aaron ramsey

[davieG]

Thoughtful piece in todays Mail by Samuel:

It was a familiar speech. ‘There is no way that was a malicious challenge,’ said David Kemp, assistant manager of Stoke City. ‘Ryan isn’t that sort of player. It was probably a new experience for him to get frustrated, that’s why he chased down the ball and made that tackle.

‘There was no malicious intent. It was a genuine attempt. We’ve seen far worse challenges go unpunished. It was just one of those football injuries, one of those incidents that frequently happen in the game. Before long Ryan might be on the end of one himself.’

Over time, only the names change. The quickest of wit will have spotted that Kemp is now Stoke’s chief scout, not assistant to Tony Pulis. His observation was not from Saturday, when Shawcross broke the leg of Aaron Ramsey, but from 2007 when he broke the leg of Francis Jeffers of Sheffield Wednesday with a tackle from behind. Maybe Arsene Wenger is correct not to believe in coincidence.

Shawcross left the Britannia Stadium distraught at this latest calamity. So he should be. Ramsey is a precociously-talented teenage footballer, and who knows when he will play again, or what path his career will now take?

These days, football gets its mitigations in early. It was the first time Shawcross has received a red card; he has subsequently and justifiably been called into the England squad and the majority agree there was no desire to harm in his challenge.

Yet malicious intent - the motivation to actually cause serious injury - is rare in football. One thinks of Roy Keane’s tackle on Alf Inge Haaland in the Manchester derby or the one by Gavin Maguire of Queens Park Rangers that ended the career of England full back Danny Thomas, and resulted in a compensation pay-out of £130,000.

Shawcross did not tackle Ramsey like that. He did however arrive late and with sufficient abandon to lose any chance of controlling the consequences. The greatest sickness in English football is that we do not recognise the wrong in that. ‘Spare me about how nice Shawcross is,’ Arsene Wenger, the Arsenal manager, said acidly; but the testimonials to his decency were already under construction.

And, despite his previous with Jeffers, Shawcross does not seem a wicked sort; yet neither was Martin Taylor of Birmingham City, the defender who shattered Eduardo’s leg almost two years ago to the day. So when Wenger dismisses the idea of coincidence in the number, and severity, of serious injuries Arsenal suffer during matches - three broken legs from foul tackles in five years - he has a point.

If his players were the victims of notorious hard men, Tommy Smith types who leave a string of wounded victims scattered in their wake throughout football, it might be coincidence. That two players with little reputation for brutality - certainly Taylor was a boy scout compared to most central defenders - end up making potentially career-ending tackles against players from the same club demands closer inspection.

Wenger believes players are told to get at Arsenal by roughing them up, and the evidence, while circumstantial, suggests he has a point. Shawcross did not seek to injure Ramsey but he will no doubt be aware of the theory that Arsenal don’t like it up them, and may have responded accordingly. Perhaps he heard it in the dressing room before the game.

Stoke City are not a dirty team and Pulis has done an exceptional job there, but is it beyond the realms of possibility that he employed one of football’s many euphemisms, prior to the game? Something about letting them know you are there, or seeing if they fancy it? What do these phrases mean if not ‘go in extra hard and test their courage’? And, at that point, are the margins between hard/fair and hard/dangerous not frighteningly small?

Pulis would never say ‘go out and break Ramsey’s leg’, and any coach who talks in those terms is despised by his contemporaries, but that does not mean Stoke’s management team did not place emphasis on the physical aspect of the game.

Let’s face it, no manager outside the top of the Premier League is going to attempt to win by out-passing Arsenal. Kevin Keegan, ever the optimist, tried it during his brief return to Newcastle United, lost heavily twice, and was mocked for his naivety.

Even Chelsea, who have beaten Arsenal 5-0 on aggregate in two matches this season, did so while making full use of their physical advantages. With players such as Didier Drogba, Michael Ballack and John Terry, they out-muscled Arsenal and, in doing so, out-played them, too. Wenger moaned after the game, but was dismissed. Chelsea were clearly superior and Arsenal could not compete with their athleticism, which then led to domination in technical areas. Yet, however baseless his complaints on those occasions, Wenger has the beginnings of an argument in the way Arsenal are regarded as a soft touch, and therefore fair game for bullies.

