*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[duffer]

You must have missed how most of my posts on here were a piss take. But carry on, it's amusing.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Go on then, enlighten me. The only one I can find that is obviously a piss-take was the one about how Shawcross is a good lad, which says it all really.

 

[duffer]

Those were all the ones I made about the tackle. Everything else was related to our team and the game itself. The only one where I can possibly see as being misconstrued is the "dire in a fire post", which I find hilarious anyone would take it literally.

If you want to be offended though, feel free. This internet football stuff is very serious business.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not personally offended, I just think you're about as wrong as you can get about Shawcross particularly, and also this supposed vendetta the world has against Arsenal, how everyone supposedly targets them.

 

[duffer]

Ok, we cool. I similarly disagree seeing as though I witness first hand how teams play against us week in week out but there you go.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, find it bizarre how when people are talking about playing against Arsenal all they ever mention is being physical and getting amongst them but when something actually happens because of it "we get it just as much as every other team".

 

[BoyBrumby]

Isn't that the exact trajectory your leg takes when you kick a football though?

No argument at all. However, if a player swings to put the laces through a ball he doesn't have control of (and Shawcross patently didn't) he is, almost by definition, playing with a recklessness that borders on the wanton.

Did Shawcross mean to break Ramsey's leg? No. Was it the kind of tackle that shouldn't be condoned in football and is worthy of punishment? Yes, IMHO. The intent is almost irrelevant. I'd liken it to driving home pissed; if you get behind the wheel seven sheets to the wind and make it to your house safely you're still a criminal just one who's got away with it. However, if you have an accident and hurt someone you'd be more likely to have to deal with the consequences in a court of law. The fact that you didn't intend to hurt someone doesn't change the inescapable fact you were indulging in behaviour that could quite well end up injuring a third party.

What a fantastic human being you are.

In fact the over reaction from the Arsenal contingent as a whole is really quite baffling. Yeah it was a bad tackle but as previously mentioned it wasn't even the worst tackle that you'll see this weekend. I defended Taylor at the time too, and that was a far worse tackle than that of Shawcross. Neither was remotely intentional, although I won't defend the tackles themselves.

As for 3 broken legs in 3 years, I play poker almost for a living at the moment which has given me a very solid understanding of variance, and how far win rates (or in this case broken legs) can differentiate from the expected amount over a very big sample size indeed. Several people in this thread have been underestimating that an indescribable amount. Given the amount of chance involved in breaking a leg (far worse tackles than the one on Ramsey don't break legs, and far less bad tackles than the one on Ramsey do break legs) and the occurrence rate of broken legs, 3 broken legs in one team in 3 years is almost (though not totally) statistically irrelevant.

See, the problem with that is that cards aren't sentiment beings with wills of their own. Moreover, in each case it was a centre half from a team renowned for "mixing it up" against more technically able teams.

Now if we accept that injuries like that occur roughly once a year and there are approximately 500 players in the Prem, then obviously for the chances of that happening to every player by luck alone they'd have to play for 500 years for the odds to fall to 1.

Is it possible it's just chance? Yes, obviously. Is it likely? No, of course not.

 

[Loony BoB]

It is strange that seemingly all but one of the people saying it wasn't the worst tackle in the world are United fans, and it makes me feel a bit weird about agreeing with them because it just seems to add to the 'biased' thing.

If that happened to Rooney, I'd be livid. And I can completely understand Arsenal being angry. Especially after three in three years or whatever - I love my stats, but you would end up wondering why nobody else has had three in a similar amount of time. But, upon replay, I'd not feel angry at Shawcross. Yeah, he probably deserved yellow minimum and maybe a red, sure. I won't deny that. If it were Rooney, I'd be livid about there being no red card if it wasn't given. But looking at the replay from the perspective of a United fan who actually doesn't mind Arsenal all that much, and doesn't mind Ramsey at all, I look at the speed that both players went into it and can't help but say that it was both players that caused the damage. If the ball didn't slow as much, Shawcross would have won the ball and potentially still could have slammed into the leg. They both went in to kick the ball in almost identical fashion - leaning back, putting a leg forward. Shawcross has more swing to it, yes - but when you are kicking a ball that far away from your standing leg, that's nothing short of selecting a kick based on the distance from your standing leg... nothing more. I'm positive an Arsenal player would do the same. It's very, very unfortunate that Ramsey's leg and Shawcrosse's ankle connect. But it was a 50/50 tackle. In fact, I wouldn't call it a tackle. I'd call it challenging from the ball. He is going right for where the ball is and when you swing that fast you can't stop it that quickly, especially at a run. But, alas, they did connect - and for that reason, purely on the basis that the leg is broken, one does feel the referee is left without a choice. It could happen to any team playing any other team, but you have to accept the red because, as said, the ref has no choice - I'm sure Stoke players recognise this as well.

