• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

Eduardo's Horrific Injury -- Video Included

Do you think the tackle should be shown on TV?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 69.4%

  • No

    Votes: 26 30.6%
  • Total voters
    85
Badly timed tackle with unfortunate consequences, no more, no less.

Wenger is an awesome manager, but it's funny how he sees everything done to his players yet when his own players do something to an opponent it's always "I didn't see the incident".........

I remember seeing footage of a tackle during a Dutch league match I think it was, it's considered by many to be the worst tackle/injury in the history of football, IIRC the guy tackled still cannot walk properly and the guy who tackled him was banned from Dutch football for life, now that was a dirty, malicious tackle, the one on Eduardo was merely poorly timed. You see a 100 of them every week, just sad that this time it resulted in a horrible injury.
 
Last edited:
St1ngR4y said:
Apparentley yesterday at Wembley Spurs fans were singing 'Whats that coming out of your sock, its your ankle, its your ankle' to the tune of 'Whats that coming over the hill... :censor:
Click to expand...

Thats the first I'm hearing of this, its disgusting if true.
 
Funny (not ha-ha funny) in the Sun today. They have a picture of Taylor making a tackle in training with the title "He's Still Not Learned."

Plenty of people (not necessarily in this forum) are saying he can't tackle properly as he should keep his feet on the ground. I'm not a defender, but you need to be able to raise them for tackles - not loads, but enough to be able to slide on the grass. You can't just lay down flat and try to wiggle up to your opponent can you?
A lot of defenders try to stab the ball out of your path, so if Taylor had been quick enough he'd have taken the ball, and it would have been a good tackle. Unfortunately for Eduardo, he moved the ball at the same time Taylor had commited to the tackle. I bet that if any other part of his ankle had been hit his leg wouldn't have broken.

What about when Rooney broke his metatarsal at Chelsea last year? I think it was Carvalho who made the challenge, but no one called for him to be banned.
Just to show I'm not being biased, nothing happened when Terry had his foot broken this year, or even when Dave Buust was tackled by 2 United players when he broke his leg? OK, Ronney & Terry's weren't as serious, but they could have been (and they were still out of action for several months)...
I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think it's fair to persecute Taylor.
 
jj710 said:
Plenty of people (not necessarily in this forum) are saying he can't tackle properly as he should keep his feet on the ground. I'm not a defender, but you need to be able to raise them for tackles - not loads, but enough to be able to slide on the grass. You can't just lay down flat and try to wiggle up to your opponent can you?
Click to expand...

true. no one would ever tackle with a "flat feet" coz this could be extremely dangerous for the defender's ankle, if he would miss the tackle.

but u don't have to flect it totally, because this could be extremely dangerous for the opponent's leg, if u miss the tackle.
this kind of tackles are called "hammer-feet tackle" and are forbidden everywhere in europe; in spain, in italy, in germany, in france...

4 years ago the uefa referees association issued some guidelines to help our refs establishing when a fouls has occourred even when the defender doesn't hit the opponent.

- when the defender's feet is totally flected
- when the defender's knee is not flected;
- when the defender's leg is too high;

when any of theese circumstances occur, then a foul has been committed and the ref must give a yellow card to the player even if he didn't hit the opponent.
if the defender hits the opponent causing him pain, the sanction might be heavier (red card).

theese are not italian rules, neither spanish or german... theese are uefa guidelines.

it doens't matter if taylor wanted to reach eduardo's leg or the ball, it doesn't matter if he wasn't in a good timing.
his tackle was a dangerous play. plain and simple. and it should have been considered as a foul even if taylor would have reached the ball.
that's it.
 
Last edited:
God, Ben you've actually searched those rules or guidelines...thanks for that.
Those guidelines are quite good, but the problem is the speed of the game. It's only natural that referees miss quite a lot. Players should be punished afterwards.
The same goes for "victims" of dives. Player X receives a red card due to an opponents dive. Not all the damage is irrepairable if afterwards the player would not receive another ban for his unjust red card...
 
lo zio said:
true. no one would ever tackle with a "flat feet" coz this could be extremely dangerous for the defender's ankle, if he would miss the tackle.

but u don't have to flect it totally, because this could be extremely dangerous for the opponent's leg, if u miss the tackle.
this kind of tackles are called "hammer-feet tackle" and are forbidden everywhere in europe; in spain, in italy, in germany, in france...

