Players tweeting injury pics? Fair?

Stephen Ireland this weekend. Not for the squeamish. Nasty looking...so will just put up a link.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/gruesome-picture-of-stephen-irelands-leg-injury-emerges-31031226.html

So here's the question. Is it fair to put up pics of injuries on social media and going to the papers (I presume whoever tweeted it had his permission)? Does the other player kinda deserve it? Should players just man up and take it without trying to score extra points with pics afterwards? Or is that just the way society has gone and the generation where players like Bryan Robson took his leg being broken every other week without complaint is gone?

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Stephen Ireland this weekend. Not for the squeamish. Nasty looking...so will just put up a link.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/gruesome-picture-of-stephen-irelands-leg-injury-emerges-31031226.html

So here's the question. Is it fair to put up pics of injuries on social media and going to the papers (I presume whoever tweeted it had his permission)? Does the other player kinda deserve it? Should players just man up and take it without trying to score extra points with pics afterwards? Or is that just the way society has gone and the generation where players like Bryan Robson took his leg being broken every other week without complaint is gone?

I didn't see the tackle, but if it was a bad one then ive no problem with him showing it.

Actually to be honest, ive no problem anyway. It's upto us as reasonably minded individuals to decide where or whether blame lies.

jaykay74

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it fair to put up pics of injuries on social media and going to the papers (I presume whoever tweeted it had his permission)? Does the other player kinda deserve it?

No its not fair. Fair would be a video review panel to decide on culpability.

Wasn't there usually a code that what happened on the pitch stayed out there, to the point where in previous generations they just took the hard stuff, whether it was legitimate or not? I certainly accept that where something is a crime, like racist abuse, it is right to give it publicity. But injuries, even nasty ones wrongly inflicted? I dunno.

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wasn't there usually a code that what happened on the pitch stayed out there, to the point where in previous generations they just took the hard stuff, whether it was legitimate or not? I certainly accept that where something is a crime, like racist abuse, it is right to give it publicity. But injuries, even nasty ones wrongly inflicted? I dunno.

There probably was, IMO a stupid code. Players who make nasty challenges should be criticised appropriately.

HalloweenJack

Deleted User wrote: »

Should players just man up and take it without trying to score extra points with pics afterwards?

I can picture the scene at the Britannia now. Imagine Ireland's just rang Hughes to say he won't be in for training. He sends Hughes a picture of the massive gash in his foot and Hughes just tells him to "man up". :rolleyes:

I ****ing hate this idiotic expression and the equally idiotic philosophy that goes with it.

HalloweenJack

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Imagine Ireland's just rang Hughes to say he won't be in for training. He sends Hughes a picture of the massive gash in his foot and Hughes just tells him to "man up".

I'm pretty sure managers are supposed to have a different relationship with players than followers on Twitter.

HalloweenJack

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pretty sure managers are supposed to have a different relationship with players than followers on Twitter.

Well, you're the one who brought the phrase into the debate in your OP and I've seen plenty of posts on here and other forums over the years as well as having heard people go on about it time and time again that it's obviously become part of the psyche of middle-aged male sports fans.

It's a hackneyed phrase, trotted out whenever a player is "soft". It sends out the idea that no matter how much someone hurts you, you're not being a man if you don't get up straight away and act as if nothing happened. It's a stupid idea when applied in that context but when people then try to apply it to everyday situations it gets even stupider and more dangerous.

Obviously that's a whole other debate but just keeping it within the context of sports injuries, it's idiotic. If someone tells Stephen Ireland to "man up", I'd love to see how they'd be feeling if they were in the same situation.

Also, we will never know about Bryan Robson would have reacted if he'd had twitter back then. There's nothing to say that he would or he wouldn't have complained about all the injuries he received.

gandalf

That is a nasty looking injury but Ireland put in a pretty bad tackle on one of the Hull players prior to the one that resulted in the injury. I know on the analysis on MotD they said that it was probably payback for the earlier tackle by Ireland.

HalloweenJack

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Well, you're the one who brought the phrase into the debate in your OP and I've seen plenty of posts on here and other forums over the years as well as having heard people go on about it time and time again that it's obviously become part of the psyche of middle-aged male sports fans.

Oh I didn't say I didn't use the phrase. I merely pointed out that what a player may reveal to his manager may be different from what a player may say to the public, so I was just commenting on the Mark Hughes suggestion.

Fwiw I don't mind the phrase at all myself though. Or htfu, if you like an alternative.

Do players in other sports take to the media when they are injured as a result of a bad tackle or a cheap shot?

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh I didn't say I didn't use the phrase. I merely pointed out that what a player may reveal to his manager may be different from what a player may say to the public, so I was just commenting on the Mark Hughes suggestion.

Fwiw I don't mind the phrase at all myself though. Or htfu, if you like an alternative.

Do players in other sports take to the media when they are injured as a result of a bad tackle or a cheap shot?

Probably tbh.

Guy:Incognito

Do we even know if Stephen Ireland's injured leg exists? Maybe both of his are safe and well at home in Cork?


Any who, players should be banned from all social media during their careers. Too many of them aren't smart enough to keep themselves in check.

mikeym

Stephen Who??? :rolleyes:

Timmyctc

What an idiotic post. Why would it be unfair for a player to take a picture of an injury on their own body. Farcical to object to that.

