Arsenal Message Board
I apologise to him. What is 2 points compared to his career flashing before his eyes. I have seen that again and he was lucky to come out without a fracture or damaged knee ligaments. Barton what all wicked players do: he made sure he touched the ball then went on him with both knees
The only shame is that wasn't a proper punch to Barton's nose
- 1 Reply to John
Barton wasn't clever....Diaby was just stupid.....there's a famous chinese curse....if U r going to eat a frog ....eat a fat one....
Whats with the neckgrabbing a pushing???....A real good clobbering was more likely to get a reaction and make the game 10-10...
I will never advocate neck grabbing and pushing if ur gonna get urself sent off make sure the thug is sent off too!!!
I understand where you are coming from. Tackles like the one on Diaby, as happened to ben Arfa, do some times result in injury. My point is if the ball is not under 'complete control of the player in possesion' then tackles like that are acceptable. It's a risk I know, but the ball is there to be won and it's all part and parcel of the game. Viscious over the top studs shown tackles are not part and parcel of the game. And you can bring in a '70 mph' type rule, but it will be down to the ref in the end how he interprets that rule. Football is a passionate, tribal, game. Refs are open to this passion too............they will see certain things their way and other refs will see it a different way, as we do. That's what I like about this game, passion, emotion....... sometimes raw, at times violent. But without these things it wouldn't be the game we love.
Now really it's down to how football develops over the next few years. I've seen a lot of changes over the years. Not all for the good. It would be interesting to find out what the statistics are about tackles like that, how many made through out the season and what percentage result in serious injury. Anyway we've been 'round and round' on this one. It would be good if Arsenal could find a balance between the 1-0 to the Arsenal days...................resolute defending and play, and the kind of exciting football that Arsenal can serve up now. If you can find that balance I doubt very much whether you would lose a 4 goal lead like you did against us.
I know there's always going to be risk of injuries, just as when you drive a car there's always a risk of an accident, even if it's not your "fault".
But you still impose a speed a limit on roads to limit the chance of that happening rather than just saying "ah, whatever, there's always gonna be accidents, forget about it!"
I know it's about opinions and that a video referee could be biased too - I'm just saying that in this case I completely disagree with the opinion of most.
I think there was a serious risk of injuring Diaby in that tackle (i.e. over the 70mph limit) and you think the risk was normal like in most challenges.
The "limit" is subjective and we disagree on it - no big deal.
I just think that usually when people say "injuries are always gonna happen" that it's just a poor excuse to not have a proper discussion.
<<That's where I disagree. It seems that you (and most other people) think that if the tackler has a good chance of winning the ball, then it's not a red. And further, if he actually gets the ball, then it's a good challenge.>>
Okay we agree to disagree on that one.
<<I think that's normally case, but if you've *also* got a reasonable chance of breaking the player's leg,>>
You could say that about any tackle........there's always a chance of injury through tackling. Fair enough over the top tackles...............tackling from behind, taking the players legs a away. Tackles where the tackler has no chance of winning the ball...............a straight red.
<<Ben Arfa didn't have the ball at his feet, so it was there to be won; De Jong had a good chance of winning the ball; De Jong actually won the ball. And yet he broke Ben Arfa's leg and it wasn't some freak accident>>
It was bad luck, that doesn't mean to say I thought Diaby 'got lucky'. Years ago players like George Best, Bobby Charlton and your own Charlie George could 'ride tackles' like that.
<<In terms of "reasonable measures", the first thing I would like to see is video evidence being used after a game for lengthy bans, even if the player gets a yellow card. At the moment, if you get a yellow at the time, then it's been dealt with and you can't get a ban.>>
If that's the case then it should be used to rescind red/yellow cards that maybe shouldn't have been given. And surprisingly enough I don't agree with it, as it takes away the authority of the match officials. And as I've read on here Phil Dowd has a bit of a reputation with Arsenal fans about being biased against Arsenal. Who is to say that those judging video evidence won't be biased for or against Arsenal or any other team. It's all about opinions mate. And if you got what you wanted than boards like these would be redundant. Playing contact sports is a risk, life is a risk. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
That's where I disagree. It seems that you (and most other people) think that if the tackler has a good chance of winning the ball, then it's not a red. And further, if he actually gets the ball, then it's a good challenge.
I think that's normally case, but if you've *also* got a reasonable chance of breaking the player's leg, then it completely negates that. De Jong was exactly the same - Ben Arfa didn't have the ball at his feet, so it was there to be won; De Jong had a good chance of winning the ball; De Jong actually won the ball. And yet he broke Ben Arfa's leg and it wasn't some freak accident - breaking his leg was quite likely, as the way he went through was reckless, regardless of winning the ball.
In terms of "reasonable measures", the first thing I would like to see is video evidence being used after a game for lengthy bans, even if the player gets a yellow card. At the moment, if you get a yellow at the time, then it's been dealt with and you can't get a ban.
Secondly, I would like to see medical experts having a large influence on ban decisions, rather than just ex-footballers turned board members who think "tough but fair, son" without thinking of injury risk.
Now for me the winning of the ball, in what I would call a 'meaty tackle' is fair. From what I've seen and I've mentioned on here, Diaby didn't have the ball 'at feet'. It looked to be running away from him. Now if he'd had the ball 'at feet', that is in control, and Barton had no chance of winning the ball then it's a foul. However the ball was 'not at Diaby's feet' he wasn't in control. The tackle was hard, but the ball was there to be won. Now if Barton had've went over the top, foul and a sending off. He didn't he timed his tackle and won the ball. Now obviously this was emotive stuff for Diaby, Arsenal and their fans..........considering what happened to Diaby last time he was tackled like that.
You say introduce 'reasonable measures' . What kind of measures would you like see to be introduced?
"And it's up to the ref to determine that on the spot."
Agreed. For that reason, I can forgive the referee for making the wrong decision at the time (i.e. not even a foul). But I can't forgive people who, with the benefit of hindsight, insight that it was a good tackle.
"It's a contact game, and in all contact sports there are going to be injuries."
Agreed. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't introduce reasonable measures that can reduce the quantity of injuries.
<<It's a red if it's a sufficiently dangerous tackle>>
And it's up to the ref to determine that on the spot. It's a contact game, and in all contact sports there are going to be injuries. Thats the way it is.
- View More Messages