4 years ago the uefa referees association issued some guidelines to help our refs establishing when a fouls has occourred even when the defender doesn't hit the opponent.

- when the defender's feet is totally flected
- when the defender's knee is not flected;
- when the defender's leg is too high;

when any of theese circumstances occur, then a foul has been committed and the ref must give a yellow card to the player even if he didn't hit the opponent.
if the defender hits the opponent causing him pain, the sanction might be heavier (red card).

theese are not italian rules, neither spanish or german... theese are uefa guidelines.

it doens't matter if taylor wanted to reach eduardo's leg or the ball, it doesn't matter if he wasn't in a good timing.
his tackle was a dangerous play. plain and simple. and it should have been considered as a foul even if taylor would have reached the ball.
that's it.
Click to expand...

and these are good rules and these are also why you see players sent off for non contact or hardly contact, intent. I agree, but In the end ben dont you think there is a difference between, dangerous play and intent to harm play, see ben thatcher on pedro mendes. The guidlines also probably call for a 3 match ban on reds as well, but some are suggesting 9 months. I think if taylor has made similar plays in the past then yes he should get more games bannend, but if this is a rare occasion then no i dont.
 
gerd said:
God, Ben you've actually searched those rules or guidelines...thanks for that.
Click to expand...

no, i honestly didn't search them. i just remember Collina talking about them this summer (in italy the refs association presidents holds a press conference every summer to explain the new guidelines introduced by fifa or uefa).
and btw theese things are public knowledge here in italy (that's what i meant to say when i was talking about "educated eyes").

and btw guys theese are not "rules". these are just guidelines, wich means that they are some criteria that eufa issued to help our refs in interpretating some situations and to guarrantee an interpretating uniformity.

the rules instead are issued just by fifa and the fifa code just establish that....

FIFA CODE LAW 12 said:
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following four offences:

* tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
* holds an opponent
* spits at an opponent
* handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).
Click to expand...

those 3 interpretating criteria i mentioned before instead establish a "presumption of culpability".
in plain words, when a player attempts a tackle keeping his feet totally flected, keeping his leg totally unflected, or keeping his leg too high, then the ref doesn't have to look at the players intent. because theese are considered extremely dangerous plays, and so, in theese cases, the ref has to punish the player even if he doesn't hit the opponent.


Gomito said:
The guidlines also probably call for a 3 match ban on reds as well, but some are suggesting 9 months
Click to expand...
well, as far as i know, the directive doesn't establish a specific sanction, so i guess it's up to the sport judges of each federation to establish it.

in my honest opinion a 9 months ban would be ridiculous and useless... i wouldn't ban him for more than 3 matches... but that's just my personal opinion :))
 
Last edited:
lo zio said:
in my honest opinion a 9 months ban would be ridiculous and useless... i wouldn't ban him for more than 3 matches... but that's just my personal opinion :))
Click to expand...

Of course a nine month ban would be ridiculous. But he will certainly get more than 3 matches. Why??? Because of the high profile of this case and the media coverage and that is really sad...
 
IceMan_Bergkamp said:
Just to put it into perspective, Aliadiere just got a four match ban for lightly slapping Mascherano's cheek.
Click to expand...

Yes and Aliadiere "only" retaliated after Mascherano did something similar which provoked his reaction. In the first place Mascherano should have been sent off too, but the ref might have missed something.
This proves the point which i've stated a couple of times in this thread. The FA's disciplinary body could have done some repairing at the injustice. They could have given Mascherano a ban too...
On topic again: this is very bad news for Taylor too. If Aliadiere gets a 4 match ban for what Hansen and co described as an unjust red card, then Taylor should get the death penalty (if Aliadiere's sentence serves as a benchmark of course, it would be nonsense to give Taylor a ban longer than 6 or 7 matches IMHO).
 
