Read here - seems your opinion is not supported by the law : http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...lent-tackle-should-shawcross-be-tried-for-gbh You think because its the Premier League assault is ok?
I think Wenger was just angry because of the assault. Sometime, I hope soon, we are going to move away from using every excuse we can find to mask or defend the actual act of violence committed.
This case is completely different because the challenge in the link shown was intending to do serious damage to the guy who was merely shepherding the ball in the corner. Shawcross did not intend to break Ramsey's leg, Ramsey slightly overran the ball and Shawcross clearly thought he could get to it but went in high. So in that case, it was a reckless tackle (hence the broken leg) but it sure as hell wasn't intentional to hurt Ramsey, it was just an appalling challenge. So to say he should be banged up for it is a joke. Booing Shawcross is still somewhat deserved and expected as he was in the wrong with that challenge, even if he didn't intend the consequences of it- he still broke a young player's leg and almost ended his career which is something which would aggrieve supporters of any club. However, Stoke fans booing Aaron Ramsey really shows what scum of the earth they are. A guy that literally did nothing wrong but be on the end of a stupid challenge from their ****e centre back does not deserve to get booed, so the Stoke fans that did boo should be ashamed of themselves.
Two things - firstly, our opinions on whether Shawcross intended to hurt or not dont matter. We're just going to disagree. Secondly - the fact remains that if you make a bad tackle that breaks an opponents leg you can go to jail. if it reaches court it would be up to them to decide if there was intent. As I said, intent to hurt was there in my view, because there is no way his aim would be that far off when kicking out unless he went over the ball on purpose. The man who went to jail did not intend to break his opponents leg either - that was just the result of the intent to foul. To make it clearer if you get into a fight outside, say a, a pub and punch someone - if you bruise their cheekbone you get a slap on the rist, if you kill them you are in big trouble. Same intent, same action, but the outcome is what is important.
Well like it or not, the fact remains that intent is the important thing about it. As, when someone plays proper sport, there is an acknowledgement that they could get hurt. However, this certainly does not cover if someone intends to hurt them. The simple fact that the case you showed above involved a guy who was in total control of the ball in the corner when one guy just lunged in at him, intending to hurt him shows a complete difference from the Shawcross tackle. So it's not just an intention to foul, it has to be an intention to hurt. You'd be hard put to find many people (who aren't massively biased Arsenal fans like you) who'd share the sentiment that Shawcross intended to really cause harm to Ramsey. In fact, even the article you posted states this. Also your "getting into a fight outside a pub" scenario doesn't really make much sense to the point as this was a tackle in a sport where there was no intention to harm, while a fight would obviously be intention to harm...
Jayram You are clearly unable to understand and read before posting comments. I won't lower myself to your level by swearing at you. I did say you have a large chip on youre shoulder.. sadly so do many other Arsenal fans. JAIL? Change the record.
You are wrong about the parallels between sport and not sport. In sport you are covered in terms of ABH, but not GBH. This makes sense as ABH does not even need intent, so it needs to be excluded from football as it can carry a jail sentence. Footballers are not covered against GBH. There are 2 sections to this in law. The first deals with intent to to cause serious bodily harm including broken limbs. This carries a sentence of up to life in prison. You could not apply this to Shawcross as it would be impossible to prove that he actually intented to break a limb. The second deals with the intent to hurt - no matter how minor - that results in serious injury. This carries a maximum 5 year jail sentence, and footballers are not protected against this. If you do not believe me on this I would refer you to Section 20 of the The Offences against the Person Act 1861 If charges had been pressed against Shawcross, only intent to cause pain would have been required to be proven. I wont shift from my view that Shawcross intended to cause Ramsey pain - what else did he expect from deliberately going over the top of the ball?
You clearly are not intelligent enough to understand the law - hence the incredulous "Jail?" reference. Unless you actually want to research the law and speak with some knowledge then I am afraid it is you who is not understanding before posting
Speaking as a law student you are a little misleading here. GBH under s.20 of the OAPA doesn't make special provisions for sport. In regards to consent, as a defence to non-fatal offences, sport is included here. The courts are extremely reluctant to charge a player for a bad tackle, even with intent to harm. However, if Shawcross was to beat the crap out of Ramsey, that's a different story. Trust me, I didn't like it either.