Wenger feels that because English football believes Arsenal’s largely foreign squad is excessively fancy, this creates a climate which legitimises rough tactics as a way of beating them.

Chris Morgan, captain of Sheffield United, punched Robin van Persie, the Arsenal striker, in the ribs on the blind side during a match in 2006, but after the game there was greater focus on Van Persie’s refusal to offer his hand at the end. As if an off-the-ball punch was something Arsenal’s softies just had to overcome, and they were bad sports if they could not. In essence, while English football employs this mindset, it is playing a version of the rules, not the real thing.

It wasn't a bad tackle’ is the standard line, isn’t it? On the sofa, in the studio, in the press box, from the phone-ins. It didn't look that bad. There wasn't much intent. He's not that kind of player. He was just too quick for him. I thought the ref had a good game, actually. He let it flow. This last phrase - and we have all used it - translates as letting the players operate on the absolute boundaries of what is legal; a standing leg on this side of the divide, a raised foot on the other.

The reaction to the Shawcross and Taylor tackles is telling. Alan Hansen, Alan Shearer and Gary Lineker were stoic over what Shawcross had done, reviewing the footage on Match of the Day. Similarly, at the time of the Taylor tackle on Eduardo, Steve Bruce, a respected central defender, now manager of Sunderland and his former boss at Birmingham, did not even see the challenge as a yellow card.

From season to season, the justifications are unaltered. More than three decades experience in English football at least made Kemp smart enough to predict that the challenge on Jeffers was not the last leg-breaking tackle in which Shawcross would be involved. And he is one of the good guys, apparently.

There, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Correct, but he's missing something - the way many players disguise their intentions when making a challenge/tackle by masking their emotions (usually by avoiding eye contact with their opponent/victim by pretending to focus on the ball or on some distant point on the horizon - Shawcross clearly did this) and by feigning innocence after the deed by throwing their hands up and/or rolling on the ground.

I love the way Arsenal play football but if anybody thinks they don't..

"employ one of football’s many euphemisms, prior to the game? Something about letting them know you are there, or seeing if they fancy it? What do these phrases mean if not ‘go in extra hard and test their courage’? And, at that point, are the margins between hard/fair and hard/dangerous not frighteningly small?"

.....when the need arises then they are naivety itself.

Have those Arsenal sycophants forgotten Adams & Keown in fact I bet there isn't a defender anywhere in the world who's not gone out to see 'if they fancy it".

There's a hell of a lot of self righteousness in football regarding dangerous play, cheating, biased refereeing and the biggest culprits are the manager's of the biggest and most successful clubs.

[Leicester Rule!]

What tackle was worse?

Ballack's on Tevez or Shawcross's on Ramsey?

[Manwell Pablo]

I just can't get over the fact that Shawcross's Mummy had to come and pick him up from the Brittania . How old is he 12?

[Fosse Fox]

I love the way Arsenal play football but if anybody thinks they don't..

.....when the need arises then they are naivety itself.

Have those Arsenal sycophants forgotten Adams & Keown in fact I bet there isn't a defender anywhere in the world who's not gone out to see 'if they fancy it".

There's a hell of a lot of self righteousness in football regarding dangerous play, cheating, biased refereeing and the biggest culprits are the manager's of the biggest and most successful clubs.

Agreed. Wenger was somewhat coy about a disgraceful challenge that Monsieur Gallas made recently that went unpunished and led directly to an Arsenal goal.

However, having said that, I do feel that Arsenal are being targeted - too many of their players are being laid out by serious challenges (eg Theo Walcott - every opponent now knows about his dislocating shoulders). Some of this might be a response to the technical way Arsenal play but there might be more to it than that. Can't help feeling that Wenger is a very unpopular figure in English football and the hosiltiy he attracts makes it harder for his players.

Put it another way, if say it was Wayne Rooney that went the way of Aaron Ramsey in similar circumstances yesterday I doubt very much whether there would be very much sympathy on this forum for the culprit even if he'd commited Hara-kiri on the pitch.