I know someone was angry about Keyes asking Gray if it was Arsenal's fault, but there is some purpose to the question - is there anything that the other teams are doing that Arsenal are not which could have anything to do with strengthening player's bones? Little things like that can't be dismissed. And, at the very least, should be questioned - it's not blaming Arsenal, it's querying whether or not there is something they could to safeguard their players a little more without impacting their ability. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If our players are constantly breaking their bones, I'd be very quick to ask the same questions of our own physios and dieticians.

It was a 50/50 challenge. I agree with the red on the basis of the visible injury, not the challenge. I disagree that other teams get treated differently - if the leg didn't break, it would be a yellow at best. It is, based on repeatedly viewing the challenge rather than the injury, 100% a red card for the injury, not the challenge. But a red is a red. I don't blame Shawcross, it's unfortunate, and I hope he isn't slated too much by the rest of the nation - but Arsenal fans are within their emotional right to get pissed, as I'd be the same if it was Rooney. It's hard not to be biased when a player of your own side gets such a horrific injury. I would be the same in their position.

In all honesty, I would expect that Stoke had far, far worse tackles than that challenge throughout the game. Should they be given reds for all those tackles? I imagine that Arsenal also made some hard tackles. Should they be given reds for all those tackles, too? This was a challenge, not a really bad tackle, but the timing, the speed, the movement, the ball position... everything lead to the unfortunate exact point of contact that resulted in a 'perfect connection' ending in a broken leg. That is terrible. But nothing to slate Shawcross for - I wouldn't blame him for challenging for the ball, or even how he did it. It just... didn't work for him. And bang. Broken leg. Red card. That's what happens, on occasoin. Very rarely, but on occasion.

 

[GIMH]

Has anyone who is not a United fan sat on that side of the fence yet?

 

[Loony BoB]

Patrick has.

 

[GIMH]

He said it didn't seem that bad without going into any detail, but I guess you could say that. Does seem on the most part to be too much of a coincidence that United fans see it differently to the rest, and obviously Arsenal fans will see it their way.

 

[Loony BoB]

Yeah, I know. I'd be interested if someone, should they never seen or heard about the game and did not see the immediate aftermath of the challenge, would have given a card for how Shawcross went into the challenge. But I don't think we'll be getting that out of anyone here. xD Oh well.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He said it didn't seem that bad without going into any detail, but I guess you could say that. Does seem on the most part to be too much of a coincidence that United fans see it differently to the rest, and obviously Arsenal fans will see it their way.

I think the point Cesc & Arsene were making last night is the crucial one: there's no protection for players until the horse had bolted. The kind of "tackle" Shawcross made doesn't always result in such a horrific injury, but the fact is that it can. If such tackles are tacitly condoned by refs until they result in some poor fecker in hospital with several months rehab to look forward to, such incidents will continue.

Comes back to video replays again, for me. If a player goes over the top like Shawcross without crippling the unfortunate recipient I'd like a TMO to be able to step in and advise the ref he's just produced a potential legbreaker.

 

[GIMH]

I remember one incident where the FA went against their own rules by literally banning Jamie Redknapp for three games after a challenge which he'd actually been booked for. They seem reluctant to do this often though, and FIFA stepped in when there was talk of them doing the same after Morgan's attempted murder on Iain Hume. Because upholding the referee's original decision is clearly more important than protecting the people who play the game.

FWIW if it hasn't already been clear I am 100% in agreement with the Arsenal fans on this one. I don't think there was any intent but as sledger said it certainly was reckless and I don't really see how the fact that those tackles often don't result in injury makes it any better. And bringing in stats and laws of chance and whatever, completely irrelevant as none of those factor into whether a player breaks his leg or not. It's all down to the scientific fators isn't it - both players went in at the same angles, same speeds, everything else, again, and the result is the same for Ramsey. So luck, it's not really not anything to do with it.

