Shawcross played the ball

[Lightwood]

Just e-mailed this SSN

Dear Team,

I am a Stoke supporter and I was at the game on Saturday.

I've been watching the coverage over the last few days and I wondered if it's possible for your team to play the Shawcross tackle in super slow motion.

I've played around with the sky + box and I'm convinced that it's clear to see that Shawcross intention is only to get the ball. In fact, his foot catches the ball and then bounces up in to Adebayor's ankle.

It is a clumsy challenge, his studs are showing and it may have deserved a yellow card but to say that he or Rory intended to hurt the Arenal players is unbelievable.

It would be great if you could slow down or even freeze fram the challenge to show that Shawcross did in fact play the ball first.

Many Thanks

[Kenilworth_Stokies]

I'd a appreciate an answer to the following question regarding the Walcott injury: If you're intending to deliberately injure a player's arm, why would you kick them on the leg?

[Strange Boy]

Nov 6, 2008 15:27:20 GMT Kenilworth_Stokies said:

I'd a appreciate an answer to the following question regarding the Walcott injury: If you're intending to deliberately injure a player's arm, why would you kick them on the leg?

Do you know nothing??? Obviously Delap can see the future and realised that if he kicked him in the leg in just the right place he would fall in such a way as to hurt his shoulder!!!!


;D ;D ;D

[nickhfc]

I don't think Delap even kicked his leg - there was a sort of jumble of limbs before he actually went down.

Walcott landed very slowly on his elbow. I suspect this caused a jarring in the shoulder, but am I mistaken - has there been any news of his actual injury?

[bigb35]

Nov 6, 2008 17:35:08 GMT Strange Boy said:

Nov 6, 2008 15:27:20 GMT Kenilworth_Stokies said:

I'd a appreciate an answer to the following question regarding the Walcott injury: If you're intending to deliberately injure a player's arm, why would you kick them on the leg?

Do you know nothing??? Obviously Delap can see the future and realised that if he kicked him in the leg in just the right place he would fall in such a way as to hurt his shoulder!!!!
;D ;D ;D

The mans a GENIUS

[th05]

Nov 6, 2008 15:27:20 GMT Kenilworth_Stokies said:

I'd a appreciate an answer to the following question regarding the Walcott injury: If you're intending to deliberately injure a player's arm, why would you kick them on the leg?

;D Exactly.

[stokecity]

Rory's tackle was perfectly timed..... it was just that Walcott was too quick. So it's Walcott who is to blame for his own injury.

[bayernoatcake]

I said this in a thread I started the other day. You don't need to slow it. Its bloody obvious he won the ball as it deviates.

And the more I watch the Rory tackle on Delap the less it looks like he touched him.

[The Occasional Man]

Ahem . . . .

[bayernoatcake]

Superb! Like I said in my thread-touches the ball and what 10 centimetres off the pitch?

[Lakeland Potter]

Of course tackling from behind is against the laws of the game (and has been for the past few years, presumably to lessen the risk of achilles damage) whether the player gets the ball or not so that makes it a foul tackle whether it was on or off the pitch. Not that I think Ryan was intending to hurt the player so Wenger's comments are still way off the mark.

Bayern, you said "And the more I watch the Rory tackle on Delap the less it looks like he touched him. " Sounds as if Rory has a split personality - he should seek help! ;D

[Northy]

So Rory tackled himself according to Bayern, so Wenger was right, he was out to intentionally hurt himself ;D

[tazi]

When you look at Rorys challenge on Walcott from a side angle then you would say that there is no way that he set out to maim 'words of Wenger' Walcott because if anyone was going to get hurt then you would have thought that it was going to be Rory.

[Deleted]

Fornside,

'Not that I think Ryan was intending to hurt the player so Wenger's comments are still way off the mark.'

How do you know?

It was a shit tackle - end of. Just because he got the ball first doesn't mean that there was no intent.

There was absolutely no need to tackle as he did in that position.

Some of you need to admit that you're simply sticking up for one of your own rather than admit that one of our own players lost his rag and injured an opposition player.

If it was the other way around you'd be crying like fucking babies.

[psv2000]

Wallcott's shoulder came out because after he felt Delap's foul, he leapt in the air to make it look worse and ensure the offender received a yellow card.

Maybe Wenger needs to spend more time on the training ground teaching the players to fall safely instead of diving.

[lew86]

Wallcots his own worst enemy in this one. Rory barely (if at all) just and i mean JUST clipped the very of the back of his boot. Wallcott DID in my opinion fall harder to make the takle look worse than it actually way, because theres no way you could fall like that on accident, just from that.

[Bick]

Squareball, it was a clumsy tackle, But people like ryan have hardly played at this level, its fast and its furious, the fact that the ball was off the pitch may not have even occured to him as he lunged, the tackle was clumsy, but from any replay and even from the picture you can see that his eyes are a planted on the ball.

Stoke still use a 1970s mentality in defence, (which is what WIlko / dicko) did so well. At some point in the game, they hit a heavy, but accurate sliding challange that gives no foul but gives the attacker a clatter and something to think about, stops them in their tracks as it were. I think Ryan just got a little carried away.

