Aaron Ramsey

[forefortheday]

I love this idea it's the media's fault that teams get physical with Arsenal.

Nothing to do with Wenger complaining about Bolton since time began? Nothing to do with managers of lesser teams playing to their strengths?

Whether there was intent or not we can only guess, it's not like Shawcross would admit it even if he did go in to break his leg.

Happened to Cisse,Smith and a good few others over the years and I don't for one second believe that every other team is out to "get" Arsenal.

 

[USER1999]

Not every team, but enough of them to make a difference.

This is the same Shawcross who at 22, has already broken Frannie Jeffers leg, and put Adebayor out for 4 weeks with an off the ball kick in the ankle. Now he has done Ramsey.

Not in his nature though, poor lamb. He must be terribly unlucky.

Or a complete clogger.

 

[leewestrudd1]

i bet if shawcross or anybody else for that matter was marking messi or kaka in the world cup you'd be wanting him to kick them off the park therefore put them out of the game,fair enough i wouldn't wish broken bones on anyone but football always used to be a very physical game and most teams had an enforcer or hard man that would dish it out,look back at the 60's,70's and 80's the game was alot more physical yet they used to jump back up and carry on playing. the leeds v chelsea 1970 fa cup final had it been played now would have seen something like 6 red cards and 20 odd bookings.

 

[CrapHacker]

Fantastic discussion on Alan Brazil's show yesterday morning on Talksport.

Basically one guy makes a good point, but loses it by clouding the edges. Brazil just goes on and on about how it's a legitimate tactic to 'let them know you are there' etc. etc. as long as it's legal.

Excluding the fact that this is all about Arsenal ( which it shouldn't be, but there's very much a NIMBY attitute to this ), the discussion should be based on one ideal :

If you encourage players to play at the very edge of the rules, then the consequences when they go over the edge will be very serious.

Stoke players are encouraged to 'let them know you are there'. All right as long as it's legal.

But the modern rules say that 'reckless' tackles are illegal.

A reckless tackle is one where the proponent doesn't consider the consequences of his tackle if he doesn't get there in time, and doesn't give himself the option of withdrawing the tackle. ( IE there is no question at all that the tackle against Ramsey was 'reckless' and a legitimate sending off - intent IS NOT in the current rules of the game )

The question then is : is a 3 match ban enough to 'protect' players against this sort of mistimed tackle ?

At the moment the answer in this country is 'YES'

But should that change?

Brazil, and all you guys that say the game is a physical game, are happy with the rules as they stand. Fine.

But, generally, the very best talented players aren't. Ronaldo used to complain about being clogged every week, and he's left the premiership. How long before other great players decide to leave as well? This is why the discussion shouldn't be based around Arsenal. The most skillful players in the world will not want to play in the league where talented players are statistically more likely to lose a year or more of their career.

I think Graham Poll appeared on Talksport yesterday as well.

Apparently, in this country our refs give 26 fouls per match, on average. We like the game to flow, it keeps the pace of the game up, and makes it a more exciting visual experience for British crowds.

In Italy the refs give 42 fouls ( I think he said ) per game. The game is more technical, and slower. So there are fewer 'reckless' tackles, and fewer broken limbs.

There's no need to change the rules to protect Arsenal, or other talented players, but as a nation we have to decide whether we prefer to watch Ronaldo, and Fabregas, etc. Or do we prefer to watch players like Shawcross and Taylor.

At some point we will have to make that choice.

 

[CrapHacker]

Sorry, that was a serious answer there.

And not a smiley in sight.

I don't do that many words without a smiley - I need a smiley attack

Quick ..........



Phew I'm glad I got that out of my system.

Well, rant over.

 

[HRC99]

If you encourage players to play at the very edge of the rules, then the consequences when they go over the edge will be very serious.

You are talking about the top class athletes in one of the richest leagues of any sport in the world with huge risks, rewards and public attention. With that mix, you are always going to get people playing right at the very edge of the rules.

