Aaron Ramsey tackle.

SDTimeout

I fear i'm not going to get the answer i desire in the thread. So excuse me if this is against the rules in some form.

I know there are alot of ref's on here, or people with a good understanding of the game. I remember it coming up a while ago in a liverpool match so i'm just looking for a bit of clarity.

I understand how a ref has his own judgment to implement the laws how he deems fit. So in my opinon he used law one

" serious foul play (includes any use of excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball. "

In relation to sending off Shawcross for the tackle. Am i right with this , or can any others give clarity as to why it was/ Should not have been a red card.

Tusky

Ive only seen the tackle twice (once in real time and one reply) and I'm sure that I will be in the minority in saying this, but I think a red card was harsh. It was a horrible injury, but I think it stemmed from bad luck more than anything else. I'll have to see it again though.

Mr Alan

actually tusky, the majority of people seem to be of the same opinion. I've seen it a lot now, normal speed and slowed down, i definately don't think it was a red card.

copacetic

Wasn't a red for me, terrible luck/result. However he is trying to kick a ball that is moved just as he gets there, he barely misses it and catches Ramsey's shin. The weird angle and the fact his foot is really planted caused the break. If that is a red card there would be 8 or 9 per game.

If not for the result of the tackle it would never have been a red, Ref may have given a yellow but nothing more. However I don't blame the ref, he sees the injury and assumes a terrible tackle which was probably the most likely cause at the time.

How Wenger can appeal for a longer ban afterward is beyond me. It was a slightly mistimed honest challenge.

The Muppet

I only saw the incident in real time, I havn't and won't look at any replays but I though the sending off was harsh. I don't think there was any malice in the incident , both players went for a ball that was a foot off the ground, theres always the possibilty of a leg break in those instances.

dceire

I feel bad for the poor boy Ramsey but these things happen in football and sport in general.

I don't think that Shawcross has anything to feel guilty about. In fact he was in possession of the ball, his touch before the contact was a bit heavy which allowed Ramsey to contest a 50:50 ball. Shawcross went to clear the ball, Ramsey got there just before him and received contact meant for the ball.

It was a free kick, possibly a yellow card but never a red. I've been on the receiving end of many incidents like that and came out without even a scratch. In my humble opinion it was a very unfortunate outcome to an otherwise competitive challenge for a 50:50 ball.

leninbenjamin

The way I see it Shawcross lost possession and made a desparate swipe to gain ball back. From the angles I've seen he was never in position to win the ball (the pics from behind him in particular show that he was really overstretched and completely missed the ball) and so the tackle was reckless, made with complete disregard for Ramsey's well being, and, judging by the extent of the injury, excessive forced was used.

While I don't for a second believe there was any malice or intent in the tackle, the law makes no consideration for this and so the challenge must be deemed a straight red as a consequences of the injury. The break wasn't the result of an accidental coming together, or Ramsey falling awkwardly, but a direct result of a tackle that in hindsight was excessively strong. And in accordance with the laws, that is a straight red offence.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

leninbenjamin wrote: »

The way I see it Shawcross lost possession and made a desparate swipe to gain ball back. From the angles I've seen he was never in position to win the ball (the pics from behind him in particular show that he was really overstretched and completely missed the ball) and so the tackle was reckless, made with complete disregard for Ramsey's well being, and, judging by the extent of the injury, excessive forced was used.

While I don't for a second believe there was any malice or intent in the tackle, the law makes no consideration for this and so the challenge must be deemed a straight red as a consequences of the injury. The break wasn't the result of an accidental coming together, or Ramsey falling awkwardly, but a direct result of a tackle that in hindsight was excessively strong. And in accordance with the laws, that is a straight red offence.

And who do you support again?:rolleyes:

Degag

Graphic Image - http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00096/ramsey2_682x511_96158a.jpg

As i pointed out in the other thread i think this seems to show that Ramsey's foot gave way before Shawcrosses challenge.

Eire-Dearg

I didn't want to see that.

CHD

Not a red card but you can't blame the ref when he see's Ramsay's leg hanging off can you?

Nothing but pure bad luck.

Degag

Sorry, if people don't want to see that then i can delete it, or the mods can put a warning on thread or something.

dceire

I saw that picture in the times today and thought the exact same as you. It would appear from the picture that his leg gave way before contact but I'm pretty sure that picture is in fact just after the contact was made.

copacetic

Degag_ wrote: »

As i pointed out in the other thread i think this seems to show that Ramsey's foot gave way before Shawcrosses challenge.

it doesn't show that at all, thats after the impact, there are other pictures that show Shawcross barely missed the ball and the ball, his foot and Ramseys leg are all close together.

WIZE

The way I see it its what happens in football . Happens thousands of times around the Country playing football in the park to premier league . To me it was a 50/50 challange

leninbenjamin

baz2009 wrote: »

And who do you support again?:rolleyes:

Why, is there some kind of law against me having an opinion? :rolleyes:

Shawcross kicked Ramsey's ankle with enough force to snap it like a lollipop stick. That surely qualifies as excessive force.

