*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[sledger]

Isn't a pedant.

Well, no, in all seriousness I would like to know. Hurling yourself in to a tackle where in all probability you will not win the ball but decide to go ahead with it anyway despite the considerable risk to the guy on the other end would amount to recklessness in my eyes, whether or not it is dressed up as "an error of judgement". Similarly, I would suggest it is naive to suggest that an error of judgement cannot in nature amount to being seriously reckless.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Well yeah, obviously recklesness isn't intentional and an error of judgement by its very definition, no?

 

[Loony BoB]

Define reckless plz.

Reckless: Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually fol. by of): to be reckless of danger.
Characterized by or proceeding from such carelessness: reckless extravagance.

For me, a reckless tackle is when someone tackles with disregard for the opponent, not really giving a crap about making contact or not actually winning the ball or, well, anything. Basically tackling with the primary intention of breaking up the opposition rather than getting the ball. Not caring at all.

I think Shawcross's was going for the ball and thought he'd get it. If it were a fraction slower, he'd have got it. That's life - you don't always win the ball, but to be reckless would be to throw hise entire body into Ramsey instead, which admittedly wouldn't have broken his leg but would have been a blatant shouldercharge that would obviously have resulted in a yellow without a second thought, if not a red. Instead he went for what he probably thought was an achievable, non-threatening challenge and just so happened to not get to his goal (the ball) but instead what was there about 0.05 seconds later - a foot, ankle, leg, whatever he connected with. If he wasn't going for the ball, I don't think he'd have shaped his foot in such a way as to clear a ball. The entire movement he made was that of a clearance, not a reckless tackle.

Reckless: See 'Scholes'.

EDIT: Also, for me, studs out is almost always reckless when you're going towards a player because you're a) not doing what you can to minimise contact with the opposition, b) minimise potential damage to the opposition should you make contact and also c) genuinely expecting to win the ball.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Again, I don't think it was reckless - I think it was an error of judgement. It looked to me like he genuinely thought he was going to win the ball, and as said (a cliché, but still true), "it happened so fast". There are far, far, far more reckless challenges/tackles that happen day-in, day-out in the PL. Also, again, as I've mentioned - if things were minutely different - and it would only take a splitsecond of difference - Ramsey could well have ended up with his foot going through Shawcross's leg. It was completely 50/50. If you want to take out recklessness, and you consider Shawcross's challenge as reckless, then I would dare say that Ramsey's challenge - despite the fact that he won it - was also reckless. Card the guy with the broken leg? "But he won it!" - again, as said before (and nobody has replied to that post of mine...) - so do others, but they can still injure the other player regardless as in the case of Possebon's injury.

Isn't that like po-tay-toe & po-tar-toe tho? Rash, rush of blood, heat of the moment, error of judgement; all synonyms for "reckless", pretty much, aren't they?

& Ramsey wasn't having a bit scythe at the ball, so even if he'd have been second to it it's doubtful he'd have similarly injured Shawcross.

 

[sledger]

Well yeah, obviously recklesness isn't intentional and an error of judgement by its very definition, no?

I'm not really sure what the point you're alluring to is here, but ok.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'm not really sure what the point you're alluring to is here, but ok.

Well I was trying to agree with you

 

[duffer]

“During yesterday’s match against Stoke City, Aaron Ramsey sustained fractures to the tibia and fibula in his right leg. Yesterday evening he underwent surgery.

"The operation successfully reduced the fractures and whilst it is too soon to state an exact timescale for recovery, Aaron will certainly miss the remainder of this season. Our thoughts are with Aaron at this time and everyone at the Club wishes him all the best in making as speedy a return to action as possible.”

Bloody hell. Have read differing times for recovery anywhere between 6 months and a year. Hopefully having the top of the line medical help he can get and will have it on the lower end of the scale.

 

[sledger]

Reckless: Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually fol. by of): to be reckless of danger.
Characterized by or proceeding from such carelessness: reckless extravagance.

For me, a reckless tackle is when someone tackles with disregard for the opponent, not really giving a crap about making contact or not actually winning the ball or, well, anything. Basically tackling with the primary intention of breaking up the opposition rather than getting the ball. Not caring at all.

I think Shawcross's was going for the ball and thought he'd get it. If it were a fraction slower, he'd have got it. That's life - you don't always win the ball, but to be reckless would be to throw hise entire body into Ramsey instead, which admittedly wouldn't have broken his leg but would have been a blatant shouldercharge that would obviously have resulted in a yellow without a second thought, if not a red. Instead he went for what he probably thought was an achievable, non-threatening challenge and just so happened to not get to his goal (the ball) but instead what was there about 0.05 seconds later - a foot, ankle, leg, whatever he connected with. If he wasn't going for the ball, I don't think he'd have shaped his foot in such a way as to clear a ball. The entire movement he made was that of a clearance, not a reckless tackle.

Reckless: See 'Scholes'.

EDIT: Also, for me, studs out is almost always reckless when you're going towards a player because you're a) not doing what you can to minimise contact with the opposition, b) minimise potential damage to the opposition should you make contact and also c) genuinely expecting to win the ball.

Right, so as long as he thought the tackle was achievable, he didn't act recklessly. That's like me saying I wasn't driving recklessly when I tried to overtake a cyclist on a single carriageway road at 90mph and ended up killing him, because I thought I getting past him safely was achieveable.

 

[sledger]

Well I was trying to agree with you

Always knew you were a gun Morris.

 

[sledger]

“During yesterday’s match against Stoke City, Aaron Ramsey sustained fractures to the tibia and fibula in his right leg. Yesterday evening he underwent surgery.

"The operation successfully reduced the fractures and whilst it is too soon to state an exact timescale for recovery, Aaron will certainly miss the remainder of this season. Our thoughts are with Aaron at this time and everyone at the Club wishes him all the best in making as speedy a return to action as possible.”