Patrick2K8 said:
That Was A Great Tackle!! Eduardo Out For 9 months!! Taylor,We Owe U 1!!

UNITED...Manchester United
Click to expand...

Sometimes one has to pity really big clubs like Man Utd...they attract "fans" like this...it maybe due to my midlife crisis and the fact that my peno pause is nearing, but right at this moment, considering that post i'm not sure if a Fatwah is such a bad idea...Can some mod ban this creature????

Shame, this was such an interesting thread.
 
gerd said:
Sometimes one has to pity really big clubs like Man Utd...they attract "fans" like this...it maybe due to my midlife crisis and the fact that my peno pause is nearing, but right at this moment, considering that post i'm not sure if a Fatwah is such a bad idea...Can some mod ban this creature????

Shame, this was such an interesting thread.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It was good to see lots of different opinions from different countries and different clubs.
 
Ok, my two pennies worth...

I have seen a lot of idiotic comments on this thread and I don't want to quote them as it will result in a completely pointless and pathetic argument.

Anyone who has played football at a decent level will know that Taylor's challenge was nowhere near as bad as it looked.
Hard... yes, late... yes.. but ONLY because Eduardo was too quick for him.
He never meant to go into his leg that hard, but to win the ball which is fine.

Another point is that Taylor's tackle was not as high as many think.
Pictures can always bend the truth and is why they were used so much for propaganda purposes as they do not tell the full story....

Taylorsenasmijesio.jpg


Do you HONESTLY think Taylor was on his knees laughing at Eduardo?! Get real and don't be silly!
It's about as pathetic as suggesting the player closest to the camera is clenching his fists and shouting 'Yes, he has been injured!!'

BobbyBox said:
Look where his foot meets his leg?!! - it should never have been that high.
Click to expand...
(I'm quoting you not because I think your post was 'idiotic' as I said above, but because it helps make my point better)

Now if you look at this picture, it looks as though the tackle is too high but where Taylor's foot meets his leg is NOT where Taylor's foot was supposed to meet the ball:

3379.jpg



In reality, if you look at the next picture.. THIS is the height that Taylor was supposed to make contact with the ball:
1963628uj6ft7.jpg


Which is at ground level and perfectly legal.
But again, the ball was SUPPOSED to be there and not Eduardo's foot... Eduardo was too quick for him and is why he made contact with the leg sooner (and indeed accidentally higher) than he was supposed to make contact with the ball.

It was just unlucky all round.
Every single Arsenal fan that I know and speak to that has followed Arsenal and the game for many years agrees it was just unfortunate and that there are worse challenges made every week and that Taylor's was only made a highlight because of the unfortunate consequences of the tackle.
Had he been a split second earlier, Taylor would have got the ball and people would have said it was a great tackle and no one would have cared 5 seconds after.


Just look at Claude Makelele's tackle on Julien Faubert yesterday to see that Makelele intentionally went over the ball.

(Let it load and go to 8mins 40seconds)
http://www.dailymotion.com/search/w...g_west-ham-united-v-chelsea-fc_sport?from=rss


This tackle is worse that Eduardo's simply because you can clearly see the intent there and also it comes the week AFTER Eduardo's injury which shows that some people never learn.
But because Faubert was lucky he never broke his leg... Nobody is making a big deal out of it.

Also people are talking about English brute defenders etc etc... so on the other side of the coin, does it mean Taylor also gets unfairly treated because he is an 'English brute' and Makelele doesn't because he is an 'elegant French midfielder'?
It also doesn't matter if it was Eduardo or Gerrard... no one is being biased here, so to suggest otherwise is quite condescending.

For me after reading this whole thread, Makelele deserves more criticism than what Taylor does.
Taylor was unlucky that a genuine attempt for the ball resulted in such a bad injury for Eduardo, but Makelele attempted to injure his fellow countryman, even when his side were 3/4 goals up.
I am not picking on Makelele either because there are many tackles that are worse than Taylor's (Eboue's intentional studs on Evra for example), it is just the best example to use at the moment.


Jail sentence? Banned for 9 months?

Grow up.
 