Btw Degag, you do realise that photo is from after contact was made? There's nothing to suggest there break wasn't simply the result of the kick.

ntlbell

A warning in the subject might be good, that's a bit hard to look at.

But I find it really hard to believe the leg gave way like that without any contact at all.

Red was harsh either way.

Frisbee

ntlbell wrote: »

A warning in the subject might be good, that's a bit hard to look at.

Agreed, I'm sure there's people who don't want to see that.

leninbenjamin

Frisbee wrote: »

Agreed, I'm sure there's people who don't want to see that.

tbh, you're a retard to click into a thread on tackle like this and not expect to have pics/vids in it.

IvySlayer

Degag, can I advise you get rid of the picture and post a link with a warning? Sick looking at that.

WIZE

With the thread title which is there I would have expected a picture in the OP

uberwolf

Degag_ wrote: »

Sorry, if people don't want to see that then i can delete it, or the mods can put a warning on thread or something.

I've stripped out the image tags, and a soccer mod can review whether it's appropriate for the forum

ntlbell

leninbenjamin wrote: »

tbh, you're a retard to click into a thread on tackle like this and not expect to have pics/vids in it.

I can watch the replay of it all day.

That picture in particular is just hard to look at.

Columbia

I think had Ramsay not received his injury then Shawcross would not have even gotten a booking. Unfortunately the ref has let the injury influence his decision, it's understandable but it's a shame. But you can't fault them for erring on the side of caution with the amount of pressure they are put under, nobody wants to be "that referee" who didn't send the guy off after a deliberate horror tackle (not that that's what this was, to be clear).

leninbenjamin

Columbia wrote: »

Unfortunately the ref has let the injury influence his decision, it's understandable but it's a shame.

Think about in terms of the rules though. That the tackle resulted in a broken leg means it was 100% certain that excessive force was used. It's one of the few occasions where the ref can say with certainty that the players safety was endangered purely because of the resulting injury makes it explicit. He had no alternative but to show a red card purely because the leg was broken.

Ickle Magoo

I imagine leg breaks from the lace-side of boots is fairly uncommon, if the ref didn't see the challenge well, he may well have assumed from the extent of the injuries that Shawcross went in studs first...

uberwolf

leninbenjamin wrote: »

That the tackle resulted in a broken leg means it was 100% certain that excessive force was used.

you can break an ankle by turning over on it, you can break a leg in a perfectly fair tackle, you can just be unlucky. I really don't think you can draw a line between cause and effect here and decide it was excessive force.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

Surely if people get red cards for hypothetical "potential leg breakers", then when the actual result is a broken leg it should be taken into account and punished with a red, regardless of intent?

I mean I agree that it wouldn't have been a red if there was no injury, but the fact is he broke is leg and that has to be deemed excessive force? Non?

copacetic

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Think about in terms of the rules though. That the tackle resulted in a broken leg means it was 100% certain that excessive force was used. It's one of the few occasions where the ref can say with certainty that the players safety was endangered purely because of the resulting injury makes it explicit. He had no alternative but to show a red card purely because the leg was broken.

No it doesn't, most breaks are due to a combination of normal force and the angles and twisting forces involved. It's extremely difficult to kick someone in the shin with your instep and break their leg without shattering your foot if force is the only question.

ntlbell

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Think about in terms of the rules though. That the tackle resulted in a broken leg means it was 100% certain that excessive force was used. It's one of the few occasions where the ref can say with certainty that the players safety was endangered purely because of the resulting injury makes it explicit. He had no alternative but to show a red card purely because the leg was broken.

It looks to me the person who was "excessive" with force was Ramsey.

IvySlayer

Is it possible Ramseys leg was already buckling and then Shawcross tackled?

Mr Alan

no. not at all, that means anytime someone is clearing a ball by hoofin it, they are using excessive force, afterall, if someone nicks it away, they're running the risk of serious injury. its just really unfortunate wat happened, and i really hope wenger apologises to shawcross and the fa overturn the red card.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

ntlbell wrote: »

It looks to me the person who was "excessive" with force was Ramsey.

Yeah cos Ramsey booted Shawcross across the shin:rolleyes:

Kirnsy

ntlbell wrote: »

It looks to me the person who was "excessive" with force was Ramsey.

What? how was ramsey using excessive force??

IvySlayer

Mr Alan wrote: »

no. not at all, that means anytime someone is clearing a ball by hoofin it, they are using excessive force, afterall, if someone nicks it away, they're running the risk of serious injury. its just really unfortunate wat happened, and i really hope wenger apologises to shawcross and the fa overturn the red card.

