|
Post by crowey on Nov 7, 2008 14:23:39 GMT
I think it looks like a sublime tackle, but unfortunately illegal today. Thank God in wasn't in the seventies
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 7, 2008 16:00:11 GMT
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. I'm an advocate of tackling from behind though. Always have been when they win the ball. Just my perogative on football. I think its too poncified nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on Nov 7, 2008 21:55:45 GMT
The ball had gone off the pitch, the tackle was from behind and his studs were showing. I love our passion and the way we play wholehearted, hard & fair. I think Shawcross is gona be something special; the tackle however, was appalling , let’s not make excuses for the un-defendable.
|
|
|
Post by lurcherman on Nov 7, 2008 22:23:32 GMT
whatever people think of the tackle, we've all seen a lot, lot, lot worse than both tackles. Wenger just needs to "grow a pair" and get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by lurcherman on Nov 7, 2008 22:27:24 GMT
I'm an advocate of tackling from behind though. Always have been when they win the ball. Just my perogative on football. I think its too poncified nowadays. Bayern, I wonder what Alan Dodd would make of this rule? ;D He was the master of the sliding tackle from behind
|
|
|
Post by Oatcake Andy on Nov 7, 2008 22:33:45 GMT
In this day and age the tackle was illegal and should really have got a yellow card and could have got a red. I think TP will have been having a quiet word with young Ryan about this and I doubt/hope we won't see anything similar again However, if this was a red (and personally I don't think so) then the reverse tackle before half time when Ryan ended up with stud marks on his thigh also was so Ryan's tackle would never have happened! Time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 7, 2008 22:51:22 GMT
At the time it looked nasty and I'd have said it was a clumsy tackle, maybe worthy of a yellow card.
The Delap one makes you wish you could appeal against yellow cards and have it transferred to Walcott for diving. Served him right that he injured a shoulder. Trying to get an opposition player sent off (resulting in a 3 game suspension) and winning your team a free kick is as bad as injuring a player for 3 games.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 8, 2008 0:39:28 GMT
My twopennyworth.
It was a bad tackle. It was from behind and totally unnecesary. Yellow card, definitely. Perhaps even a red one. Some refs would have sent him off.
Having said that, he did play the ball and not the man. You can clearly see that from the photo. He went between his legs and not at them. I think he intended to make a hard [not injury intending] tackle to get his own back for the chest high, studs up one that Adebyor had made on him previously. If anything, that was worse, or at least as bad, as the one Ryan made.
As for the tackle that injured Walcot, it was never malicious and was a simple mistimed tackle that happens about ten times every game. Rory was tiring and Walcott was just too quick for him. The injury was unfortunate but he didn't help himself by diving to emphasise that he had been tackled.
OS.
|
|