Stoke players are encouraged to 'let them know you are there'. All right as long as it's legal.

All the great teams (and many of the not so great) have had players who have a certain "nasty" streak - Keane, Viera, Gerrard, Mascherano, Bremner, Scholes, Souness, Pearce - the list goes on and on. It is hardly limited to Stoke.

But the modern rules say that 'reckless' tackles are illegal.

A reckless tackle is one where the proponent doesn't consider the consequences of his tackle if he doesn't get there in time, and doesn't give himself the option of withdrawing the tackle. ( IE there is no question at all that the tackle against Ramsey was 'reckless' and a legitimate sending off - intent IS NOT in the current rules of the game )

Of course, intent is irrelevant. How can you prove what someone was thinking?

The question then is : is a 3 match ban enough to 'protect' players against this sort of mistimed tackle ?

At the moment the answer in this country is 'YES'

But should that change?

No. There are 38 league games. They will have been sent off in that match so such an action directly affects 4 games. That's about 10% of the total matches which seems fair to me.

Brazil, and all you guys that say the game is a physical game, are happy with the rules as they stand. Fine.

But, generally, the very best talented players aren't. Ronaldo used to complain about being clogged every week, and he's left the premiership. How long before other great players decide to leave as well? This is why the discussion shouldn't be based around Arsenal. The most skillful players in the world will not want to play in the league where talented players are statistically more likely to lose a year or more of their career.

Utter rubbish. Players play for a club because of money, the quality of the team, the location, the chance to win trophies and the history of the club. Some players are suited to a more physical game as is played over here and in Germany, others less so.

Players get injured everywhere. We are hardly talking an epidemic of serious injuries here. The game is infinitely cleaner than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

I think Graham Poll appeared on Talksport yesterday as well.

Apparently, in this country our refs give 26 fouls per match, on average. We like the game to flow, it keeps the pace of the game up, and makes it a more exciting visual experience for British crowds.

In Italy the refs give 42 fouls ( I think he said ) per game. The game is more technical, and slower. So there are fewer 'reckless' tackles, and fewer broken limbs.

There's no need to change the rules to protect Arsenal, or other talented players, but as a nation we have to decide whether we prefer to watch Ronaldo, and Fabregas, etc. Or do we prefer to watch players like Shawcross and Taylor.

At some point we will have to make that choice.

To reduce it to, in effect, you can watch Ronaldo and Fabregas or Shawcross and Taylor is an utterly facile comparison. Of course, we can have both because the Premier League is one of the richest in the world.

Ronaldo didn't move to Real Madrid because he was getting kicked. Please. Just watch a bit of La Liga and you'll see him get kicked plenty. He left for an unbelievably obscene amount of money and the chance to play for the team he supported as a boy.

If Fabregas moves to Barcelona, it won't be because of the physicality of English football, it will be because he wants to return home and also for an obscene amount of money.

You forget that both these players have learned their trade in this country and were well used to its physicality. We are not seeing broken legs every week or two. Thankfully, they are still fairly rare. But they do happen and when you have collisions involving fit, strong athletes things like this will inevitably happen.

Whatever the country and whatever the sport, less skillful players and teams will seek to compete with more skillful players and teams through being physical to see whether their opponents have the mental strength to cope.

Rugby, Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball, American Football, even Baseball and Cricket all have seen teams seek to physically intimidate their opponents. That is contact sport and that is why we watch it.

 

[AuburnWarrior]

Didn't Gallas try and break the leg of a Hull player recently?? A disgusting tackle where he had no intention of playing the ball.

ALL professional players commit bad fouls from time to time, some get away with it, some don't.

 

[JustOne]

The sooner someone breaks Fellaini's leg the better.
He's asking for trouble and I'd bet the queue is growing.

 

[Plonko]

I think the blame probably lies with Wenger. After all he's the one that keeps signing these players with fragile legs.

 

[USER1999]

How would you test them? With a hammer?

Please let me be the one to test Wayne Rooney.

