Arsenal

[Dude Ranch]

I tend to agree with this. I don't think it was as bad a challenge as people make out but the outcome was horrendous. Its unfortunate but a complete change to the rules is too much for my liking. It will cause serious controversy for a start as players will be banned for varying lengths of times and managers will be saying "so and so's challenge wasn't as bad as his so why does he get a two game ban and my player gets a 3 game one?"

If you hit someone and he stands there and just looks at you, and then I hit someone and he stumbles back, hits his head and dies, do we deserve the same punishment for both hitting someone? Similarly, if you tackle someone and he gets up with no fuss and then I tackle someone, break their leg and end their career should we both get the same ban? Given that he tackle was an unfair one, obviously.

I mean, it's quite an interesting question.

[bowser123]

I just hope you don't bottle it now as I can't bear the thought of them getting one closer to our record, especially with us being as far away as ever from doing it ourselves.

Aye.

Here's one for you to ponder, too. Next week, both teams play at 3PM on the Saturday. I expect Utd to beat Fulham, though I'm not so sure Arse will beat Villa. Chances of it being down to one point by 5PM next Saturday?

[AndyB]

Eduardo seems very phylosophical about it all saying that it was unfortunate but these things happen.

[Nate Dogg III]

I agree it wasn't the world's worst tackle but you've got to be joking in comparing it to all those incidents.

Well others seem to think it's the end, not the means, that should be punished. In which case they're both perfectly fair comparisons.

[Chewylegs]

If you hit someone and he stands there and just looks at you, and then I hit someone and he stumbles back, hits his head and dies, do we deserve the same punishment for both hitting someone? Similarly, if you tackle someone and he gets up with no fuss and then I tackle someone, break their leg and end their career should we both get the same ban? Given that he tackle was an unfair one, obviously.

I mean, it's quite an interesting question.

How's it going to work though? 3 match ban for a red card offence with no injury, 4 games if you give light bruising, 5 if you tear something, 6 if you break anything and half a season if you break something in more than one place?

Seriously, its terrible its happened I just don't see that you can change the rules if the resulting tackle puts a player our of action for a while.

[Chewylegs]

Aye.

Here's one for you to ponder, too. Next week, both teams play at 3PM on the Saturday. I expect Utd to beat Fulham, though I'm not so sure Arse will beat Villa. Chances of it being down to one point by 5PM next Saturday?

Very funny mate. I'm in no way frightened I just prefer Arsenal than Man U.

[SeanR]

Busst says that Eduardo should play again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...nal/7263029.stm

[Chewylegs]

I seem to remember him being in the stand during a certain 4-0 victory last week.

So one game is sufficient to say you can cope without him? I wouldn't have thought even the most blinkered fan would suggest that you would be where you were without Ronaldo's goals.

[SeanR]

Just in case you haven't already seen it.

I don't know what to write.

[Mars]

Would like to take a mate with me to the Wigan game but he's not a member - would anyone who is a member but not going mind me using their number for the game? You'll get the away credit which is a bonus

EDIT: Sorted - thanks Anders Limpar

[Dude Ranch]

How's it going to work though? 3 match ban for a red card offence with no injury, 4 games if you give light bruising, 5 if you tear something, 6 if you break anything and half a season if you break something in more than one place?

Seriously, its terrible its happened I just don't see that you can change the rules if the resulting tackle puts a player our of action for a while.

Yeah, I was highlighting how tough it would be. It's tough in law too but that's life. But how do you see it, can we overlook every broken leg from a reckless tackle? He's made an illegal challenge and broken a leg, it's not far removed from my example of punching someone and doing them serious damage. If you do something stupid you run the risk of getting it dreadfully wrong so why should there be no real consequences?

[Chewylegs]

I can see your point. Its a difficult one. The problem would be trying to make it fair. If you don't break a leg but commit a horrendous challenge (worse than the Eduardo one) do you get punished just as severely? In my eyes you would have to as the intent is there to cause the opposition player pain but lucky this time you didn't.

