The Soccer Thread

[Bigpapa42]

Fuck Ryan Shawcross. Fuck the EPL for doing nothing to stop that shit.

 

[wr50l]

Oh piss off Arsene, Cesc and BigPapa - the tackle was a legitimate 50-50 ball which was timed badly. Studs weren't showing, foot wasn't planted onto Ramsey's ankle. Quit being bitch-made Arsenal, the world isn't conspiring against you.

 

[Archer]

Lol @ Cesc asking for more protection

They sent him off ... what more do they want? They want the ref to step in the way of the tackle? It was clumsy and badly timed and nothing more

 

[Bigpapa42]

Oh piss off Arsene, Cesc and BigPapa - the tackle was a legitimate 50-50 ball which was timed badly. Studs weren't showing, foot wasn't planted onto Ramsey's ankle. Quit being bitch-made Arsenal, the world isn't conspiring against you.

It wasn't a horror tackle. It was a poor decision and a "wild lunge" which had a terrible result. My issue with such things is that the consequences to the offending player don't change at all based on the outcome of that poor decision. That simply doesn't make sense to me. In other sports, the consequences depend on the result. In hockey, a high stick or cross check is going to be penalized based on the result. If you just knock the player down, you get 2 minutes. If you manage to severely but unintentionally injure the player and put them out of the sport for a year, the consequences will be more severe. That is simply understood - the league is going to hand out a suspension for it. It is the combination of the poor decision, reckless play, and outcome that determine the consequences. But not in soccer.

 

[Prodigal Son]

The EPL will suspend people if they feel they purposely tried to hurt someone or depending on how reckless the challenge was that caused an injury. The same can be said about the NHL. Scott Stevens nearly killed half the NHL, yet if my memory serves me right, he never served a long suspension.

 

[Bigpapa42]

The EPL will suspend people if they feel they purposely tried to hurt someone or depending on how reckless the challenge was that caused an injury. The same can be said about the NHL. Scott Stevens nearly killed half the NHL, yet if my memory serves me right, he never served a long suspension.

The basic difference between Stevens putting people out is that hitting is legal in hockey. Most of those hits weren't even dirty, at least by the standard at the time. So its pretty tough to punish someone for a completely legal play that results in injury. Its when its an illegal play, a foul. A missed tackle where the defender gets the player is an illegal play, and I think more comparable to a high stick or cross check.

The problem with the current approach, I feel, is that intent is very tough to prove. And even horror shock tackles rarely seem to have extra punishment attached. I don't recall the bad tackles that resulted to long-term injuries to Eduardo and Diaby received any additional punishment, and they were both pretty awful.

 

[Archer]

The basic difference between Stevens putting people out is that hitting is legal in hockey. Most of those hits weren't even dirty, at least by the standard at the time. So its pretty tough to punish someone for a completely legal play that results in injury. Its when its an illegal play, a foul. A missed tackle where the defender gets the player is an illegal play, and I think more comparable to a high stick or cross check.

The problem with the current approach, I feel, is that intent is very tough to prove. And even horror shock tackles rarely seem to have extra punishment attached. I don't recall the bad tackles that resulted to long-term injuries to Eduardo and Diaby received any additional punishment, and they were both pretty awful.

That's the way it is. Right or wrong you never see extra punishments for it.

Roy Keane is the only player I remember getting banned for extra time and that was because he admitted to wanting to hurt the other guy months before actually doing it.

I just don't understand Wenger or Arsenal at all. They are not the only club to have players hurt by shockingly bad tackles yet they claim that it's one big thing against them

What more protection do they want [Cesc asked for more]? Will a longer ban really stop Shawcross from going in for a normal tackle but poorly timing it in a clumsy manner? I see that tackle in the championship on an almost weekly basis but luckily nobody is hurt most of the time. How do they stop that?

Also lol @ Wenger moaning about teams being dirty

He must forget he once had Viera, Adams, Winterburn, Dixon and Bould.

 

[1ke]

All I know is Showcross is a Red Devil at heart still....

 

[Prodigal Son]

The basic difference between Stevens putting people out is that hitting is legal in hockey. Most of those hits weren't even dirty, at least by the standard at the time. So its pretty tough to punish someone for a completely legal play that results in injury. Its when its an illegal play, a foul. A missed tackle where the defender gets the player is an illegal play, and I think more comparable to a high stick or cross check.

The problem with the current approach, I feel, is that intent is very tough to prove. And even horror shock tackles rarely seem to have extra punishment attached. I don't recall the bad tackles that resulted to long-term injuries to Eduardo and Diaby received any additional punishment, and they were both pretty awful.

Tackling is legal in soccer. If someone gets hurt from a tackle it's the equivalent to getting hurt from a hit in Hockey. Both are allowed in their respective sports, and both have illegal types and cheap shots. Scott Stevens had many hits that were on the same level as what happened this past weekend with Arsenal.

The FA will suspend players if they deem it necessary for any offense a player may commit. How many times has Rooney been banned for multiple games for bitching to the ref, and Ferdinand has been suspended for over a month because he elbowed someone during a game.