Bloody hell. Have read differing times for recovery anywhere between 6 months and a year. Hopefully having the top of the line medical help he can get and will have it on the lower end of the scale.

That sounds quite promising, initially anyway. Fingers crossed. Would be mega devo if he isn't able to recover, there's something worse about this than the Eduardo one for me.

 

[Loony BoB]

Isn't that like po-tay-toe & po-tar-toe tho? Rash, rush of blood, heat of the moment, error of judgement; all synonyms for "reckless", pretty much, aren't they?

& Ramsey wasn't having a bit scythe at the ball, so even if he'd have been second to it it's doubtful he'd have similarly injured Shawcross.

I don't think so. "Heat of the moment" - sure. "Rush of blood" - sure. That suggests your judgement is clouded by emotion or that you were blinded by only thinking about the ball and not the opposition at all. To be fair, this may have been the case - I don't know what was going through Ramsey's head, but like yourself, I can only assume.

Genuinely thinking you're doing what is right? No, that's not reckless. You can't define inaccuracy as recklessness in a sport like this. I wouldn't say that when a ref incorrectly believes a player didn't intentionally handball that the ref is being "reckless", I'd say he got it wrong. I wouldn't say that a player going for a header and not getting it is reckless, I'd say he missed. It's not Shawcross's fault that he didn't think Ramsey was going to get the ball, nor is it his fault that Ramsey's leg was at the exact right spot for connection at the time. At that speed, Shawcross could (I won't say 'did' because I won't pretend to know for certain, but I mean, nobody does) easily have believed that he was going to connect with the ball and that Ramsey wasn't going to get it, and that he was not going to connect with Ramsey in any way. He was running at a high speed, he made a judgement call, a snap decision, that he could get this, that he was going to beat Ramsey to it.

He was wrong. Reckless is slamming into the player with your body, as that is careless, unconcerned about the consequences, without caution, without care of danger. Instead, Shawcross went for the ball. He could have easily done the reckless thing and got the same end result - breaking up the play. But instead he went for the way which he believed would minimise damage potential (and you can never completely minimise potential damage without, as you said, making it a non-contact sport).

Wrong != Reckless.

 

[PhoenixFire]

There's nothing regulation about a studs up tackle - it's ****ing dangerous play.

Notice how I said 'regulation studs up' tackle and not 'regulation tackle'.

 

[Uppercut]

Right, so as long as he thought the tackle was achievable, he didn't act recklessly. That's like me saying I wasn't driving recklessly when I tried to overtake a cyclist on a single carriageway road at 90mph and ended up killing him, because I thought I getting past him safely was achieveable.

Well, Ramsey could have conceivably broken Shawcross's leg with his challenge too. Would you call his challenge reckless?

 

[duffer]

EDIT: Where was it possible to break Shawcross' legs there?

 

[sledger]

EDIT: Where was it possible to break Shawcross' legs there?

Tbf Bro, Ramsey was kicking the ball, pretty reckless imo, foot on the ground and everything, would have been sent off were it not for his injury tbh. Incredibly dangerous.

 

[duffer]

Tbf Bro, Ramsey was kicking the ball, pretty reckless imo, foot on the ground and everything, would have been sent off were it not for his injury tbh. Incredibly dangerous.

Ic ic.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course he could have, you can break someone's leg in any tackle. His foot was off the ground, as it has to be when trying to kick a football, and all it took was for Shawcross's leg to be in the wrong place and it would be broken. No? Isn't there a risk to any tackle ever?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think so. "Heat of the moment" - sure. "Rush of blood" - sure. That suggests your judgement is clouded by emotion or that you were blinded by only thinking about the ball and not the opposition at all. To be fair, this may have been the case - I don't know what was going through Ramsey's head, but like yourself, I can only assume.

Genuinely thinking you're doing what is right? No, that's not reckless. You can't define inaccuracy as recklessness in a sport like this. I wouldn't say that when a ref incorrectly believes a player didn't intentionally handball that the ref is being "reckless", I'd say he got it wrong. I wouldn't say that a player going for a header and not getting it is reckless, I'd say he missed. It's not Shawcross's fault that he didn't think Ramsey was going to get the ball, nor is it his fault that Ramsey's leg was at the exact right spot for connection at the time. At that speed, Shawcross could (I won't say 'did' because I won't pretend to know for certain, but I mean, nobody does) easily have believed that he was going to connect with the ball and that Ramsey wasn't going to get it, and that he was not going to connect with Ramsey in any way. He was running at a high speed, he made a judgement call, a snap decision, that he could get this, that he was going to beat Ramsey to it.

He was wrong. Reckless is slamming into the player with your body, as that is careless, unconcerned about the consequences, without caution, without care of danger. Instead, Shawcross went for the ball. He could have easily done the reckless thing and got the same end result - breaking up the play. But instead he went for the way which he believed would minimise damage potential (and you can never completely minimise potential damage without, as you said, making it a non-contact sport).

Wrong != Reckless.

Not necessarily no, but in this case they are tantamount to the same thing. Regardless of intent, such are the potential consequences I don't think there's any way around the fact Shawcross's actions were reckless. I might genuinely believe I could drive home safely after a dozen pints, but if my judement was erroneous I don't think anyone could say I hadn't acted recklessly.

 

[sledger]

Of course he could have, you can break someone's leg in any tackle. His foot was off the ground, as it has to be when trying to kick a football, and all it took was for Shawcross's leg to be in the wrong place and it would be broken. No? Isn't there a risk to any tackle ever?

Again, above ground and above the ankle are very different things.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Those screen-shots are completely useless and they tell you nothing; it's impossible to put the frame into any sort of perspective.