ARE SOME OF US GOING A BIT OTT?

[mike]

But i could list you loads of sides that are quicker and play the game at a much faster pace than others....They don't end up with their feet hanging on by a thread though. I'm not saying it's some sort of conspiracy or any other that bollocks but these tackles & horrific injuries ARE a result of the 'up & at em' tactic deployed but these sides. I'm not saying they intend to break legs but all too often that his been the result. The facts speak for themselves don't they....

[mike]

Absolutly spot on IUFGN.

[Percy Dalton]

But i could list you loads of sides that are quicker and play the game at a much faster pace than others....They don't end up with their feet hanging on by a thread though. I'm not saying it's some sort of conspiracy or any other that bollocks but these tackles & horrific injuries ARE a result of the 'up & at em' tactic deployed but these sides. I'm not saying they intend to break legs but all too often that his been the result. The facts speak for themselves don't they....

Mike I think that is being a bit simplistic though.

Soem people may not believe in coincidence but the fact is is exists. I agree that teams may take a more physical approach to us but I do not remember anything remotely untoward in the game before that horrible moment.

I also do believe that teams are able to take the approach they do as 1) we do have a very small side and 2) we have long had a fragile mindset which has been made worse since the Eduardo incident.

I am not saying in any way that Shawcross wasn't to blame but what I am saying is you have to look at all of the factors in the equation if you want to get to the honest truth and not the one that suits Arsenal the best.

[mike]

On the flip side though, i have seen worse tackles, even by ourselves. One particular tackle by Diaby of all people at the reebok a couple of years ago springs to mind. Who would be of the opinion that Shawcross probably wouldn't have been red carded if the injury to Ramsey hadn't been so severe?

[Boomer]

I simply think we are getting slightly to caught up in conspiracy theories.

It may well be that the three serious breaks were not coincidence but what I am saying is that you have to look at this in a rational manner in order to see why they happened.

I don't believe for one minute that it was because we were playing Northern teams but I do believe it has a lot to do with the speed of ours against others from all over the world.

I think it's a bit of both.

Our players are quick, not pace quick but technically quick. I've stopped short of saying mentally quick for some!

Teams around the world know we're a quick passing team and on our day can leave the best of them standing like statues.
So for teams that are not blessed to deal with us passing and moving the game plan is to stop the flow of our game.
A brilliant display of this was against Liverpool this weekend for Blackburn. Blackburn will commit constant fouls slowing the game down. Many teams do this to us as it stops our flow also allowing the opposition to re-group.

Regarding Ramseys tackle. For me it was accidental.
But the thing that is grating on my is this constant 'we need to get in your faces' or 'they don't like it up'em' mentality.

For those that have played the game know the difference between a tackle and going in 'hard'. Stoke played a physical game. I can accept that but where's the line between physical and unfair.
I think we can cope against these team. Vermaelen, Song, Cesc, Sol, Bentdner, Nasri & RVP can all 'handle themselves. Fine teams are stopping us from playing but to 'kicking' us to high heaven? How many games to we see us take the kicks, nicks etc....It's no wonder that we get so many injuries.

Due to the extent of the Rambo's injury Saturday was the final straw for some.

It's not the tackle that got my goat but the why in which teams 'unfairly' stop us from playing and in doing so its only a matter of time until someone is will get seriously hurt.

That said on this occasion I personally feel it was accidental the case still remains do you have to kick the Arsenal to stop them playing?

[Luca Helvetica]

I don't think he meant to do any harm but it is his choice of tackle that has caused this and made it reckless and out of control.

The ball was on the ground if he had slid in normally then there would have been no injury but he has gone for the clear out everything to row z challenge.

He has caught him high half way between the ankle and knee as that is where the double break is.

The letter of the law states "reckless, careless or using excessive force". The very least the choice of challenge was careless and if you catch somebody that high you are risking breaking a leg every time.

I felt if he had chose his tackle better and slid in along the ground then nothing would have happened. Therefore he was reckless and careless, but Taylor and Smith were both worse.