Jayram That's YOUR oppinion and you are entitled to say whatever you wish.... re the reference to "jail" see you next season Jayram.
I know full well about what playing a sport covers in terms of criminal offence, as I study law. However, the simple fact that he did not intend to hurt him with the tackle shows that he could not be liable for GBH. His foot being high was merely recklessness or ineptitude as to his ability as a footballer as he probably genuinely thought he was going to control the ball and underestimated the speed Ramsey got back to the ball. In fact, your argument is so tenuous that, even if Shawcross DID intend to hurt Ramsey, it would be near impossible to prove as he certainly didn't look like he intended it from the foul (unlike in the above case where there was essentially nothing to play for as the game was pretty much done, thus the challenge would be for nothing else other than to hurt him, as well as the guy who fouled him not having any hope of getting the ball from his lunge). Also, he's hardly going to admit it if he did intend to hurt, and unfortunately the rest of the evidence (as cited above) shows that you really wouldn't have a case with the only evidence you have to convict him being that you, as a massive Arsenal fan think he meant it.
In bold is what I said - there is no protection from section 20 of GBH for footballers. Recluctance is a choice, not the law. The footballer who was convicted and sent to jail on GBH charges was done so under section 20. He was only proven to have intended to cause harm.
You are wrong because you cannot say he did not intend to hurt Ramsey - that would be up to the courts. Your opinion does not count. Not to be offensive, but from your posts, it does not sound like you study law. Where are you studying? ( I could just as easily say I am a judge. ) - For instance Shawcross would not need to admit anything, as any person studying law would know. The prosecution would call in experts and I believe there would be enough to build a case that no footballer could miss a fairly stationary ball by that much by accident.
You are wrong here. GBH is covered under s.18 and s.20. There you exclusively talked about the requirements for s.18. Recklessness as to some harm is enough for Assault Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm under s.20 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. I would, however, assume the rules of consent apply to GBH under s.20 considering that the two offences are separated along the lines of the gravity of the result. After all, you see no convictions for Martin Taylor or Shawcross, despite the extent of the injury being undeniably "really serious harm". I agree that Shawcross cannot be convicted, but for a different reason entirely.
That is a rather narrow view of the law there Jayram. Just because a provision isn't made in one Act, it doesn't mean that it isn't law through further Acts and case law.
I'm hardly wrong as the majority of people who saw that challenge would say that he did not intend to harm him. That's a fact. Only overly-biased Arsenal fans who are desperate for Shawcross to suffer for damaging our talented prospect would think he intended it. The guy above got it spot on, the courts would simply not punish him for that tackle, especially as he thought he had a chance to win the ball. Nice to see you ignored my points about the massive improbability of a conviction and the difference between Shawcross' challenge and the Chapman challenge, thus meaning you can't really use it as precedent. But I guess you'll never be convinced because you think your opinion is obviously what most people would believe, because you're a cretin.
No you are still wrong - in a court of law public opinion is irrelevant as you should know. Please dont use the above paragraph in your exams because you will fail. I have answered your question on precedent - the guy who went to jail was convicted under section 20 and was only proven to have intentionally trying to cause pain, nt to break a limb. The extent of the pain does not matter they were trying to inflict does not matter. Precendent has been set by that case whether you like it or not By the way, where are you studying again?
Public opinion is massively important in a court of law. You only need to look at R v Brown and others [1993] to see that public opinion has a huge impact on the final judgements. Look up the facts of the case, admittedly they are rather grim, and you'll then see that a heterosexual couple, who branded her wife in a fashion mimicking cattle (I forgot the case name, unfortunately) was considered acceptable. Public opinion is a deciding factor on the law. And public opinion here is that footballers should not get charged for bad tackles. Like it or lump it.
I'm not talking about public opinion, I'm talking about what the jury would likely say. After all, the jury does include members of the public! So tell me Jayram, if you're so correct and he DID intend it, why didn't they take it to court? Your argument is literally based on something you assume because it was a bad tackle. Bad tackles can be reckless, not always intentional. I'm sure you know that, but are choosing to ignore it in this case as it involves an Arsenal player on the receiving end. Why does it matter where I'm studying?