[Miner Willy]

I would've fucking cheered my tits off if it was Robbie Savage.

Then you're no better than Dude's workmate.

[cantonarv]

Deducting points? Oh come on.

The automatic three game ban seems disproportionate in the context of the injury but surely the FA, the referee can only legislate against the offence and not its consequence? If you bring in this sliding scale, case-by-case basis then football will no longer be won or lost on the pitch but in the courts.

That was far from the worst tackle I've seen this season, and it produced far and away the worst consequence. Stephen Hunt nearly ended Petr Cech's career last season with an innocuous challenge over a ball he was fully entitled to go for. Was it Diaby who completely accidentally knocked JT unconscious with a boot square in the face this time last year causing him to miss a critical time of the season? Would you have them banned as well?

It's terribly sad for Eduardo and everyone connected with Arsenal but really, honestly, I find all this talk of sliding scales and retrospective action and points deductions far more dangerous to the integrity and entertainment value of the game than one broken leg, however unwelcome such a comment may likely be in this particular thread (sorry). If Arsenal as a club still feel so strongly about it today then I would suggest they seek legal advice about whether they can press charges against Taylor or seek compensation from Birmingham, but while I'm far from an expert I strongly doubt they'll get anywhere with either.

Great post.

The thing is all clubs have players guilty of doing the same thing so it would be affecting Arsenal just as much as Brum if there was a sliding scale.

Have a look at the fair play league http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/fairpla...G.1&cc=5901 !

[TehStu]

And because these suggestions have come from an Arsenal thread by Arsenal supporters, it naturally means their own team is above such critique.

Come on, there's been no "we're squeaky clean, you're all wee shites" going on here. Football could do with studs-in challenges being sorted out, not just Arsenal.

[bowser123]

If you hit someone and he stands there and just looks at you, and then I hit someone and he stumbles back, hits his head and dies, do we deserve the same punishment for both hitting someone? Similarly, if you tackle someone and he gets up with no fuss and then I tackle someone, break their leg and end their career should we both get the same ban? Given that he tackle was an unfair one, obviously.

I mean, it's quite an interesting question.

CLICK ME for the video of that tackle.

That was just one tackle last week that was stupid and wreckless. Difference being in that still is Nani saw it coming and jumped. If he hadn't, and his leg was planted like Eduardo's this week, would he have fucked Nani's leg up? Possibly.

The thing to remember with that is it happened just after half time, well before Nani started acting the seal. So I don't think it was spiteful and intended to harm, unlike these cowardly bastards.Maybe it can be described as a poor "strikers" challenge.

On the face of it Eduardo has done something incredibly similar to what happened to him the week later. I'm not sure where I'm going with this other than the general feeling that you can't really have disparity in punishment for effectively the same thing, the punishment being decided by the eventual outcome.

Eboue has been rather reckless with a few tackles, but he's never been dangerous or lunged in high!

[Mars]

I was regailed with some wonderful chants regarding Eduardo's injury by a Spurs fan today which were also sung at yesterday's final . What a lovely bunch.

[Peter Hitchens]

The statement released by hte club sounds promising...

"The Club can confirm that following the incident during Saturday’s match at Birmingham City, Eduardo has fractured his left fibula and sustained an open dislocation of his ankle joint in the same leg.

...

Earlier today (Monday 25th February), the Orthopaedic surgeon and Arsenal medical staff assessed the extent of the damage and possible time scale for a full recovery.

All being well, Eduardo will have his leg in plaster and using crutches for the next six to eight weeks. After that time, partial weight-bearing exercises will be scheduled into a slow rehabilitation process.

It is hoped that Eduardo will be running again in six months time and making a full recovery after nine months."

Obviously we've yet to see whether the recovery goes smoothly, and whether he'll be the same player again when he comes back, but it sounds like they don't think it's a "career ender".

[Mars]

Such good news.

[Guest]

If we look to the law, we may not the eggshell skull rule. If you fuck someone up, intentional or otherwise, you are liable for whatever happens whether you foresaw it or not. In otherwords, if someone's skull is literally an eggshell, you punch him and his head explodes, that is entirely your fault. Same should apply here.

