Comment deleted by Site Moderator
There's a surprise, fat arsenal fan backs his arsenal mate.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Just to clarify something Mark, as this has obviously degenerated slightly.
In your opinion, was the challenge on Eduardo a bad tackle?
And would you accept that the chances of injuring someone are increased if a tackle is bad - eg late or high?
I'm not talking about intent or maliciousness, just the pure physical action of tackling late and/or high.
So then, does it not follow that if a player is badly injured as the result of a ” bad “ tackle, that player is entitled to feel more aggrieved at the nature of the tackle than one who picks up a freak injury in an innocuous challenge?
Yes, but as i tried to explain already, i don't think taylor meant for his foot to nearly come off, he was extremely unlucky in that respect, it was a very clumsy challenge and certainly not worthy of a lifetime ban.
I'm not disputing that.
What I am saying is that intention ( or lack thereof ) doesn't define responsibility.
If you behave in a manner that increases the chances of injury, then you have to be prepared to accept that an increased amout of responsibility for any injury caused goes along with that.
Sorry for the protracted nature of comments by the way, looking in sporadically mid work. Appreciate you sticking with it.
No worries, i take your points.
Sign in if you want to comment
F.A are an absolute disgrace
Page 5 of 5
posted on 20/3/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/3/13
There's a surprise, fat arsenal fan backs his arsenal mate.
posted on 20/3/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/3/13
Just to clarify something Mark, as this has obviously degenerated slightly.
In your opinion, was the challenge on Eduardo a bad tackle?
posted on 20/3/13
Yes
posted on 20/3/13
But not malicious
posted on 20/3/13
And would you accept that the chances of injuring someone are increased if a tackle is bad - eg late or high?
I'm not talking about intent or maliciousness, just the pure physical action of tackling late and/or high.
posted on 20/3/13
In the main, yes.
posted on 21/3/13
So then, does it not follow that if a player is badly injured as the result of a ” bad “ tackle, that player is entitled to feel more aggrieved at the nature of the tackle than one who picks up a freak injury in an innocuous challenge?
posted on 21/3/13
Yes, but as i tried to explain already, i don't think taylor meant for his foot to nearly come off, he was extremely unlucky in that respect, it was a very clumsy challenge and certainly not worthy of a lifetime ban.
posted on 21/3/13
I'm not disputing that.
What I am saying is that intention ( or lack thereof ) doesn't define responsibility.
If you behave in a manner that increases the chances of injury, then you have to be prepared to accept that an increased amout of responsibility for any injury caused goes along with that.
posted on 21/3/13
Sorry for the protracted nature of comments by the way, looking in sporadically mid work. Appreciate you sticking with it.
posted on 21/3/13
No worries, i take your points.
Page 5 of 5