The FA takes care of it's trash. For example, Vinny Jones. Banned indefinetely.

 

[Bigpapa42]

What more protection do they want [Cesc asked for more]? Will a longer ban really stop Shawcross from going in for a normal tackle but poorly timing it in a clumsy manner? I see that tackle in the championship on an almost weekly basis but luckily nobody is hurt most of the time. How do they stop that?

There is my issue with the tackle right there. A "normal" tackle (winnable) but done in a clumsy or out of control manner. An injury results. If Shawcross makes that tackle in a controlled manner - as in, he doesn't wipe out the opposing player if he misses the ball, there is no injury. There is no issue. If Shawcross knew that he could face more serious sanctions if he injuries the player on the tackle if he fails to get the ball, does he not make a bigger effort to make the tackle under control? Potential heavier sanctions won't and shouldn't keep players from making tackles, but it could/should reduce the out-of-control, poorly-timed, and clumsy ones. Because those are the ones that are likely to result in injury.

Just because such clumsy tackles happen frequently in the Championship, I don't see how that makes it fine for them to be okay in the EPL, regardless of consequence. Is it wrong to hope that the higher league has a higher standard?

Tackling is legal in soccer. If someone gets hurt from a tackle it's the equivalent to getting hurt from a hit in Hockey. Both are allowed in their respective sports, and both have illegal types and cheap shots. Scott Stevens had many hits that were on the same level as what happened this past weekend with Arsenal.

The FA will suspend players if they deem it necessary for any offense a player may commit. How many times has Rooney been banned for multiple games for bitching to the ref, and Ferdinand has been suspended for over a month because he elbowed someone during a game.

The FA takes care of it's trash. For example, Vinny Jones. Banned indefinetely.

The cheap hits Stevens made (and I am not a Stevens fan) were often hits to the head. That used to be much less of a concern than it is now. That's part of the reason the NHL rarely did much. If you go back further, massive cheap shots and stick work didn't really generate any league response either.

As for the suspensions the FA does hand out, that doesn't really make it better in my mind. Arguing with the ref or throwing elbows doesn't really have a place in the game. I just don't see those as somehow worse than making a choice to make a poor tackle that results in a serious injury. Yes, there is an element on luck in that, but there is still a choice and an action.

 

[wr50l]

There is my issue with the tackle right there. A "normal" tackle (winnable) but done in a clumsy or out of control manner. An injury results. If Shawcross makes that tackle in a controlled manner - as in, he doesn't wipe out the opposing player if he misses the ball, there is no injury. There is no issue. If Shawcross knew that he could face more serious sanctions if he injuries the player on the tackle if he fails to get the ball, does he not make a bigger effort to make the tackle under control? Potential heavier sanctions won't and shouldn't keep players from making tackles, but it could/should reduce the out-of-control, poorly-timed, and clumsy ones. Because those are the ones that are likely to result in injury.

I just don't agree with you at all on this. For starters I take issue with the description of Shawcross' tackle as clumsy and out of control. That is a yellow card if Ramsey didn't get injured, it is not recklessly dangerous, it is just a mistiming. Mistimed tackles account for most of the fouls in every football game. It's just particularly unfortunate that this mistimed tackle happened in a 50-50 ball. You know the inherent dangers of two players closing in on a loose ball at speed and meeting at almost exactly the same time, there is no margin for error. If anything this is Aaron Ramsey's fault for not following rule #1 of the 50-50 ball - to go in as hard as the other guy.

I just want to reiterate, to me this is an unfortunate accident. These things happen. Had Shawcross came in high, lead with studs or trodden or Ramsey's leg this would be a different story. An indefinite ban as far as I'm concerned because I hate that reckless disregard for another player so much (see it go unpunished on the weekly basis too). Shawcross simply went for the ball with a legitimate style, and fate made things go horribly wrong.

 

[Bigpapa42]

I just don't agree with you at all on this. For starters I take issue with the description of Shawcross' tackle as clumsy and out of control. That is a yellow card if Ramsey didn't get injured, it is not recklessly dangerous, it is just a mistiming. Mistimed tackles account for most of the fouls in every football game. It's just particularly unfortunate that this mistimed tackle happened in a 50-50 ball. You know the inherent dangers of two players closing in on a loose ball at speed and meeting at almost exactly the same time, there is no margin for error. If anything this is Aaron Ramsey's fault for not following rule #1 of the 50-50 ball - to go in as hard as the other guy.

I just want to reiterate, to me this is an unfortunate accident. These things happen. Had Shawcross came in high, lead with studs or trodden or Ramsey's leg this would be a different story. An indefinite ban as far as I'm concerned because I hate that reckless disregard for another player so much (see it go unpunished on the weekly basis too). Shawcross simply went for the ball with a legitimate style, and fate made things go horribly wrong.

Seems a little harsh to blame the guy who had his leg broken, but sure, okay. And given that Ramsey going in on Shawcross from that angle probably would have meant putting studs into Shawcross' knee, but sure. He should've done that, I guess.