[bayernoatcake]

Oh the old tackling from behind bollocks! He won a ball that was there to be won-superb tackle. Tackling from behind is a great skill and when done right (see above) You win the ball and take the man. Great tackle. Pansy of a game today

And Squarebell I wouldn't be crying because iys football and tackles happen. That for me is one of the best parts of the game. He was committed to the tackle and lets face it, he was 10 cm off the pitch-we've all done it.

[Deleted]

Bayern,

It wasn't a superb tackle - it was totally unnecessary and looks suspiciously like he lost his rag.

Quite whe he felt he had to dive in from behind and follow through like he did when the ball was on\over the line is beyond me.

You're right, we've all done it, usually when we wanted to hurt somebody.

[bayernoatcake]

He won the friggin ball. I'm sick of the way football is going. Tackling will be banned at this rate. He wanted to win the ball, You can see he only had eyes for the ball and he won the ball. He's a young lad and I love challenges like that. It was a fraction of the pitch, give the lad a break. It was a fine committed tackle and the follow through was just football. I love it if I'm being honest. Like Dicko said I love a bit of bone on bone action! ;D

[cousindupree]

I find it hard to support Ryan on this one. It was a needless and reckless tackle he didnt even have to make. Only Ryan knows why he did it.It may well have had some connection with the chest high studs showing lunge on Ryan earlier.Ryan may well have seen the red mist and saw it as an opportunity to level things up...Dont defenders ever puit there mark on a forward during the game?..Have to say when I played as a forward I always expected a few bruises.....its a fine line between intentionally injuring and leaving your 'mark'

[bayernoatcake]

I admit it was probably unecessary but he's a young lad and he saw the ball there to be won and he won it. I judge a tackle on if they win the ball and thats where I take issue with it being a dirty foul. It was hard but fair.

[psv2000]

What made Arsenal a successful side a few years ago was largely down to the tough defending from Adams, Keown and a certain lad from Blurton. It would be a huge irony if Wenger realised what his defence needs is a certain Ryan Shawcross and came in with a £10 million bid next summer

[lew86]

I do reckon there has been too much emphasis on these too tackles while much worse tackles happen week in week out without notice (AHEM VAN PERCY AHEM).

[Beardy200]

Nov 7, 2008 9:55:16 GMT @squareball said:

Fornside,

'Not that I think Ryan was intending to hurt the player so Wenger's comments are still way off the mark.'

How do you know?

It was a shit tackle - end of. Just because he got the ball first doesn't mean that there was no intent.

There was absolutely no need to tackle as he did in that position.

Some of you need to admit that you're simply sticking up for one of your own rather than admit that one of our own players lost his rag and injured an opposition player.

If it was the other way around you'd be crying like fucking babies.

Like you fella i like to think i can be reasoned and logical with my comments and i dont see everything through red and white glasses. That being said this injuring Arsenal players intentionally is just a joke. As for Adebayor's injury he carried on for about another half hour when he twisted it himself landing awkwardly coming down from a header. If he'd gone off earlier or been more careful he probabably would have played on Wednesday. Rory on Walcott was a tackle you will see in every game you ever watch. He was a bit late but he barely touched him. Walcott fell awkwardly as he a bit unco-ordinated at the best of times and Rory's tackle on Sagna wasn't even a foul. So for the whole game we have a tackle from behind by Shawcross and a thigh-high stud raker from Adebayor that were a bit fruity.

Aggregate score 1-1 ... so why all the fuss is just laughable.

[stokenc]

Nov 7, 2008 2:12:42 GMT The Occasional Man said:

Ahem . . . .

maybe the photo should be emailed to Arsenal and Mr Wenger?

[Davef]

I don't really think we can defend that tackle. Regardless of whether he got the ball, he had to go straight through Adebayor to win it, and you just can't do that in this day and age.

He was very lucky to get away with it.

[Beardy200]

Nov 7, 2008 11:21:54 GMT bayernoatcake said:

I admit it was probably unecessary but he's a young lad and he saw the ball there to be won and he won it. I judge a tackle on if they win the ball and thats where I take issue with it being a dirty foul. It was hard but fair.

Grow up now will you. Tackling from behind has been banned for years and anyone saying it wasn't a foul is just kidding themselves. Secondly it was off the pitch. Most"honest" Stoke fans would say a yellow card would have been justified. So it wasn't fair and as for being young ... well i don't really understand what you're saying there, his age should be irrelevant where a ref is concerned.

The whole point of this debate is whether he "hurt" him intentionally which i don't believe he did while Adebayor and Van Persie's intentions would seem a lot more clear-cut.

[Lakeland Potter]

squareball - I don't "know" if Ryan was intending to hurt Adebayor. That is why I said that I "think" he wasn't rather than saying I "know" he wasn't. I was giving my opinion. I can't know Ryan's mind set at the time - any more than any of us can.

In my opinion it was a rash tackle but not a malicious tackle. It was also (under the current laws of the game) a foul. Wenger might care to reflect that the earlier foul by Adebayor on Shawcross was a far worse tackle and (in my opinion) it is difficult not to think that there was intent to injure.

[PotteringThrough]

Great tackle.