I thought he learned his lesson with Taylor? At least Blatter didn't comment this time...

leninbenjamin

uberwolf wrote: »

you can break an ankle by turning over on it,

Irrelevant. Then it's not a tackle. Nobody kicked anyone

uberwolf wrote: »

you can break a leg in a perfectly fair tackle, you can just be unlucky.

If it's a perfectly fair tackle you've won the ball and not made contact with the player with your leading foot.

uberwolf wrote: »

I really don't think you can draw a line between cause and effect here and decide it was excessive force.

Yes I can. Kicking the ball, fair tackle. Kicking the player = foul. Kicking the player with the force of a small truck = excessive force = serious foul play = red.

ntlbell

IvySlayer wrote: »

Is it possible Ramseys leg was already buckling and then Shawcross tackled?

I don't think so, if the boot was planted there was only going to be one outcome

leninbenjamin

ntlbell wrote: »

It looks to me the person who was "excessive" with force was Ramsey.

what makes you say that? He's coming in at pace, but he wouldn't have made contact with Shawcross if it weren't for Shawcross' lunge.

FUNKY LOVER

total fake picture.you should be banned for posting pictures which suggests it was his own fault.have you any class my god..

Frisbee

IvySlayer wrote: »

I thought he learned his lesson with Taylor? At least Blatter didn't comment this time...

Tbf his comments after the Taylor one were much worse.

He said he shouldn't be allowed play football again.

Didn't go as far with his comments this time.

ntlbell

Kirnsy wrote: »

What? how was ramsey using excessive force??

He wasn't

But both players went in to the tackle hard, if you watch it, if anyone was more forceful or with more intent it was ramsey.

he had got up more speed, shortly longer run to the ball

so how are we calculating excessiveness?

Mr Alan

he said shawcross had no respect for his opponents and should be punished frisbee, its really not on, thankfully you seem to be the only arsenal fan who acknowledged that.

ntlbell

leninbenjamin wrote: »

what makes you say that? He's coming in at pace, but he wouldn't have made contact with Shawcross if it weren't for Shawcross' lunge.

huh?

it was a 50/50 challenge? how can you say there was not going to be contact?

I think you need to watch it again

Quazzie

Mr Alan wrote: »

afterall, if someone nicks it away, they're running the risk of serious injury.

FFS I've read some shíte on this site before but that really has to be some of the worst. So a player who wins a tackle should expect to get kicked with enough force to potentially break his leg.

OPENROAD

Frisbee wrote: »

Tbf his comments after the Taylor one were much worse.

He said he shouldn't be allowed play football again.

Didn't go as far with his comments this time.

Understandable comments just after the match, maybe he should be like other managers and refuse to talk after matches, but then again people will probably attack him for doing that.

Funny people knocking Arsene for his comments will always defend there managers when they rant.

Frisbee

Mr Alan wrote: »

he said shawcross had no respect for his opponents and should be punished frisbee, its really not on, thankfully you seem to be the only arsenal fan who acknowledged that.

I know he said some pretty daft things.

But they were nowhere near as bad as his outlash at Taylor was all I was saying.

I really do expect a statement tomorrow or Tuesday explaining how his comments were made in the heat of the moment blah blah blah.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

huh?

it was a 50/50 challenge? how can you say there was not going to be contact?

I think you need to watch it again

It's not often we agree , but you are spot on there.

It was a 50/50 challenge. Very harsh red card.

leninbenjamin

ntlbell wrote: »

huh?

it was a 50/50 challenge? how can you say there was not going to be contact?

I think you need to watch it again

Funnily, I just did before I posted that. They wouldn't have. Ramsey ran across the path of Shawcross, Shawcross lunges to get the ball and his outstretched leg makes contact with Ramsey's ankle/shin area. If he doesn't lunge out with the leg they don't make contact.

Mr Alan

i hope so, cause i really feel for shawcross, wat should have been a great day for him yesterday (england call up) ended wit him being sent off unfairly, accidentally breaking a young players leg, and having one of the most respected managers in world football call for you to be punished and imply you did it on purpose.

ntlbell

Quazzie wrote: »

FFS I've read some shíte on this site before but that really has to be some of the worst. So a player who wins a tackle should expect to get kicked with enough force to potentially break his leg.

I don't know about expect but the potential is there.

they're human beings, not robots.

how many times does it have to be said, they're both going in it could have easily have been shawcross who got his leg broke.

it's not a game of tiddly winks out there which is what arsenal and their fans seem to want.

before any leg breaks arsne was always moaning about any team that got in anyway physical and didn't play on the ground.

i think he seems to forget some of the players he used to manage

Fuzzy_Dunlop

This is the exact same bollocks as with Eduardo to be honest. People using it to get cheap digs at Wenger.

watch the interview after the match again. he said it was an horrendous tackle. And said how its unacceptable to have to see 3 of his players get broken legs in 4 years. He is referring to the attitude of teams when they say that arsenal "dont like it up them"