[davieG]

Agreed. Wenger was somewhat coy about a disgraceful challenge that Monsieur Gallas made recently that went unpunished and led directly to an Arsenal goal.

However, having said that, I do feel that Arsenal are being targeted - too many of their players are being laid out by serious challenges (eg Theo Walcott - every opponent now knows about his dislocating shoulders). Some of this might be a response to the technical way Arsenal play but there might be more to it than that. Can't help feeling that Wenger is a very unpopular figure in English football and the hosiltiy he attracts makes it harder for his players.

Put it another way, if say it was Wayne Rooney that went the way of Aaron Ramsey in similar circumstances yesterday I doubt very much whether there would be very much sympathy on this forum for the culprit even if he'd commited Hara-kiri on the pitch.

But they're are not being targeted leastwise no more than any other team that has potential 'weaknesses' to exploit. Do people not think that managers everywhere are identifying 'soft' players, every team has them. Arsenal may have a few more than others but they've also got exploiters in their team. So to get all self righteous about it is a nonsense.

Oh and fans themselves are as hypocritical as they come - I'm sure I've heard Leicester fans singing about Brown breaking legs, now I wonder where on earth they got the idea he'd be capable of such a thing.

[Uncle Albert]

These things happen in football, it could of happened to Sol Campbell how Ramsay was running with the ball, we all seen Ramsay's ankle before the tackle happened, look awkward running then, so any clatter from any player was going to cause damage. If people seriously believe that Stoke players were instructed to target Arsenal players then they are more of a moron than Wenger.

[Fosse Fox]

But they're are not being targeted leastwise no more than any other team that has potential 'weaknesses' to exploit. Do people not think that managers everywhere are identifying 'soft' players, every team has them. Arsenal may have a few more than others but they've also got exploiters in their team. So to get all self righteous about it is a nonsense.

Oh and fans themselves are as hypocritical as they come - I'm sure I've heard Leicester fans singing about Brown breaking legs, now I wonder where on earth they got the idea he'd be capable of such a thing.

We may have to agree to disagree on that. However, whether or not Arsenal (or technical sides in general) are being targeted is not my main concern.

What really bothers me is the general lack of awareness among fans and pundits that the serious career and even life threatening challenges that are presented to them as 'unintentional' and 'accidental' are anything but. They are premeditated, cynical and cold blooded acts of violence that are, at the very least, designed to take an opponent out of the game.

Central defenders who go up with their elbows akimbo don't do that to keep their balance - they do it to break jaws, shatter eye sockets and crack temples. And when ball winning midfielders go sliding in studs-up up with that strange glazed look they are not doing it to win a 50/50 they are doing it to leave an impression on their opponents leg, groin and torso.

The problem is that we have become overly sensitive to cheating in the form of diving and feigning injury that we are completely blind to cheating in the form of reckless tackles and dangerous challenges. In the latter case, the trick here is to make something deliberate appear accidental.

And that is so easy to do and so hard to spot.

[davieG]

We may have to agree to disagree on that. However, whether or not Arsenal (or technical sides in general) are being targeted is not my main concern.

What really bothers me is the general lack of awareness among fans and pundits that the serious career and even life threatening challenges that are presented to them as 'unintentional' and 'accidental' are anything but. They are premeditated, cynical and cold blooded acts of violence that are, at the very least, designed to take an opponent out of the game.

Central defenders who go up with their elbows akimbo don't do that to keep their balance - they do it to break jaws, shatter eye sockets and crack temples. And when ball winning midfielders go sliding in studs-up up with that strange glazed look they are not doing it to win a 50/50 they are doing it to leave an impression on their opponents leg, groin and torso.

The problem is that we have become overly sensitive to cheating in the form of diving and feigning injury that we are completely blind to cheating in the form of reckless tackles and dangerous challenges. In the latter case, the trick here is to make something deliberate appear accidental.

And that is so easy to do and so hard to spot.

I'm not sure we differing as such, your highlight missed out an important aspect of my views which I'll re-state all team are subject to this and all teams have their share of exploiters of this type of tactic.