[Mars]

So, Taylors received death threats....

FFS

[hercules]

EDIT: I really hope this spurs the team on to go and win some trophies. It's good news with Eduardo i just hope he doesn't have any set backs.

Oops

[Gabzy]

You really hope spurs go on and win some trophys?

[Mars]

I really hope the spurs the team on to go and win some trophys. It's good news with Eduardo i just hope he doesn't have any set backs.

Have you fallen on your head?

[SomeNaiveChump]

On the face of it Eduardo has done something incredibly similar to what happened to him the week later.

In Eduardo's challenge on Nani, Eduardo's knees were bent/flimsy (because he pulled out realising the ball had gone) and no harm would've come to Nani even if his foot had been in the way and planted.

It's nothing like Taylor's challenge in action or consequence.

[Dude Ranch]

I'm not sure where I'm going with this other than the general feeling that you can't really have disparity in punishment for effectively the same thing, the punishment being decided by the eventual outcome.

Yes, you can. Reworking my admittedly boring example, if I go to punch someone and they brush it off then I'm a dick but we've both got lucky. If I punch someone and they're standing on cooking oil on lino and they slip, bang their head and die I rightly go to prison. One example is forgotten about in five minutes and the other has a frightfully unlucky set of circumstances but is a direct result of my actions. I caused it. I can't complain to the judge that he was standing on a slippery surface or that I've never hit anyone before. The same as Taylor can't claim that Eduardo was too good for him (what a SHIT excuse that's always been), that it was bad timing, his studs caught in the ground or anything else. Some players make worse tackles but get lucky. Some make simply reckless tackles - illegal in this case as per the red card - and break someone's leg. That's life. You make your own luck and if you live by the sword you die by it.

If we look to the law, we may not the eggshell skull rule. If you fuck someone up, intentional or otherwise, you are liable for whatever happens whether you foresaw it or not. In otherwords, if someone's skull is literally an eggshell, you punch him and his head explodes, that is entirely your fault. Same should apply here.

Which is what I think I just said but in way fewer words .

For the record, I have calmed down about it, as I said earlier. I also saw it from another angle just now and it does still look just as bad. It's a horrible tackle that had horrible consequences and a three game ban is a joke regardless of remorse and previous behaviour. All IMO, of course.

[Rsdio]

That was just one tackle last week that was stupid and wreckless. Difference being in that still is Nani saw it coming and jumped. If he hadn't, and his leg was planted like Eduardo's this week, would he have fucked Nani's leg up? Possibly.

The thing to remember with that is it happened just after half time, well before Nani started acting the seal. So I don't think it was spiteful and intended to harm, unlike these cowardly bastards.Maybe it can be described as a poor "strikers" challenge.

Nani got off lightly

[g wings]

Nani got off lightly

No real intent, definitely just a yellow card

[Silent Runner]

James Lawton has a good article in the paper today. It’s about Eduardo but also about the whole ‘get stuck in’ style of play teams used by the Birmingham’s and the Bolton’s against more skilful sides like Arsenal or Manchester United.

*****

Eduardo da Silva once had exquisitely skillful and very quick feet. It is a statement of fact made no less forlorn by yesterday's optimistic news that we may be able to say that again in roughly nine months time.

Certainly there is no reassurance in the clamour insisting that however long he is out of the game it will have nothing to do with the malicious nature of Birmingham City's Martin Taylor.

Okay, let's agree Taylor is not a footballing psychopath and that his reaction of horror at the consequences of his tackle on Eduardo was entirely genuine. But then let's agree on something else. It was the kind of X-rated tackle which has become commonplace in the Premiership.

Taylor's foot was in the air, his studs were showing and, given the hair-trigger dexterity of Eduardo on the ball, the chances of injury ran very high. Some have praised the referee for reaching so promptly for a red card but if you are a traffic cop and someone comes steaming through a red light you don't wait to see how much mayhem has been caused. The truth is Eduardo's sickening fate was the big accident waiting to happen. Now that it has, maybe, just maybe, a growing problem will be addressed.

