsy to have missed the ball he'd have injured the player - so why's that ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted February 28, 2010 Admin Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Of course I can - does that make it acceptable for teams not as good to be reckless? Shawcross's challenge was completely irresponsible and it seems that Arsenal are on the receiving end of that more often than anyone else because their players are younger. If you watch the way Shawcross went in - even if he hadn't been so clumsy to have missed the ball he'd have injured the player - so why's that ok? If you read my post again I said it wasn't ok for them to do this. It just seemed folly to cite Man U & Chelsea as examples of it being possible to beat Arsenal easily enough when these two sides have bigger wage & transfer budgets than all but Man City I'd guess. Also the notion that it's only Arsenal that get kicked. Joe Cole at Chelsea gets similar treatment. Throughout the history of football teams with less skill try to kick the fancier teams off the park. I'm not saying it's right for football to be this way but the notion that it only happens to Arsenal for me is laughable. At our own level when we come up against "footballing teams" the chant "get into 'em & f*** them up" comes out. Why would this chant survive so many years if there wasn't a history of "going in hard" on fancy players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS3_RED Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 slow mo on the old sky plus shows it was a 50/50 ball ramsey came of worse horrible break hope he makes a full recovery but whinger is a cock I could not really see a lot wrong with the challenge on MOTD this morning. Just two players going in fully committed and unfortunately Showcross just was slower to the ball and caught Ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 If you read my post again I said it wasn't ok for them to do this. It just seemed folly to cite Man U & Chelsea as examples of it being possible to beat Arsenal easily enough when these two sides have bigger wage & transfer budgets than all but Man City I'd guess. Also the notion that it's only Arsenal that get kicked. Joe Cole at Chelsea gets similar treatment. Throughout the history of football teams with less skill try to kick the fancier teams off the park. I'm not saying it's right for football to be this way but the notion that it only happens to Arsenal for me is laughable. At our own level when we come up against "footballing teams" the chant "get into 'em & **** them up" comes out. Why would this chant survive so many years if there wasn't a history of "going in hard" on fancy players? Nobody's said it only happens to Arsenal, just that it does happen more to them than any other Prem team. Three lower leg breaks is not co-incidence I'm afraid. There's a line between pressing players physically and being reckless and it gets overstepped which is why those injuries happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 He's seen his players suffer three lower leg breaks from extremely reckless challenges in five years, he has a point. It's the kind of injury you get through no reason other than the opponent trying to "go in 'ard" and missing completely. Have you ever even played the game? Those 50-50s happen week in week out in every single game from Sunday League all the way up to Premier League. That was not a reckless challenge by Ryan Shawcross... he's not that type of player he's just gone in fully commited, they both have and Ramsey has got there first its just bad luck. There is no comparison with that tackle and the one on Eduardo, the Eduardo one was malicious and there was definate intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 No way was there intent on either Eduardo's or Shawcross's. They were both just unlucky. If there was intent on the Eduardo tackle do you really think Taylor would have been crying (like Shawcross) and do you really think Wenger would have withdrawn his criticism of the tackle? More protection for players is needed though imo. Can't imagine how horrific a broken leg must be, one of my worst fears tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 No way was there intent on either Eduardo's or Shawcross's. They were both just unlucky. If there was intent on the Eduardo tackle do you really think Taylor would have been crying (like Shawcross) and do you really think Wenger would have withdrawn his criticism of the tackle? More protection for players is needed though imo. Can't imagine how horrific a broken leg must be, one of my worst fears tbh. There's no justifying Taylors "tackle" at all... if you go in Studs up and hit someone half way up their shin you are going to do damage! I dont remember seeing Martin Taylor crying... infact if you recall he refused to apologise or accept any guilt for the challenge. If you watch the Shawcross one back, Ramsey's only got injured because his leg was planted in the ground. Shawcross has gone to sweep the ball and made contact with his laces, no studs up at all. In fairness, the Ramsey incident is one where you would normally see players slide in studs first rather than sweep the ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I didn't see him cry but his manager described after the game how shocked and what a state he was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Have you ever even played the game? Those 50-50s happen week in week out in every single game from Sunday League all the way up to Premier League. That was not a reckless challenge by Ryan Shawcross... he's not that type of player he's just gone in fully commited, they both have and Ramsey has got there first its just bad luck. There is no comparison with that tackle and the one on Eduardo, the Eduardo one was malicious and there was definate intent. I've played the game for years thanks. There's a difference between malice and reckless - Shawcross was reckless. He was never going to get there in time but went in with both feet at pace anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I saw the tackle it wasn't that bad Shawcross didn't dive studs flying in he went to play the ball and caught Ramsey it was never a sending off. The Arsenal players are just a bunch of girls whinging all the tome and so is their manager. Football is a hard physical game and it sems the Aresnal players should stop crying like babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphindevon Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Shawcross is a decent bloke and a great prospect, seen him a few times as my wife is a Stoke fan, it was clumsy but no more than that. It makes me laugh when the media kept saying "suspected broken leg" HELLO, I'm no doctor but unless Ramsey has leg made of rubber I think it is definatley broken. He is young and hopefully will make a full recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidercity1987 Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I saw the tackle it wasn't that bad Shawcross didn't dive studs flying in he went to play the ball and caught Ramsey it was never a sending off. The Arsenal players are just a bunch of girls whinging all the tome and so is their manager. Football is a hard physical game and it sems the Aresnal players should stop crying like babies. In that case define dangerous play? Suppose breaking someones leg doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 In that case define dangerous play? Suppose breaking someones leg doesn't count. Dangerous play is when for me when you go in with the intention of deliberately hurting someone. For me Shawcross was there late on a 50:50 but it happens all the time in football- just an unfortunat incident for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Dangerous play is when for me when you go in with the intention of deliberately hurting someone. For me Shawcross was there late on a 50:50 but it happens all the time in football- just an unfortunat incident for me. You're wrong - hurting someone deliberately would be violent conduct. Dangerous play does not have to be intentional at all. Nor does serious foul play which is what this was. "Serious foul play A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee shall send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play. A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred inside the offender’s penalty area)." It's very hard to argue that Shawcross did not use excessive force and endanger the safety of an opponent - so the sending off was correct. I'm amazed at the number of people that seem to think that as long as he didn't intend to hurt him it was ok. It isn't ok to go in for a 50/50 at shin height at full pace and be late and to do so is completely reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonwheeler Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 just watched "Goals on Sunday" on SKY and whilst the incident did not look any better did anyone notice the silly little idiot with a Stoke scarf on at the corner of the stand deliberately flicking the vee's at Ramsey as he was stretchered in to the waiting ambulance. "If" Stoke had any decency our little friend would be identified and taught some sporting manners such as banning the little **** end of. TOTAL AND UTTER POND LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 We will have to disagree on your last points there. I just feel that Shawcross was going for a 50:50 which you see so many times in games and it ended up with an unfortunate injury but I still don't think it was reckless. Agreed. Ramsey actually appeared to be going over on his right ankle prior to the tackle coming in. Ramsey's foot was grounded, Shawcross came in, wasn't high and his studs were grounded. It was a late tackle, but only by fractions. Just an unfortunate injury, you see players escape injury from much worse challenges. What about Waghorn on McAllister at Leicester in December? That was a two footed, off the ball assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Is dangerous play defined by the FA or is it just Serious foul play? Dangerous play is defined but it is where there is no contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcmike Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 just watched "Goals on Sunday" on SKY and whilst the incident did not look any better did anyone notice the silly little idiot with a Stoke scarf on at the corner of the stand deliberately flicking the vee's at Ramsey as he was stretchered in to the waiting ambulance. "If" Stoke had any decency our little friend would be identified and taught some sporting manners such as banning the little **** end of. TOTAL AND UTTER POND LIFE. Totally agree with all of that simon.....spot on!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 I've played the game for years thanks. There's a difference between malice and reckless - Shawcross was reckless. He was never going to get there in time but went in with both feet at pace anyway. After reading your comments on this incident I think you need to go and actually watch the tackle... 1. It was definately NOT 2 footed. 2. It wasnt reckless... that 50-50 was the sort you usually see both players slide in with studs up, if anything Shawcross has done everything right, hes gone to hook the ball away rather than slide straight through it. it is just unfortunate the way Ramsey played the ball, he planted his foot and chipped it and in doing so Shawcross has hooked his ankle and caused the injury. Ironically i think if Shawcross had been a second later, Ramsey's foot would not have been planted and there would have been no injury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 On match of the day, they stopped the replay to just before shawcross made contact and it looked at though Ramsey's leg was ALREADY bent - shawcross may contributed to the break, but it looks to me that it was a freak accident. As others have said, it was'nt even a reckless challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcliffe 78 Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 Studs caught in the grass thats when serious damage is done agree with Riaz not a dangerous tackle a dangerous tackle to me is when both feet leave the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Of The Dolman Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 I think he was already heading for a serious injury before the tackle came in but that sealed it. His foot seemed to be already stuck in the ground at a bad angle already. Reminded me of the Dani Rodrigues injury though and a foul wasn't even given for that one. Wish the lad well though what an injury to have at his young age at least as he is younger gives him the best possible chance of a full recovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.