 

[Loony BoB]

Going by that, though, Brumby... where do you draw the line? That was a fairly average challenge for me compared to even 90% of tackles, but it resulted in a pretty horrific injury. If every lesser challenge/injury is given a red or yellow, then we'll end up with every game stopped before half time, or no challenges at all. They'd end up letting the ball drop and bounce and kind of just looking at the other player with a wary face. I mean, if the ball moved slightly slower, it would have been Ramsey making the "potential legbreaker". With both players going in at speed, it was nothing bar unfortunate.

It's a contact sport. If a footballer in the PL, or La Liga, or even a five-a-side club at the back of a pub doesn't know and accept that you can potentially be injured in a 50/50 challenge, then they should switch to playing chess.

GIMH: Yes, it would end up the same. But how can a player predict that sort of thing? Where do you draw the line? Shawcross was very, very close to winning that ball and I'm sure in his head, he was going to - in his head, it probably wasn't reckless. It was high speed - you don't have time to calculate the strength of the other person's kick, the speed their legs are moving, anything - this game is played by humans. They will get things wrong, and this case was something that Shawcross got wrong by a matter of fractions of a second and it ended up disastrous. These things will be done by Arsenal players, by Derby players, by any player out there if they think they're worth something in the game of football. They know that not challenging for a 50/50 ball is to be sitting in the conference instead of the Premier League.

 

[sledger]

I think the point Cesc & Arsene were making last night is the crucial one: there's no protection for players until the horse had bolted. The kind of "tackle" Shawcross made doesn't always result in such a horrific injury, but the fact is that it can. If such tackles are tacitly condoned by refs until they result in some poor fecker in hospital with several months rehab to look forward to, such incidents will continue.

Comes back to video replays again, for me. If a player goes over the top like Shawcross without crippling the unfortunate recipient I'd like a TMO to be able to step in and advise the ref he's just produced a potential legbreaker.

Yeah I agree. Too many people seem to be caught up in the intent. And personally I don't see what is wrong with the referee sending Shawcross off based on the fact that a horrible injury was inflicted either.

 

[duffer]

arseblogger nails it.

That piece almost entirely sums up how I feel about the whole thing.

 

[GIMH]

Going by that, though, Brumby... where do you draw the line? That was a fairly average challenge for me compared to even 90% of tackles, but it resulted in a pretty horrific injury. If every lesser challenge/injury is given a red or yellow, then we'll end up with every game stopped before half time, or no challenges at all. They'd end up letting the ball drop and bounce and kind of just looking at the other player with a wary face. I mean, if the ball moved slightly slower, it would have been Ramsey making the "potential legbreaker". With both players going in at speed, it was nothing bar unfortunate.

It's a contact sport. If a footballer in the PL, or La Liga, or even a five-a-side club at the back of a pub doesn't know and accept that you can potentially be injured in a 50/50 challenge, then they should switch to playing chess.

Well what's your point? I'm going the shop in a minute. I could get hit by a bus crossing the road. I'm not really willing to die though, so should I stick to just staying in the house Just because things can/could happen doesn't mean we should accept them.

 

[sledger]

Cesc Fabregas became the leader Arsenal fans have so dearly wanted for so long. I won't hear a thing about how he's not a captain because he ****ing well is. First goal - assist for Bendtner's fantastic header. Second goal - a penalty under the most intense pressure imaginable. He had the balls to get up there, take it and score it. Third goal - assist for Vermaelen. Nor did he stand for any of Stoke's baiting. He had a little kick at one of their players who had kicked him earlier. He Sssshhh'd Tony Pulis. He dragged his Arsenal team over the line. He led by example last night and at the end of the game our players stood in a huddle, knowing they'd shown what they're made of, and the captain rallied his troops. Each one of them was fantastic last night.

Get this guy a drink, absolutely on the ****ing money with that one.

 

[GIMH]

arseblogger nails it.

That piece almost entirely sums up how I feel about the whole thing.

The Shawcross apologists are out in force today yet these are the same people who made such a mountain out of the molehill that was Eduardo's dive against Celtic that UEFA 'investigated' and tried to ban him. A dive. Yet when a young man has his leg broken in bits they keep their mouths shut or come out in defence of the honest English clogger (any coincidence all three challenges have been by Englishmen?). Honestly, they make me ****ing sick. This willingness to overlook acts of horrific violence yet focus on trivia like diving.

AWTa