[Archived] Eduardo

[Ozz]

[stuwilky]

There was nothing malicious in it, it was just badly timed.

Players make mistakes, it was an accident.

No further discussion required.

[tony gale's mic]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4hczz_ed...g-arsenal_sport

for anyone still thinking this may be malicious, instead of seeing where taylor eventually ends up, see his first movements in the tackle. they are down and towards the ball. when it becomes clear that he isnt going to win the ball he sticks a foot up to stop eduardo from getting past and thats what does him in.

[LeChuck]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4hczz_ed...g-arsenal_sport

for anyone still thinking this may be malicious, instead of seeing where taylor eventually ends up, see his first movements in the tackle. they are down and towards the ball. when it becomes clear that he isnt going to win the ball he sticks a foot up to stop eduardo from getting past and thats what does him in.

That video makes it look even worse.

Your sentence makes no sense either. Your interpretation is that Taylor went for the ball, realised that had gone so raised his studs on to Eduardo to deliberately foul him. How does that make it ok?

There was nothing malicious in it, it was just badly timed.

Players make mistakes, it was an accident.

No further discussion required.

That's a bit of an uncharacteristically arrogant post Stu.

I don't think anyone can claim Taylor mind to injure Eduardo badly, but I personally (and so do many others by the sound of it) feel that Taylor had at least meant to give him a hard tackle early on as defenders often do, or possibly just trying to bring him down in the manner tony suggested in the quote above.

Whatever Taylor's reasons for tackling with his studs halfway up Eduardo's shin, it went horribly wrong. Any such gross misjudgement and incompetence in another industry would be heavily punished, it just seems a massive injustice to me that Eduardo has to suffer for Taylor's error. I've made more posts on this so I don't want to repeat myself, but 8 pages of discussion disproves your final sentence really.

Suspending the offender for the length of time the victim is out injured for makes sense to me; maybe players would take far more responsibility if they thought they might have to miss months/years as a result of their studs-showing lunge, and not just three games. These sort of incidents are so rare that it would hardly effect the game at all, the last injury like this that had definite blame attached to it that I can remember is the Haaland/Keane incident. Most of the time these serious injuries seem to happen from fairly innocuous situations.

I wish I had access to parallel universes, I'd love to be able to post the reaction of people on here had Diouf injured Bentley in this manner. I'd wager my life that not one post would contain things like 'blameless' and 'just one of those things', whereas here we have dozens.

[stuwilky]

That's a bit of an uncharacteristically arrogant post Stu.

edit

I've made more posts on this so I don't want to repeat myself, but 8 pages of discussion disproves your final sentence really.

No arrogance intended to be honest, but to be honest, I got bored of reading mindless posts on it, no objection to a disagreement of opinion where discussion can be had.

I am of the opinion that we all make mistakes, I know I do, fortunately for me if I make a mistake in my job it rarely (ok, never!) leads to a broken leg. It wasnt a good tackle, it wasnt a well timed tackle. I can accept that.

What I struggle to come to terms with is that people genuinely believe that Martin Taylor set out to injure Eduardo. Ive seen hundreds of far worse challenges get punished by nothing more than a free kick (and sometimes even less). Ive seen many "better" challenges result in broken legs.

There is no place whatsoever in this game for intentional career ending challenges, unless you are Roy Keane, but players make mistakes - often more than even referees.

Was there as much fuss over that tackle where Robbie got his leg broken....

[American Rover12]

Was there as much fuss over that tackle where Robbie got his leg broken....

That quick answer is no.

And you're absolutely right:

What I struggle to come to terms with is that people genuinely believe that Martin Taylor set out to injure Eduardo. Ive seen hundreds of far worse challenges get punished by nothing more than a free kick (and sometimes even less). Ive seen many "better" challenges result in broken legs.

I would further comment, but it's very accurately put here.

[T4E]

There's no way Tiny Taylor has it in him to go out and injure someone deliberately.

However, he is extremely clumsy, and always has been. It could be argued that that makes him as much of a danger on the pitch as the Keanes and Muscats of this World.

[RovertheHill]

We're going to end up with a 5-a-side league if some of the comments on here are followed through. Take Sav as an example - the fact he didn't want to commit quite as much as he used to completely changed and weakened his game. If you make players believe they will be banned for a substantial amount of time if they mis-time something then the result will be similar. The key here is intent. There are plenty of examples where players are intent on injuring the opposition and by good fortune or the grace of god they miss. IMHO they are the ones that should be punished, not the accidental ones. And as for the fatuous questions about whether it had been one of our players I think the reaction would have depended on who "did" it. If you've got form (e.g. Barton, Diouf, Gallas) then the reaction to that tackle may well have been different. Which brings you back to the question of intent.

[OJRovers]

I wish I had access to parallel universes, I'd love to be able to post the reaction of people on here had Diouf injured Bentley in this manner. I'd wager my life that not one post would contain things like 'blameless' and 'just one of those things', whereas here we have dozens.

Its not really relevant, of course people would be more annoyed at Diouf etc but that's because everyone knows he sometimes does bad tackles on purpose (Liverpool earlier this year) and loses his head because he is a muppet. Martin Taylor has no previous like this at all. If anything he's been accused of being too soft.

My opinion is that it was just a bad accident, and I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more often, all it takes is someones studs to get caught in the pitch and the other to slide in a tackle.

Hopefully Eduardo will recover, but in the meantime I don't think people should have a go at Taylor.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Tony Parkes's views on the incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ers/7263372.stm

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

"It deserved a red card, but it wasn't malicious," is Henry Winter's verdict.

I'd go along with Winter's general views in that article.

"Arsene Wenger is idiotic and childish," says Birmingham midfielder

[tony gale's mic]

That video makes it look even worse.

Your sentence makes no sense either. Your interpretation is that Taylor went for the ball, realised that had gone so raised his studs on to Eduardo to deliberately foul him. How does that make it ok?

It makes perfect sense. My main point was that his challenge wasn't malicious so the fact he went for the ball pretty much fits that. And he tried to stop Eduardo and deliberately fouled him, yes, but how many deliberate fouls do you see every game? It doesn't make it okay but it's not worthy of more than a 3 match ban. What happened was a horrible accident.

[Friarsnig]

Taylor's record over the years has been pretty good, only five yellows in almost 200 games (up until Saturday), which isn't bad for a defender.

[Tim Southampton Rover]

5 yellows in 200 games shows that he still isn't aggressive enough to be a top defender.

[brian_gallagher85]

Gareth Crooks showers himself in glory again:

"1611: "Arsenal have got to keep their composure, play the way they know they can, and the breaks will come."

BBCi Score's Garth Crooks

[philipl]

One of the good things about not being in the UK is not seeing or hearing anything by Gart Crooks.

The danger of extremely bad breaks has been brought home by that poor Austrian skier who has had his lower leg amputated after a crash in competition in Norway.

[roversmum]

Apparently there wasn't adequate medical assistance available. Dreadful.

Will be interested to see how the lad copes and what he does in the future. All the best to him.

[philipl]

Yes, agreed Mum.

By a sad irony, Derek Dooley who lost a leg after colliding with Preston's keeper in 1953 died today. Many years ago a hack who may or may not have had Wednesday sympathies wrote that Dooley had his leg amputated then signed for Sheffield United.

[RibbleValleyRover]

The pea brained Sepp Blatter has made his feelings known about the incident, and as usual his comments are stupid.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3257884,00.html