The trouble is not, as so many within the game say, that football is a contact sport which would be hopelessly diminished if defenders were not allowed to tackle with some force.

Good defence is as much an art as good attack -- for confirmation you only have to look at Paolo Maldini or, for that matter, Rio Ferdinand and Gael Clichy on one their better days. What has to be attacked, with new legislation, is the trend which Arsene Wenger legitimately lambasted while, by his own commendable admission, going completely over the top in his assertion that Taylor should be banned for life.

Justified

What should be wiped away is the belief that teams of inferior resources, and thus inferior skills, are somehow justified in reducing the odds against them by blurring the line between honest and vigorous defence and tackling that has no place at the highest level of the game.

We are not talking about the old devilry of over-the-top tackling which became a dark cult in the sixties and seventies -- and also a deadly skill in possession of some of the most talented players who declared that if they ran the risk of dying by the sword while in full view of unknowing officials they might as well wield one in their own defence. No, the kind of tackle which Taylor inflicted on Eduardo would have been scoffed at in the old days. It carried the inherent sub-lethal intent of a cudgel.

However, nowadays whenever one of those crude assault occurs there is an instant chorus from the broadcasting booth and analysis couches that what we've seen is no more than an excess of zeal or shortage of timing.

Wenger's contention -- and it is one which has been loudly voiced this season by the only manager in England who can compete at his level of football skill, Alex Ferguson -- is that teams struggling for survival in the top flight too often attempt to kick and intimidate their way of out of trouble when faced by teams who have got to top essentially by playing football.

It was a matter, for example, of much civic pride in Bolton that the blood of the old Gunners ran cold whenever they entered the Reebok Stadium. It was there, incidentally, that Ferguson was most outraged this season when his team surrendered three points in a storm of ferocious and cynical tackling by Bolton.

We all know about Ferguson's occasional objectivity by-pass -- as we do Wenger's -- but anyone in Bolton that day had to understand his rage to some serious degree. However, Bolton's new manager Gary Megson declared, "I asked them to be aggressive, yes, but I think we only had one bad tackle (fortunately, no one had their ankle broken in two places). We have to compete and I'm not going to criticise them for competing. There would be a lot more complaints from myself if we did not compete. I know we have squad a to get us out of trouble."

Naturally, this barrage of euphemism was warmly saluted in the 'Match of the Day' studio.

Birmingham City's manager also showed pleasure at the competitive levels achieved by his struggling team against Arsenal.

Here, of course, we have the greatest of all the euphemisms. If you don't have a Fabregas or a Hleb or an Eduardo or a Ronaldo or a Rooney, to be competitive is all. But at what cost to the quality of the game and the safety of those stars who are supposed to represent the development of football in these days of super fitness?

If Eduardo does beat the odds and makes a full recovery, how confident will he be in his sleight of foot and lightning speed the first time a big, heedless -- but famously non-malicious -- defender comes thundering into the tackle? And if he ducks the challenge that is such a key part of his game, can he really be said to have recovered? Hardly.

Wenger has admitted that he was wrong to say that Taylor's action warranted a life-time ban.

However, he would have been right, utterly, if he had said that a three-match automatic suspension was completely inadequate. In this case and in all others that, but for good luck, might bring the same horrendous consequences, the punishment should be at least doubled.

A score of witnesses have sworn that Taylor doesn't have a bad bone in his body but unfortunately because of a crude and illegal tackle his victim Eduardo da Silva now has several. It is a cruel reality that football cannot afford to ignore. Especially if it cares a penny for an image that will always be best protected by its most gifted players.

- James Lawton

[Petrousgyre]

Interesting listening to the Times podcast this week. Gabriele Marcotti and Guillem Balague, an Italian and Spaniard respectively, were far more incensed and appalled by Taylors challenge than the vast majority of British football pundits have been. They made a similar point to the James Lawton article above and were particularly critical of this idea that it was partly Eduardos fault for being too quick.