[merv_charles]

The only thing about the tackle was if Shawcross' intentions was to get the ball what the fuck was he planning to do by kicking so hard, it was such an almighty kick it would have gone out of the stadium!!!!!! I think he intended to kick Ramsey or any Arenal player in the way after mis controlling it but i accept he didnt intend to break his leg but in such a reckless tackle a bad injury was a possibility

quoting arseblog, it does not matter his intent. if you go around speeding in your car it does not matter if you sincerely just wanted to get to your destination a little quicker, without wanting to run over the poor 10yo boy who was crossing the street. you have responsabilities, and any player who goes into a tackle like he did (and did more in the past, adebayor is an example) should receive more than a 3 match ban. song will be out for 2 matches for doing fuck all!! ramsey will be out for over a year and suffer niggling injuries for the rest of his carrer for doing nothing. and the fucker who went WAY over the top on that challenge will miss 3 games? and get called to the international squad??

fuck me, i hope brazil does not face england. i wouldn't enjoy seeing kaka having his leg broken by that cunt.

Yo seem to have a very different use for the word intent in Brazil then!

To have intent, you must be saying that Shawcross intentianally went into that tackle to hurt Aaron Ramsey as much as possible.

To me that is simply not the case.

Also, your analogy about cars doesn't hold water. If you drive to fast and run over someone the intent is not proven by the fact you was speeding. The speed you was doing is a factor but it no way does it prove that if you go 40 mph in a 30 mph zone did you want to kill someone.

No but you are more likely to do serious damage to someone if you are driving at 40 mph than at 30 mph. Same applies for driving at 20 mph as opposed to 30 mph.

That, imo, is why people are throwing the speeding analogy around. Did Shawcross have to go into the tackle with so much force and was it a situation that required such a juddering tackle?

If Shawcross went in with excessive force, was it as a result of the "get in amongst 'em" philosophy his team mate, Ricardo Fuller, was espousing in interviews before the FA Cup game against Stoke or Anthony Gerrard was spouting off before the Cardiff FA Cup match against Chavski?

Also intent does not mean the intent to cause as much hard as possible, merely the intent to cause some harm. One example that springs to mind would be the Damilola Taylor murder case, where his killers intended to harm him but not to kill him, hence they stabbed him in the leg.

I am in no way equating the tackle by Shawcross with the murder, just using it to illustrate that intent and consequences do not make happy bedfellows.

[topgoon]

I still don't think it was meant as I've said previously but the problem most of us are having and getting more anti-shawcross about is the fact that Ramsey is now almost an after thought when they talk about it.
It's like the most important thing is Shawcross well being and not whether Ramsey's career could very well be over as it's just begun

[DB10GOONER]

No, I don't think I'm OTT.

Shawcross is a thug. He wanted to hurt Ramsey.

Here is a food for a thought; what if Shawcross reacted the way he did (tears and slobbering) because he thought he fcuked up his England call up? What if it had to do nothing with remorse he felt over possibly ending Ramsey's career?

As long as we follow the official "it was an accident" line, it will keep happening to us.

Maybe. But I doubt it. I've broken a player's leg before. And We had both been kicking lumps out of each other the whole game. We both went in for a 50/50 ball like idiots at pace and he pulled out at the last second. I was so caught up in making sure he knew he wasn't getting one over on me I just ploughed in. I caught him bad. To be honest I felt like puking when I saw what I'd done. I never intended to break his leg but I still did. I didn't even get booked but I was just out of that game from then on. My coach took me off. I was upset for days afterwards and felt like a cunt TBH.

Similarly the guy that broke my ankle a couple years ago was distraught when he saw it. He had gone in well OTT but I believe he didn't intend to break my ankle. He wanted to mark his territory, leave it a bit late, make me think twice about running at him again. It's reckless and foolish I accept but it is a part of a lot of players' games.

