Arsenal Action

[Sp1r0r]

Ok i was damn pissed my earlier post was deleted without being posted.

Anyway, after reading Arseblog's piece on last night's game, we have a real chance of winning the title. There is extra motivation and with Petr Cech out and Terry out-of-sorts, we have a real chance to gun down the leaders.

Back to the injury which I think was damn upsetting and a player responsible for that should be banned longer. How is it fair that Ramsey is out for a year, never the same player he will be and the guilty party just gets a 3 match ban AND an England call up ?

Now the a$$es at Sky Sports, you explain that to me.

[Deano]

Back to the injury which I think was damn upsetting and a player responsible for that should be banned longer. How is it fair that Ramsey is out for a year, never the same player he will be and the guilty party just gets a 3 match ban AND an England call up ?

Now the a$$es at Sky Sports, you explain that to me.

In Austria last year, Alex Witsel was banned for three months for a horrendous on a player. The challenge looked far worse than Shawcross's on Ramsey, in that Witsels eyes never left the player until he'd gone literally through his leg.It looked completely intentional and, for that reason, the Nowegian FA reacted with an 11 match ban, reduced to 8 with a 250 euro fine!

There's no question that he meant to severly harm his Polish opponent, and he did. Why the FA didnt hand him over to the Police, when his punishment was consistent with him being GUILTY of INTENTIONALLY harming his opponent,I'll never know. What goes on in the sporting arena, STAYS in the sporting arena, it seems...

I don't see the point in lengthy bans for tackles on the field of play. What's the point? If it'd make the injured player heal quicker then I'm all for it, but it doesn't. It wouldn't act as a deterent either, as I don't believe any player wants to cause such an injury to anyone on the pitch. There's nowhere to go with it, and it will remain a grey area for as long as 'crimes' happen in sport.

It's very hard to prove intent to a court of law where injuries occur on field of play, and suffering career threatening injuries is an occupational hazard.

The England call is completely irrelevant to the injury, but does add an extra sense of injustice to us gooners.

[Reddaz]

Your right Deano. It is crazy what happens to the player resposible for literally putting a players carrer on the line. These players should be banned seriously and I mean for a year. It is ludacrus that this guy will get a 3 match ban and then get to play for England when Ramsay may never be the same talent he was. It does annoy me.

[The Fabster]

Back to the injury which I think was damn upsetting and a player responsible for that should be banned longer. How is it fair that Ramsey is out for a year, never the same player he will be and the guilty party just gets a 3 match ban AND an England call up ?

Now the a$$es at Sky Sports, you explain that to me.

In Austria last year, Alex Witsel was banned for three months for a horrendous on a player. The challenge looked far worse than Shawcross's on Ramsey, in that Witsels eyes never left the player until he'd gone literally through his leg.It looked completely intentional and, for that reason, the Nowegian FA reacted with an 11 match ban, reduced to 8 with a 250 euro fine!

There's no question that he meant to severly harm his Polish opponent, and he did. Why the FA didnt hand him over to the Police, when his punishment was consistent with him being GUILTY of INTENTIONALLY harming his opponent,I'll never know. What goes on in the sporting arena, STAYS in the sporting arena, it seems...

I don't see the point in lengthy bans for tackles on the field of play. What's the point? If it'd make the injured player heal quicker then I'm all for it, but it doesn't. It wouldn't act as a deterent either, as I don't believe any player wants to cause such an injury to anyone on the pitch. There's nowhere to go with it, and it will remain a grey area for as long as 'crimes' happen in sport.

It's very hard to prove intent to a court of law where injuries occur on field of play, and suffering career threatening injuries is an occupational hazard.

The England call is completely irrelevant to the injury, but does add an extra sense of injustice to us gooners.

Thing is, intention is very hard to prove. By that logic, Gallas should be sent to jail for his tackle on Taylor.

I don't think Shawcross set out to break his leg, but like Martin Taylor, he thought he could just bully the Arsenal lads and put in a very high tackle.

[Reddaz]

By that logic, Gallas should be sent to jail for his tackle on Taylor.

Did Gallas break the guys leg then? I didn't think did.

I agree that it is very hard to prove any intent, but the guy wouldn't of caused the damage he did unless he used unnecessary force?

[Deano]

That's what I'm saying, Fabster. Intent is hard, if not, impossible to prove in the court of law OR at an FA hearing. It's not as if an arm or elbow was raised/used.

I don't know how Gallas's innocuos looking tackle on Taylor enters the discussion tbh. You've completely stumped me there.

Back on Ramseys injury - we'll have to just swallow it, as banning the guy for any longer than the mandatory 3 games for violent conduct implies that Shawcross meant to injure Ramsey, leaving the FA in a precarious position should Ramseys people decide to press charges, hypothetically speaking. It's the FA's way of washing their hands of the incident and keeping well clear of the law.

[Curt.B]

There is no justice for us. Shawcross is gone for three matches for breaking Ramsey's leg whilst Song is gone for two for having his arm pulled across by an opposing player.

No F##king justice. Its a disgrace.

[Deano]

Songs booking was a disgrace, but the totting up rule says he serves TWO matches now, as it's his second ban under the precedure (tenth booking).

I know it seems a complete injustice, but that's what happens when you get seperate issues jumbled up.

Two matches for a dodgy booking, and three games for possibly ending someones career....seems very wrong. It's just like the "3 strikes and you're out (or in!)" rule they have in some states in the USA? Steal an apple on your third strike and it's life in prison! Yet manslaughter will only get you a few years in the slammer

[Dial Square]

thats our "new signing" for next January sorted then

[Curt.B]

For f##k sake I hadn't watched the injury again until now, Shawcross swings in like a goddamn animal.

The true villain in this is the media, managers, and people who deem it tactically justifiable to kick at Arsenal. Because 'Arsenal don't like it up 'em.'
A culture has been bred which encourages players to give Arsenal players a little bit extra. Shawcross may not have swing his leg in thinking, "Yes, time to break me an ankle!" But I don't doubt at all that in the back of his mind was the niggling instruction, "Tackle them hard boys, they don't like it." Slow motion and close-up replays confirm the illegality and violence of the tackle, I think the shock on Shawcrosses face is more born from a realistation that tackling like this does have unbelieivably serious consequences.
Just from look at a few of the comments on other blog pages (like football365), people labelling Ramsey and Arsenal players as girls, highlights how out of hand this idea of getting up at 'em when you play Arsenal has gotten. Pundits are actually considering the option now that it is simply because Arsenal is soft. Have somebody viciously kick you and break your tibia and fibula, and then tell me that complaining is soft.
Its happening to frequently to be conicedence, but don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for conspiracy. i don't believe there is a meeting of minds whose sole purpose is to break Arsenal player's legs. However, I don believe it is common knowedge that it is okay to go in extra hard on Arsenal players, becuase they don't like...as though there is any footballers who do.
I'm not saying Shawcross is the victim here, and I'm not at all absolving his responsibility; he's guilty as sin of recklessness and violence. However, I think its pretty impossible to deny that the effects of this media forest fire, that its okay to kick at Arsenal because they don't like it; give them an 'English tackle', is reaping its terrible path.

Wenger should call a press conference and just tell this straight. Don't mince words, just say it how it is.