Timmyctc

Timmyctc wrote: »

What an idiotic post. Why would it be unfair for a player to take a picture of an injury on their own body. Farcical to object to that.

Maybe fair is the wrong word.

Maybe narcissistic is better, the era of the "look at me, look at me" stuff.

Again, as I said, I grew up in a generation where the Billy Bonds and Bryan Robson's didn't take pics of themselves and go to the media, where the Reids and Sounesses kicked lumps off each other and laughed about it. What went on on the pitch stayed out there.

Timmyctc

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe fair is the wrong word.

Maybe narcissistic is better, the era of the "look at me, look at me" stuff.

Again, as I said, I grew up in a generation where the Billy Bonds and Bryan Robson's didn't take pics of themselves and go to the media, where the Reids and Sounesses kicked lumps off each other and laughed about it. What went on on the pitch stayed out there.

Oh. Well in that case. I retract my attack. If its to look the hard man. Who cares really. They'll get their detractors in the comments section of their posts. Fair, absolutely. Sometimes showing these things is necessary too of course.

bucketybuck

What a strange thread. He has a lump gouged out of the back of his leg, throws up a picture and somebody is asking if it is "fair". What does that even mean, why wouldn't it be fair?

And the hard man thing in older days doesn't hold water either. Because those double hard buggers from the 60's never compared scars, right? And thats all this is, the modern day equivalent of Joe Legbreaker standing in the pub showing off his scars.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

What a strange thread. He has a lump gouged out of the back of his leg, throws up a picture and somebody is asking if it is "fair". What does that even mean, why wouldn't it be fair?

And the hard man thing in older days doesn't hold water either. Because those double hard buggers from the 60's never compared scars, right? And thats all this is, the modern day equivalent of Joe Legbreaker standing in the pub showing off his scars.

I wasn't around back in the 60s. Was thinking more of the 80s and 90s.

And just the whole thing that players would do their talking on the pitch and not get their retaliation through the media. I hope the player he initially tackled doesn't feel the need to show us the bruises now.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

And just the whole thing that players would do their talking on the pitch and not get their retaliation through the media. I hope the player he initially tackled doesn't feel the need to show us the bruises now.

Who says its retaliation? I don't see the name of the guy who tackled him in that tweet, why assume its put up in retaliation? Why isn't it just a picture of what is an uncommon injury? You won't see too many footballers with lumps missing from the back of their leg, why can't it be that he is just showing a bit of an oddity?

Moist Bread

Heh, you must be looking pretty hard for something to moan about if this bothers you.

Moist Bread

Moist Bread wrote: »

Heh, you must be looking pretty hard for something to moan about if this bothers you.

It doesn't bother me that much.

After all, it's all only soccer. It's not up there with world peace.

Maybe chalk me down in the Giles corner, "I don't understand this Twitter business". He certainly would not have gone for it!

TheDoc

Timmyctc wrote: »

What an idiotic post. Why would it be unfair for a player to take a picture of an injury on their own body. Farcical to object to that.

Because it could provide prejudice on behalf of the independant panel that reviews these incidents.....

Pardew made a good point in his pre match press conference today. While he wasn't defending the elbow his lad through, he said we need to be careful, as there is so much Tv analysis and punditry it could cause bias on the panels deicisions.

Think about it, a panel member will have seen an incident on two televised shows with reputable pundits over a weekend, before they get into their meeting on a Monday/Tuesday to decide if something needs action.

Their mind could well be made up well before entering that process. For right or wrong, they need to dispel outside interference before engaging in that process.

I didn't see the game, nor the tackle. I've seen the pic, my immediate reaction and assumption is that it was a nasty raking studs on the leg. A dirty tackle.

However there could have been perfectly mitigating circumstances for it to be an accident. Like I said I don't know I don't watch Stoke or Hull, but you get the drift.

Footballers are becoming ever more embarrassing on Twitter in fairness. I really despise the locker room stuff. In a crazy race to get as much data and information as possible as fans, and then to appease those fans, football clubs have embraced social media in a horribly cringeworthy way.

dreamers75

TheDoc wrote: »

Think about it, a panel member will have seen an incident on two televised shows with reputable pundits over a weekend, before they get into their meeting on a Monday/Tuesday to decide if something needs action.

Whats wrong with that? Should this dude not looking at the footage at the same time as the pundits?

TheDoc

dreamers75 wrote: »

Whats wrong with that? Should this dude not looking at the footage at the same time as the pundits?

Ideally, he is supposed to abstain from outside interference, and be totally impartial.

Look obviously it is difficult to do, but if you were selected for Jury duty, wouldn't be uncommon to be asked (aside from a number of things) if you have been reading about the incident in the media.And it wouldn't be uncommon for you to be removed if you have.

I don't have any major beef with it, but Pardew and others have a point. If you have big people like Souness, Neville and Carragher shouting and ranting after a game at things like " should be suspended for the season" , "no place for that in the game" and all the stereotypical stuff, how can you be fully impartial when it comes to the panel, when you have pre exposure to the incident and third party views?

In reality it's probably unavoidable, and why I dislike Mourinho entirely, I do think he has a point with Costa being suspended for "the stamp", after the media furore that ensued. I don't for a second believe if that wasn't such a big deal of, that an "independent" panel could charge him saying it was intentional.