I happens. Players go in hard. I think 99% of them would feel genuinely remorseful after doing such a serious injury to a fellow player. Especially one like Ramsey - a decent lad, not mouthy or known for being a dirty player or an arrogant wanker.

Thanks for sharing this mate

Can I just ask you, regarding statements in bold...is that intention to hurt, or is it something else?

I honestly think it was intention to intimidate. I know that sounds a bit lame... but my intention wasn't to hurt the guy, but I did want him to believe he wouldn't come off best if it came down to a 50/50.

As for the guy that did me, I believe the same was the case. It's about intimidation sometimes I suppose. But I doubt many players set out to break another player's leg intentionally.

Having said all this I have seen some dirty fuckers that go in to hurt people (particularly in the ammatuer game) lads that throw elbows etc...

[worthing_gooner]

I'm not sure its just the Ramsey thing we're angry about, although obviously that's a major factor, its the build up of years of "lets get at arsenal", "lets get in their faces", "lets rough them up".

By the by, if those are the tactics you choose, there are bound to be a few mistimed tackles. What's also annoying more than anything is that everyone comes out and says Shawcross is "not that type of player"... I should fucking hope not - you'd have to be a psycho to want to break someone's leg.

Having said that, Shawcross could've pulled out of the tackle and certainly didnt have to go in for a full power hoof like he did. Sometimes players just have to admit that they've been beaten by quick feet and leave it alone, but even if they dont, there's no need to go in hard on someone, trip them up or clip their heels!

Another valid point I read earlier is that players get away with far too many serious incidents where trivial stuff is punished in the same way. For song to get a two match ban and Shawcross to only get three is frankly ridiculous. There's a huge disciplinary problem in the english game and it still hasn't been addressed by an FA which is shit scared to do anything about it.

Anyone remember Nolan against Anichebe last year? Two footed, over the top, right onto Anichebe's leg. How the hell that didn't break is anyone's guess, but a three match ban? And then "Nolan is not that kind of guy"?? Fuck off. This is the kind of thing which happens too often in our league and something needs to be done about it before some other poor sod is crippled!

[treygoony]

That's one thing that pisses me off. "shawcross isn't that type of person, he'd never do this" blah blah blah.

What about the Jeffers injury in 2007?

Twats

[SPUDMASHER]

I'm responding here to the original thread post.

I think you've made some valid points there. I agree with you on some aspects but not others.

You say that there are no pro's out there that would set out to hurt another player but I distinctly recall John Terry going for Cesc a couple of years back. Fortunately he missed and was 'done' by Eboue thirty seconds later. I think that if you've had the piss taken out ofyou by some young whizzkid for more than an hour, any person is liable to snap and have a go at them regardless of their playing status.

It's okay to dismiss the likes of Brazil and Collydogger but the fact remains that people do listen to them and the media in general. These people advocate the roughing up of Arsenal as being the only way to beat them. It is partly because of the media circus that surrounds football today that peoples opinions are formed and if you know you cannot beat them by playing football then the next best method will do!

For what it is worth I don't think Shawcross meant to cause Ramsey any harm at all. That tackle was totally different to the scandalous one that did Eduardo. I do think it was reckless though and by reckless I mean he knew there was a potential to cause an injury. Not an intention, but a potential. Now, we see players pull out of tackles all the time when they think they might get hurt. We saw it Saturday with Eduardo (although to be fair his judgement may not be the best these days) so we know without doubt that a footballer can consider what they are doing whilst doing it. As such it makes his actions every bit as inexcusable as they would be had he intended it. The power with which Shawcross tried to kick that ball was immense. Had he connected with it then it would either have left the ground, or burst. He went way beyond what could be considered a reasonable level of aggression in a professional arena. I have no problem with the physical aspect of football. I was a physical player myself so I know it is a valuable tool. Teams like Chelsea and manure know how to use that physical game without putting others at risk. You only have to look at our recent games against them to see that. Some of these clubs are sent out of the dressing room armed with:-
1)a comment from their manager to hassle and make life hard. Don't let Arsenal play.
2)a media bandwagon winding them up by reminding them how inferior they are,and
3) a massive desire to not become another team to be outclassed by Arsenal!