As for them being pre-meditated, they may be but I doubt very much that the pre-meditation includes the desire to seriously injure someone.

Anyway that's not my main point which is that Arsenal are no angels and have, like most teams have and always have had these types in their arsenal (no pun intended) and it's their self righteous holier than thou attitude that irritates me.

Just to re-affirm I love the way they play their football but they are hardly a team of innocents.

[Fosse Fox]

I'm not sure we differing as such, your highlight missed out an important aspect of my views which I'll re-state all team are subject to this and all teams have their share of exploiters of this type of tactic.

As for them being pre-meditated, they may be but I doubt very much that the pre-meditation includes the desire to seriously injure someone.

Anyway that's not my main point which is that Arsenal are no angels and have, like most teams have and always have had these types in their arsenal (no pun intended) and it's their self righteous holier than thou attitude that irritates me.

Just to re-affirm I love the way they play their football but they are hardly a team of innocents.

(i) We are stressing different things. You are more concerned with Wenger's hypocrosy (and I don't deny that he is guilty in this respect) I am more bothered about violent players masking their intentions and the general lack of awareness of this cynical tactic.

(ii) I part company with you on that one though it all depends on what you mean by serious injury. Another thing to consider here is the abstract intention of 'doing' someone and then having to witness the physical consequences of one's handiwork. How much was Shawcrosses remorse due to squeamishness at the sight of gore and protruding bones?

[The Doctor]

i really don't think it was that bad a challenge - the fact that ramsey's leg was broken was pure misfortune.

And yet again wenger claims that teams try to injure them. rubbish, they try to win the ball and as with all contact sports, there will be injuries.

Shawcross didn't set out to hurt him, he set out to win the ball and accidentally caught the player instead.

[Fosse Fox]

i really don't think it was that bad a challenge - the fact that ramsey's leg was broken was pure misfortune.

And yet again wenger claims that teams try to injure them. rubbish, they try to win the ball and as with all contact sports, there will be injuries.

Shawcross didn't set out to hurt him, he set out to win the ball and accidentally caught the player instead.

If it was an 'accident' why was he sent off? And if Shawcross was sent off for an 'accidental challenge' why have his club not made a formal protest to the FA and demanded that the red card be rescinded? And if you really believe all this accident twaddle why haven't you stated that the red card should be rescinded?

Is it because you fear your intelligence/sanity being called into question?

[The Doctor]

If it was an 'accident' why was he sent off? And if Shawcross was sent off for an 'accidental challenge' why have his club not made a formal protest to the FA and demanded that the red card be rescinded? And if you really believe all this accident twaddle why haven't you stated that the red card should be rescinded?

Is it because you fear your intelligence/sanity being called into question?

Questions 1 & 2 : Just because i believe it was an accident doesn't mean the ref or stoke did.

3: Because i have better things to do than care about the premiership (e.g. moan about the standard of reffing at ibrox yesterday).

4: Not really - see my previous answer for more details.

[davieG]

(i) We are stressing different things. You are more concerned with Wenger's hypocrosy (and I don't deny that he is guilty in this respect) I am more bothered about violent players masking their intentions and the general lack of awareness of this cynical tactic.

(ii) I part company with you on that one though it all depends on what you mean by serious injury. Another thing to consider here is the abstract intention of 'doing' someone and then having to witness the physical consequences of one's handiwork. How much was Shawcrosses remorse due to squeamishness at the sight of gore and protruding bones?

Well we certainly do part company because I do not believe that 99.99% of players go out with the intention of causing any injury, at worse I believe they are trying to 'frighten' weaker/younger players to under-perform and it's hardly a new phenomenon in football or indeed in many sports, gamesmanship has always been part of sport in one guise or another.

I don't excuse it, it can go go wrong and does on occasion and when it does it's can be pretty awful but as I said any manager that tries to take the moral high ground is a hypocrite, and this applies to the majority of fans who seem quite relaxed about there own teams participation in any sort of gamesmanship but come across all hurt and righteous when their team/players are on the receiving end.

That's enough from me now I've said my piece and will step down from my soapbox.