There was definitely less to it than the tackles that took out Eduardo and Diaby. But the result is the same. The descriptors of "clumsy" is how it was described by Archer. Call it poorly-timed then. I guess asking a player to have to take responsibility for their decision making and timing is too much... Easier to blame the guy who had his leg broken. And yes, luck obviously played into it... but it wasn't the pure result of bad luck. That's a Cisse type break.

What's done is done. Ramsey isn't going to be un-injured no matter what happens to Shawcross. I just don't want to see these injuries happen in the future when they are, to at least some degree, preventable. I'm not saying I don't want to see them happen to Arsenal players - I don't want to see them happen at all. I wouldn't feel different about it if Fabregas had ended up injuring the Stoke player with his stupid challenge late in the match.

 

[wr50l]

I think it's more than a little harsh to blame Shawcross and call for additional punishment when he was playing football the way it is meant to be played. Eyes on the ball, not leading with the studs. That's about as safe as a foul can be. This injury is pure luck - one Stoke player put it best when he said

"The two players could go in for that tackle 100 times again and nothing would happen."

I don't think it's any coincidence that you are coming from a totally different plain of thought on this, as frankly I've yet to hear a comment from any Arsenal man that I didn't ind ridiculous. Whether it's you, Wenger, Fabregas or some old retired player who for some reason can only see one thing because he thinks he's still a member of the team. Disagree with that as you wish.

Just remember, just because you play football the beautiful way, doesn't mean you're not playing football.

 

[Bigpapa42]

I guess your perspective changes a bit when you have three players destroyed in four seasons. Has any other team in the EPL, or even the Championship, suffered that many serious injuries directly due to tackles in that short of a time period? "Bad luck" starts to sound like bullshit after awhile.

I don't particularly agree with Wenger or Fab about "protection". I'm not even sure what that means, and big clubs already get a degree of that from refs compared to the smaller clubs. I don't really think its a conspiracy, either. Its just the way clubs play against Arsenal, and blame goes just as much to Wenger for not adapting to it.

I would be happy if there was even the possibility of extra sanctions for injuring a player through a tackle. If the EPL looked at this one and said it was just bad luck, 3 matches is enough for Shawcross, fine. But the next time there is a tackle like the ones that took out Diaby and Eduardo, maybe 3 games becomes 6 or 10.

 

[BigHouseUSA]

I don't know if it's as much as the way clubs play against Arsenal, but how Arsenal play. No other club in England play that much in the midfield, with the ball almost always at their feet. That allows for a lot more opportunities to make a tackle, and with small clubs trying to outwork and out-tackle bigger clubs, it's going to happen more.

 

[Archer]

Teams can't match talent for talent with teams like Arsenal so they obviously try and be more physical against them [not dirty]. Arsenal also play alot of passing football with the ball along the ground which allows for more chances at hard challenges. Wenger needs to adapt his squad ... it's not fit for the EPL AT ALL. When he actually managed to win trophies he always had a physical presence in the team [Adams, Viera etc].

It's the way football is ... flair players will always get fouled more . Watch a Barca game and see how many times teams take shots at Messi .

 

[Tearz49ers]

"It just seems that teams who can't beat Arsenal, Kick Arsenal"

A famous quote from Arsene Wenger right there. You will notice something with Arsene is that he will always defend his players right down to any point the prime example is he didn't blame Fabianski for the mistake at Porto a few weeks back.

The problem I feel is that anyone who isn't an Arsenal fan feels that all the other teams in the Premier League are out there to hurt Arsenal. Sorry but if that were true then they would do this to clubs such as Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United but apart from the odd tackle here and there.

I am sorry but if anyone thinks that other professionals set out to do damage to Arsenal players then in my mind they are retarded.

If you look at the Eduardo tackle: Taylor had his eyes on the ball at all times, not one did he lift his head and look at Eduardo. The reason he didn't get the ball was the quick feet of Eduardo who took the ball out slightly leaving both his own legs open to what happened. I am not saying its his own fault but just making a point that it wasn't on purpose and if Eduardo had let the ball just go straight on Taylor would have got the ball if you understand what I mean.

Again with the Ramsey injury: Shawcross's eyes were on the ball, the slightest touch took it away from the tackle leaving him to go over the ball slightly and connect with Ramsey in a 50/50 challenge. The reason the damage was so extreme was down to the pace both were going for the ball at.

I hate to see anything like this to anyone. I just don't see where any Arsenal person is coming from when they are calling it a conspiracy. As I said if that were the case more “Little” clubs would be doing that to some off the other teams in the league.

 

[BigHouseUSA]

Owen injured?

No way!

Haha, everyone new it was going to happen. On the same kind of run he's gotten hurt on so many times before too.

I don't want to make a knee jerk statement here, especially because Newcastle are up 3-0, but with 10-men and a rather unconvincing first half performance, but...

I think we've all but secured promotion. Right now, if scores stay the same we're up 9 on West Brom, and 10 on Forest. All we need to do is finish 2nd, with 12 1/2 games left. The way we're playing, and Forest's recent form, only a catastrophic event will mean we have to go through the playoffs.

 

[Archer]

Make that 4-0 . Awesome goal from Jonas

 

[BigHouseUSA]

He pulled the mask out. It's over, see you in the Prem next season.