Leg breakers

In light of Luke Shaw's injury last night, I thought it might be topical to discuss the sanctions currently in place to punish players who cause serious injury, and whether they should be more severe. At the moment incidents like this would simply be covered under the disciplinary system, so would be punished in line with the on-field sanction.

Should there be an automatic fixed-term ban for leg-breaking challenges? Personally, I'd argue for a month ban for a first offence. Whenever an incident like this happens, the standard defence is that "he's not that type of player". I think it's certainly rare that players go out to injure others (Roy Keane being a notable exception), but I don't think lack of intent is an acceptable excuse. If players aren't going in to break legs, then they can only be doing so out of recklessness or sheer incompetence. I don't think either is an acceptable defence for causing serious injury. I think statutory fixed-term bans would help to reduce the kind of reckless/ incompetent challenges that cause such serious injuries. Further, this would also punish the offender more proportionately to the damage they've done.

I would hold up Ryan Shawcross as an example. He's been involved in a number of serious incidents throughout his career. His reaction each time has been one of genuine remorse and I don't doubt that he's a decent enough guy. However, there's no getting round the fact that he causes injuries. Surely a stretch on the sidelines would cause him to rethink his approach?

Can't remember shawcross's on ramsay. Irwin on Buust 2 players going in and not particularly recklessly.

Last night it is the second leg sweeping through that causes the injury. I was simulating a slide tackle in bed this morning and cannot understand the reason for that second leg to sweep through unless it it to take the player out

Whilst I partially agree with what your saying, this would need to be managed on a case-by-case basis. There are to many variables to just give a flat out ban...

1) Intent would be subjective?
2) Weather? Does this make people more clumsly/lack control?
3) The injured parties? Is it someones fault that Jack Wilshire has the genetic make-up of a poppadum?

Decent topic for discussion though!

From the replay i saw there isn't enough to warrant a ban. The angle Moreno comes in from is what caused the issue he was always going to follow through with the trailing leg but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't break a leg.

Fernando wrote:From the replay i saw there isn't enough to warrant a ban. The angle Moreno comes in from is what caused the issue he was always going to follow through with the trailing leg but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't break a leg.

No, he sweeps (straightens out) the trailing leg after playing the ball.

Posted this elsewhere too, but

Reckon that tackle meets the FIFA definition of foul play:

"Any player who lunges at an opponent when challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play"

No mention of "got the ball". I reckon that tackle is clearly with excessive force as he left the ground and had no control of himself after that

seanmichaels wrote:

Fernando wrote:From the replay i saw there isn't enough to warrant a ban. The angle Moreno comes in from is what caused the issue he was always going to follow through with the trailing leg but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't break a leg.

No, he sweeps (straightens out) the trailing leg after playing the ball.

It was always going to straighten the way he went in It was more a body posture issue then anything if was left shoulder the leg would of been tucked under and no issue but because it was the right and had to reach when he slides you want to get up quickly so you attempt to roll over which brought the straightened left leg over.

It wasn't malicious IMO just ill judged.

Fernando wrote:From the replay i saw there isn't enough to warrant a ban. The angle Moreno comes in from is what caused the issue he was always going to follow through with the trailing leg but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't break a leg.

But surely the fact that he was always going to follow through with his trailing leg is the very definition of recklessness? The fact that he's broken a leg (even if he wouldn't have nine other times out of ten) is negligence.

I didnt see it as vicious, just uncontrolled. I think its a red in the game, but whether they retrospectively go back I don't know.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Fernando wrote:From the replay i saw there isn't enough to warrant a ban. The angle Moreno comes in from is what caused the issue he was always going to follow through with the trailing leg but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't break a leg.

But surely the fact that he was always going to follow through with his trailing leg is the very definition of recklessness? The fact that he's broken a leg (even if he wouldn't have nine other times out of ten) is negligence.

The problem is you will see them most week in every league without injury just a foul.

If rather than Luke Shaw it had been Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi with a double fracture of the leg then Moreno would have received a red card, a penalty would have been awarded, and a UEFA panel would have convened to ban the player for at least 8 months.

Fernando wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Fernando wrote:From the replay i saw there isn't enough to warrant a ban. The angle Moreno comes in from is what caused the issue he was always going to follow through with the trailing leg but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't break a leg.

But surely the fact that he was always going to follow through with his trailing leg is the very definition of recklessness? The fact that he's broken a leg (even if he wouldn't have nine other times out of ten) is negligence.

The problem is you will see them most week in every league without injury just a foul.

I don't see that as an acceptable argument. Lack of serious injury doesn't make a tackle any less reckless. If you punish harshly tackles that cause serious injury, you will reduce the number of reckless tackles made.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote: I didnt see it as vicious, just uncontrolled. I think its a red in the game, but whether they retrospectively go back I don't know.

Again, to me, that just sounds like the 'not that type of player' defence. Of course it wasn't vicious. However, it was, as you say, uncontrolled. And it was so to the point that a guy's leg was broken.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Fernando wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Fernando wrote:From the replay i saw there isn't enough to warrant a ban. The angle Moreno comes in from is what caused the issue he was always going to follow through with the trailing leg but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't break a leg.

But surely the fact that he was always going to follow through with his trailing leg is the very definition of recklessness? The fact that he's broken a leg (even if he wouldn't have nine other times out of ten) is negligence.

The problem is you will see them most week in every league without injury just a foul.

I don't see that as an acceptable argument. Lack of serious injury doesn't make a tackle any less reckless. If you punish harshly tackles that cause serious injury, you will reduce the number of reckless tackles made.

That won't work, You can get a serious injury from any tackle. Petr Cech fractured his skull because Stephen Hunt clipped him accidentally whilst hurdling him. Olivier Giroud & Alan Smith broke their legs/ankle blocking the ball. Even the most innocuous tackles manage to tear ankle/knee ligaments

Exactly.

Can't judge by the injury obtained, people have been horrifically onjured in fairly innocuous circumstances e.g. Djbril cisse.

Ent wrote:Exactly.

Can't judge by the injury obtained, people have been horrifically onjured in fairly innocuous circumstances e.g. Djbril cisse.

That's a separate matter entirely. I'm talking about injuries caused by reckless tackles. In these cases, injury is absolutely avoidable.

Punishment should be based on the tackle not on its consequences.