[Fosse Fox]

Questions 1 & 2 : Just because i believe it was an accident doesn't mean the ref or stoke did.

3: Because i have better things to do than care about the premiership (e.g. moan about the standard of reffing at ibrox yesterday).

4: Not really - see my previous answer for more details.

1 & 2) If the player's own club didn't consider the tackle to be an accident there's abso****inlutely no reason whatever for you to think that it was.

3) If you care so little about the Premiership why did you post on this matter in the first place?

I too have better things to do but I wouldn't waste my time fretting over the Jock Square Conference...

[Jimothy]

i really don't think it was that bad a challenge - the fact that ramsey's leg was broken was pure misfortune.

And yet again wenger claims that teams try to injure them. rubbish, they try to win the ball and as with all contact sports, there will be injuries.

Shawcross didn't set out to hurt him, he set out to win the ball and accidentally caught the player instead.

Wenger never said teams set out to injure Arsenal players, he said it isn't coincedence that Arsenal players keep getting injured in this way. What he was implying was that when teams play with this "they don't like it up them" attitude using excessive force in tackling to knock Arsenal out of their stride, it will continue to happen. People have said it was an accidental collision. Luc Nilis with Richard Wright, that was an accidental collision, this was a reckless mistimed challenge with no thought for the outcome, and I'm not saying Shawcross meant to injure Ramsey, he was just careless.

I think it's good that teams use their size to counteract Arsenals style play. It's fine using their strength to beat them but tackles like this are too much. They need to calm down a little.

[Fosse Fox]

Well we certainly do part company because I do not believe that 99.99% of players go out with the intention of causing any injury, at worse I believe they are trying to 'frighten' weaker/younger players to under-perform and it's hardly a new phenomenon in football or indeed in many sports, gamesmanship has always been part of sport in one guise or another.

I don't excuse it, it can go go wrong and does on occasion and when it does it's can be pretty awful but as I said any manager that tries to take the moral high ground is a hypocrite, and this applies to the majority of fans who seem quite relaxed about there own teams participation in any sort of gamesmanship but come across all hurt and righteous when their team/players are on the receiving end.

That's enough from me now I've said my piece and will step down from my soapbox.

I too will take this opportunity to bow out so here are my last words on the matter.

If it had been Wayne Rooney that had suffered a compound fracture as a result of a similar 'accidental challenge' yesterday our perception of the perpetrator and his manager would be entirely different. Why? Because Sir Alex Ferguson would see to it that the scales that currently prevent the public from seeing what really takes place on a football field would fall from its eyes.

In no time at all Sky, BBC, radio, print media and web would all be made aware of players' true intentions when they go in with flailing arms and raised studs. All Ferguson's sycophants in the 'Jock' club (Moyes & Macleish) and the 'bung' club (Allardyce and Redknapp) would be available to arselick to camera (NB froggy, intellectual Wenger doesn't have any mates).

And the boys on the MOTD sofa would get the line from their producers and there would be no more pathetic attempts to whitewash the dark arts (I've never heard such illogical bollocks as 'he was too quick for him - if the victim was that quick how comes his fookin' leg was hanging off then?). Problem is it wasn't Wayne Rooney yesterday, it was unknown Taff Saturday. So everyone will continue to believe what they are told rather than trusting in their own observations - until someone is killed.

Then it will be the Jock Square Conference for us all.

[Leicester Rule!]

I too will take this opportunity to bow out so here are my last words on the matter.

If it had been Wayne Rooney that had suffered a compound fracture as a result of a similar 'accidental challenge' yesterday our perception of the perpetrator and his manager would be entirely different. Why? Because Sir Alex Ferguson would see to it that the scales that currently prevent the public from seeing what really takes place on a football field would fall from its eyes.

In no time at all Sky, BBC, radio, print media and web would all be made aware of players' true intentions when they go in with flailing arms and raised studs. All Ferguson's sycophants in the 'Jock' club (Moyes & Macleish) and the 'bung' club (Allardyce and Redknapp) would be available to arselick to camera (NB froggy, intellectual Wenger doesn't have any mates).

