I've seen all the angles, but i still stand by my original point that the takle would have been more dangerous with a trailing leg. Also the angle of the tackle with both players coming from a similar direction was safer than with the Kompany tackle where players we coming in from opposite dirrections, not that i believe that was a red either.
I'm sure a lot of people have had their careers ended from a bad challenge (perhaps there aren't many high profile examples). Also, it's not just a case of ending a career - it's the pyschological impact as well e.g. Eduardo. His career has not ended but he is not the same player he was once was. You could argue the same with Ramsay as I personally don't believe he is as good as he once was.
So why talk about career ending tackles then? As for psychological problems etc they can happen after any injury, eg sisssoko after his eye op?
fair enough timmy cos the ref agrees with you. mancini doesn't but i think a bit of karma is in play here.... the good thing is even if kelly was all we had for rb wouldn't we be pleased enough for 3 games. there was a lot of force there so its up to the refs to be consistent. i felt t least foy and frined were that with the spearing and kompany ones but mason took a different line.
Hmm possibly - but again, it was a dangerous tackle as are most two footed challenges. People seem to be condoning these sorts of these tackles.
I think what we should do is, have rods across the pitch which slide from side to side and swivel forwards and backwards with each player strapped to them.These would be remotely controlled by the manager.That way we can end offside,foul and penalty discrepancies and nobody will get hurt!! As someone who played rugby for 20 yrs it's laughable watching footballers going down as if a sniper has shot them. IT's a physical/contact game isn't it ,get on with it.
But thats what I am saying, it was dangerous because it was a poor mistimed illegal tackle, but it was one footed so proves my point about ordinary tackles being just as dangerous if they are poorly done. The media has a thing about two footed tackles because they look more dramatic and they love to use the phrase "career ending" for exactly the same reason. the problem is I am yet to see the evidence to back it up.
But there is a fine line between a well timed challenge and mistimed challenge, and the conseuqences are significant. I agree in that any challenge could be dangerous - look at the one that ruled Lucas out for the whole season, which was fairly innocuous. Would you be in favour of a rule change which states if the ball is won cleanly, then it can't be deemed as a foul? Common sense says this is fair, but with players rolling around like they've been shot which doesn't help refs, it would lead to subjective decisions from refs in my opinion. I can't remember who Johnson tackled last night, but had they gone down as if they were caught, then do you think the ref would have then sent Johnson off?
i don't think its mistimed though... its a high energy and therefore reckless challenge but it is absolutely perfectly timed
So what is it you want banned, all challenges? Yes there is a fine line between a good challenge and a poor one, there is also a fine line between a shot that goes in and a shot that hits the post. Sport is all about fine lines and the best players get them right, that is the skill of the game.
I can see your point, but a swinging trailing leg has a bent knee and potential to flex to cushion some of the impact, whereas two feet stretching and locked out, as Johnson's tackle was, has very little give, so transfers more energy to the point of impact. Hence the damage it can do. I think its not so much two feet as stretching tackles, where the challenge is 'uncontrolled'. Its arguable that a single foot challenge is able to do MORE damage, as energy isn't distributed between two feet impacting. However, at the end of the day, whether an injury is the result tends to be down to numerous factors, not just the challenge. I think too much is made of 'Two-Footed'...
i agree with saint http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTFy92DWyHU&noredirect=1 this is not two footed but shawcross still injured ramsey.
Ban all use of the feet its the only way!!! The players could play on Segways with a hockey stick like kicking device. My dream is that injury is iradicated from all sport. No but seriously there is a simple answer to this one, if players seriously injure another player in what is deamed to be a dangerous tackle then they should be banned for a period linked to the period of recovery of the injury. That would make players think before making dangerous challenges, the problem being of course that it is as easy to get injured in a not so dangerous challenge(see lucas).
Every time I watch that clip, I am increasingly of the opinion that, had Glen gone in one-footed and left his left leg trailing, he'd definitely have caught Lescott with it. However, I can see the argument that Lescott could have been penalised for a late challenge too.
Nah sorry, what about dirty reckless challenges that do not result in injury, or what about feigning injury to keep an opposition star player out longer.