Combine that and add a little bit of professional pride getting hurt and you have a recipe for incidents like this. It will happen again too unless something is done to stop it.

[augie]

I'm sorry but I aint a forgiving type and I aint having this "there was no intent" type of defence - I dont really give a continental fcuk if there was intent or not but what I do know for a fact is that it was a very bad tackle. On motd sat night they showed a still pic of the contact to prove that shawcross's studs were not showing but they totally ignored the fact that the same pic showed the guy's tackle went over the ball

I find it hard to fathom that it seems in england that the first reaction is to defend the culprit rather than the victim If you try to defend a guy based on the "he is not that type of guy" arguement then his previous "assaults" should be brought up but if you decide to ignore his history and judge this incident based purely on the tackle itself then it has to be admitted that it was a very poor tackle. Concern about how this will affect shawcross mentally is frankly laughable cos in all honesty it is very possible that ramsey will never be the same player again if every time he has to go in for a tackle this incident is in his mind

Many of you will be well aware that I am (still) firmly in the wenger has run his course camp but on this occasion I am 100% behind him. You cannot ignore the fact that there is a policy amongst other teams that kicking our players is the way to go. You cannot recklessly advocate that policy (as the media hacks do and indeed fuller did last week) but also ignore the risks that are associated with it. If the media wish for football to regress back to the 70's and 80's were kicking wasnt just an accepted practice it was actively encouraged then they are going the right way about it. I am not saying that skill players should go more or better protection than your average player but the rules of the game should be enforced and not bent to breaking point as now seems to be the case

In summation I will say that if shawcross's past indescretions havent altered his mindset then maybe a punishment message should be sent out to him and every other clogger, small time manager and xenophobic media hack who advocates roughing up an opposition player beyond what the rules allow will no longer be tolerated

[Its Up 4 Grabs Now]

The power with which Shawcross tried to kick that ball was immense. Had he connected with it then it would either have left the ground, or burst. He went way beyond what could be considered a reasonable level of aggression in a professional arena.

Agreed, if anything it was the unnecessarily OTT aggression/force he went in with that was partly to blame for him getting there late in the first place cos rather than just trying to get to the ball first he took aim with a massive swing. And that’s part of the mentality I was talking about, given a 50/50ish chance to win the ball back for his team he all too instinctively cut down his chances of winning it in order to apply maximum force to the challenge - way above what was actually necessary.

I’ve nothing really against “laying down a markerâ€

[flash gunner]

It's okay to dismiss the likes of Brazil and Collydogger but the fact remains that people do listen to them and the media in general. These people advocate the roughing up of Arsenal as being the only way to beat them. It is partly because of the media circus that surrounds football today that peoples opinions are formed and if you know you cannot beat them by playing football then the next best method will do!

For what it is worth I don't think Shawcross meant to cause Ramsey any harm at all. That tackle was totally different to the scandalous one that did Eduardo. I do think it was reckless though and by reckless I mean he knew there was a potential to cause an injury. Not an intention, but a potential. Now, we see players pull out of tackles all the time when they think they might get hurt. We saw it Saturday with Eduardo (although to be fair his judgement may not be the best these days) so we know without doubt that a footballer can consider what they are doing whilst doing it. As such it makes his actions every bit as inexcusable as they would be had he intended it. The power with which Shawcross tried to kick that ball was immense. Had he connected with it then it would either have left the ground, or burst. He went way beyond what could be considered a reasonable level of aggression in a professional arena. I have no problem with the physical aspect of football. I was a physical player myself so I know it is a valuable tool. Teams like Chelsea and manure know how to use that physical game without putting others at risk. You only have to look at our recent games against them to see that. Some of these clubs are sent out of the dressing room armed with:-

Well said spuddy exactly what ive been saying over the last couple of days