And the boys on the MOTD sofa would get the line from their producers and there would be no more pathetic attempts to whitewash the dark arts (I've never heard such illogical bollocks as 'he was too quick for him - if the victim was that quick how comes his fookin' leg was hanging off then?). Problem is it wasn't Wayne Rooney yesterday, it was unknown Taff Saturday. So everyone will continue to believe what they are told rather than trusting in their own observations - until someone is killed.

Then it will be the Jock Square Conference for us all.

Are you for real!?

Had Wayne Rooney suffered a compound fracture, would be annoying with the WC coming up, but it still would be an accidental challenge. His eyes are on the ball. I play football myself at a decent level, have injured a few players in the past because I am a hard tackler - does that mean I'm a dirty player? I've got injured in the past too, annoying, but I don't regret it - its part and parcel of the game. If you don't want to see injuries like this, don't watch football, watch ice skating or something like that. Football without tackles would be the end of football as we know it.

And Campbells reaction, what a twat

[StanSP]

Are you for real!?

Had Wayne Rooney suffered a compound fracture, would be annoying with the WC coming up, but it still would be an accidental challenge. His eyes are on the ball. I play football myself at a decent level, have injured a few players in the past because I am a hard tackler - does that mean I'm a dirty player? I've got injured in the past too, annoying, but I don't regret it - its part and parcel of the game. If you don't want to see injuries like this, don't watch football, watch ice skating or something like that. Football without tackles would be the end of football as we know it.

And Campbells reaction, what a twat

You need to watch Robbie Williams' She's The One video. Shocking injury.

[Leicester Rule!]

You need to watch Robbie Williams' She's The One video. Shocking injury.

lol

[Fosse Fox]

Are you for real!?

Had Wayne Rooney suffered a compound fracture, would be annoying with the WC coming up, but it still would be an accidental challenge. His eyes are on the ball. I play football myself at a decent level, have injured a few players in the past because I am a hard tackler - does that mean I'm a dirty player? I've got injured in the past too, annoying, but I don't regret it - its part and parcel of the game. If you don't want to see injuries like this, don't watch football, watch ice skating or something like that. Football without tackles would be the end of football as we know it.

And Campbells reaction, what a twat

Sorry to break my self imposed vow of silence but your refusal to see the point that I am making is gross provocation.

Campbell reacted in the way that he did because he was traumatised by the injury Ramsey suffered (how many severed limbs have you ever seen pal?). His reaction was a loyal and honourable one and Shawcross could have had no complaints if he had decked him (tears of remorse or no tears of remorse).

As for Shawcross eyes being on the ball that means sweet fcuk all. Players who go up with the elbows often look completely the other way. Either way its never on the man and that's a giveaway.

Then there's the facial expression. Does it betray exertion/determination or is it calm/impassive/eerily composed? If it's the latter that's unnatural and another indication that a player is masking his intentions. And let's be quite clear what this disguised intention is - to take the man out.

What you are struggling to grasp is the difference between straightforward old fashioned clogging where a player fouls openly and is prepared to take his chances with the ref (you appear to describe yourself as being in this category) and the new and more sinister culture of violent play where intent is disguised and any consequential injury is assumed to be accidental. The net result is that the offender often stays on to commit more serious fouls and cause more serious injury than your average cloggie.

Read the last para above again at least three times if you intend to reply. However, my feeling that the penny will drop maybe sadly misplaced.

[Guest]

Why do I get a sense of deja vu?

[Leicester Rule!]

Sorry to break my self imposed vow of silence but your refusal to see the point that I am making is gross provocation.

Campbell reacted in the way that he did because he was traumatised by the injury Ramsey suffered (how many severed limbs have you ever seen pal?). His reaction was a loyal and honourable one and Shawcross could have had no complaints if he had decked him (tears of remorse or no tears of remorse).

As for Shawcross eyes being on the ball that means sweet fcuk all. Players who go up with the elbows often look completely the other way. Either way its never on the man and that's a giveaway.

Then there's the facial expression. Does it betray exertion/determination or is it calm/impassive/eerily composed? If it's the latter that's unnatural and another indication that a player is masking his intentions. And let's be quite clear what this disguised intention is - to take the man out.