 

[Andy]

Is that when your on ur back Murph, after Wayne has decked you lol

Get over it.

Andy

 

[CrapHacker]

Of course, intent is irrelevant. How can you prove what someone was thinking?

You say that, but until fairly recently it WAS in the rules, and a lot of explayers/pundits still go on about it as if it was relevant

The question then is : is a 3 match ban enough to 'protect' players against this sort of mistimed tackle ?

At the moment the answer in this country is 'YES'

But should that change?

No. There are 38 league games. They will have been sent off in that match so such an action directly affects 4 games. That's about 10% of the total matches which seems fair to me.


So an avoidable action that affects the injured party for 9 - 12 months is punished with missing less than 1 months football? Can't see that as fair myself.


Utter rubbish. Players play for a club because of money, the quality of the team, the location, the chance to win trophies and the history of the club. Some players are suited to a more physical game as is played over here and in Germany, others less so

Yup. The stronger players enjoy it here, the more skillful players are happy to stay in Spain and Italy. They'll only come over here if they get loads more wonga than they can in those countries. Offering a similar amount doesn't do it for many.

Players get injured everywhere. We are hardly talking an epidemic of serious injuries here. The game is infinitely cleaner than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

But we are talking about an epidemic. Yes the game is generally cleaner, so there should be less serious injuries, not more.

To reduce it to, in effect, you can watch Ronaldo and Fabregas or Shawcross and Taylor is an utterly facile comparison. Of course, we can have both because the Premier League is one of the richest in the world.

Not any more, it's not. With the exception of Chelsea and Man City, the rest of the Pemiership is suffering from overspending. As you said earlier, we could get the best players in the past, because we paid the most, but some still stayed in Spain and Italy. Once we can't pay as much, what else can we offer ?

Ronaldo didn't move to Real Madrid because he was getting kicked. Please. Just watch a bit of La Liga and you'll see him get kicked plenty.
Kicked, but not dangeously threatened

We are not seeing broken legs every week or two. Thankfully, they are still fairly rare. But they do happen and when you have collisions involving fit, strong athletes things like this will inevitably happen.

At the very top league they are becoming more frequent, as are other potentially dangerous lunge tackles that could cause other serious injuries. A good tackle is still a thing of beauty, but we rarely see good tackles nowadays - it seems to me to be either shielding the man away from danger, or leaping in with no consideration of the consequences

Whatever the country and whatever the sport, less skillful players and teams will seek to compete with more skillful players and teams through being physical to see whether their opponents have the mental strength to cope.

Which is where good reffing can help the game. All the while the tackles are legal, let the game flow. But when your fit young men are charging around without any control, pull the game back. Headless chicken football is not attractive.

Rugby, Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball, American Football, even Baseball and Cricket all have seen teams seek to physically intimidate their opponents. That is contact sport and that is why we watch it.

I don't watch the American sports you mention, so let's take Rugby, and Cricket. Rugby uses the sin bin to take the heat out of a player's game - to slow him down and let the red mist cool. Cricket's umpires restrict the use of bouncers as an intimidatory tactic. It used to be unlimited, and there where a lot more broken hands/fingers etc than there are now.

In effect I'm agreeing with you. Like you say with our other national sports, keep the tackle as a tool, but reduce the amount of dangerous tackles in a game by utilising good reffing, and better training techniques.

I know I'm in the minority ( I think of about ONE nationally ), but I think that the consequences of the tackle are relevent. I said it last year. If I drive down the road breaking the speed limit, and get caught, I get charged with speeding, and get a small fine and 3 points. If I drive in exactly the same agressive manner, but am unfortunate enough to hit a pedestrian, and hospitalise them, then I get a bigger fine and a ban.

If Shawcross makes that tackle, but there is no injury, he deserves to get red carded for reckless play, and a 3 match ban. But because of the accidental result of his actions he should get at least a 6 match ban.

If there had been any consideration at all that the tackle was deliberate ( taking away any consideration of intent to injure ) the maximum ban should be a year.