What you are struggling to grasp is the difference between straightforward old fashioned clogging where a player fouls openly and is prepared to take his chances with the ref (you appear to describe yourself as being in this category) and the new and more sinister culture of violent play where intent is disguised and any consequential injury is assumed to be accidental. The net result is that the offender often stays on to commit more serious fouls and cause more serious injury than your average cloggie.

Read the last para above again at least three times if you intend to reply. However, my feeling that the penny will drop maybe sadly misplaced.

Read your reply 3 times....

What I'm saying is I don't believe Shawcross's tackle was violent and there was intent. And about myself, I don't foul openly and prepare to take my chances with the ref .... Been booked once in 4 years. I've heard and been told countless times "if you pull out a challenge, your more likely to get injured" ... Did Ramsey do this?? Also, why would Shawcross want to take take him out in the position he was in? Not a goal scoring opportunity or anything? It was in Arsenal's half wasn't it (though this might be incorrect)

Do you think that Ballack's tackle or Shawcross's tackle was worse this weekend?

And just for the record, I hope Ramsey recovers well and quickly, as he will be a great player, and a great addition to the game we love.

[Bugg]

Sorry to break my self imposed vow of silence but your refusal to see the point that I am making is gross provocation.

Campbell reacted in the way that he did because he was traumatised by the injury Ramsey suffered (how many severed limbs have you ever seen pal?). His reaction was a loyal and honourable one and Shawcross could have had no complaints if he had decked him (tears of remorse or no tears of remorse).

As for Shawcross eyes being on the ball that means sweet fcuk all. Players who go up with the elbows often look completely the other way. Either way its never on the man and that's a giveaway.

Then there's the facial expression. Does it betray exertion/determination or is it calm/impassive/eerily composed? If it's the latter that's unnatural and another indication that a player is masking his intentions. And let's be quite clear what this disguised intention is - to take the man out.

What you are struggling to grasp is the difference between straightforward old fashioned clogging where a player fouls openly and is prepared to take his chances with the ref (you appear to describe yourself as being in this category) and the new and more sinister culture of violent play where intent is disguised and any consequential injury is assumed to be accidental. The net result is that the offender often stays on to commit more serious fouls and cause more serious injury than your average cloggie.

Read the last para above again at least three times if you intend to reply. However, my feeling that the penny will drop maybe sadly misplaced.

Is that you Arsene?

[Fosse Fox]

Read your reply 3 times....

What I'm saying is I don't believe Shawcross's tackle was violent and there was intent. And about myself, I don't foul openly and prepare to take my chances with the ref .... Been booked once in 4 years. I've heard and been told countless times "if you pull out a challenge, your more likely to get injured" ... Did Ramsey do this?? Also, why would Shawcross want to take take him out in the position he was in? Not a goal scoring opportunity or anything? It was in Arsenal's half wasn't it (though this might be incorrect)

Do you think that Ballack's tackle or Shawcross's tackle was worse this weekend?

And just for the record, I hope Ramsey recovers well and quickly, as he will be a great player, and a great addition to the game we love.

You're alright Leicester Rule

Ramsey went for the ball, Shawcross went for Ramsey.

One of the things that marks this new kind of violence out is that much of it doesn't have anything to do with the state of play.

If you give me a link I'll give my verdict on Bollock's tackle.

[Dickie Greenleaf]

Read your reply 3 times....

What I'm saying is I don't believe Shawcross's tackle was violent and there was intent.

****S SAKE! That is not the issue. The issue is that too often players are going in with absolutely no regard for the consequences. He may not have wanted to hurt him, but because of the ignorant attitude towards defending that has been fostered in this country Shawcross (like Taylor and others before him) has managed to shatter someone's leg because of his recklesness?

Have you broken a bone in your leg? It is not simply an 'occupational hazard' of football. It takes a fooking huge amount of force to break someones leg like that. Shawcross might be a nice lad, but the tackles on Jeffers, Adebayor and Ramsey (to name 3) clearly show that players are going out with completely the wrong attitude