Good post, but I don't agree :DD

The picture where you say it was at ground level, is not the best - as his leg is bent in half!!. His foot could have slid down a bit from the picture above it.

Eduardo was going forward - he knocked the ball on. Taylor should have judged this. He is a premiership defender!

Anyway - It was a terrible tackle in my opinion - he should get a few more games ban - in my opinion. Not a nine month ban or anything like that but definately more than 3.

Anyway - some people have gone over board. I did at first when I heard about it. But you know he didn't mean to break his leg or be that dangerous - but at the end of the day he did do it and he needs to get a bit more punishment.

It was a bad challenge that 99% of the time would not result in a broken leg - but it did this time and this needs to be recognised.

Also as you say, we need to punish heavily the challenges that are really bad - but do not lead to such serious injuries. Then we may be able to eradicate the seriously bad challenges.
 
I completely agree with steevio's point of view.
When i saw Makelele's tackle my first reaction was the same as Steevio's (and i'm not a West Ham fan, i even consider myself a fan of Makelele): this is far worse than what Taylor did.

A litle bit off-topic: it is quite clear that the ref lost it completely in that West Ham - Chelsea match...look at the the disallowed goal of Anelka and look at the the sending off of Lampard whereas Boa Morte could stay on the pitch...(oops Steevio, for once we agreed, here i go again...i'm sure you don't agree with this last paragraph).
 
BobbyBox said:
The picture where you say it was at ground level, is not the best - as his leg is bent in half!!. His foot could have slid down a bit from the picture above it.

Eduardo was going forward - he knocked the ball on. Taylor should have judged this. He is a premiership defender!
Click to expand...
Well this is exactly what I mean... Eduardo was so quick footed and the incident happened so quickly, that it is almost impossible for a few pictures to capture the real action of the incident.
At the point Eduardo knocked the ball away was about a metre away from where Taylor made contact with his leg.
Had Taylor been a tad faster, he would have made contact a further metre away, at ball level and before Eduardo made contact with the ball.
Who knows... perhaps Eduardo may have accidentally injured Taylor if Taylor had have been quicker. It was such a quick pace 50/50 challenge with a sad result.

BobbyBox said:
Anyway - It was a terrible tackle in my opinion - he should get a few more games ban - in my opinion. Not a nine month ban or anything like that but definately more than 3.
Click to expand...

But would you have called it 'terrible' if Eduardo hadn't broke his leg and only got clipped and got up straight after?
It can only be deemed 'terrible' if it was an attempt to injure the player.. but it wasn't.
Eboue studded Evra intentionally and Makelele went over the ball intentionally... both these can be considered terrible challenges as the intention is clear that they went in to foul the player.

Also, there is no precedent to make it more than 3 games so it shouldn't be extended and won't be.
IF someone determines he intentionally went in to injure Eduardo, then they could make it a lengthier ban, but it is quite clear Taylor had no intention other than to get the ball, so there are no grounds to extend the ban, despite Eduardo's sad injury which does have no bearing on the actual challenge.
Even Bilic who is very loyal to his team and players said it was just unfortunate and doesn't blame Taylor.
He has played at the top level as a superb centre back and knows what he is talking about. Even Eduardo says he doesn't blame Taylor.

(I am glad you have a fairly balanced view on it mate because so many peopl are going way over the top)
 
gerd said:
I completely agree with steevio's point of view.
When i saw Makelele's tackle my first reaction was the same as Steevio's (and i'm not a West Ham fan, i even consider myself a fan of Makelele): this is far worse than what Taylor did.

A litle bit off-topic: it is quite clear that the ref lost it completely in that West Ham - Chelsea match...look at the the disallowed goal of Anelka and look at the the sending off of Lampard whereas Boa Morte could stay on the pitch...(oops Steevio, for once we agreed, here i go again...i'm sure you don't agree with this last paragraph).
Click to expand...

Check the Chelsea thread mate... I have already said the Lampard sending off was ridiculous (although it obviously made me smile!)
Anelka's goal was onside too.
Things like this, there is little doubt about and bias does not come into it at all, regardless of who I support.
That's one thing I always say, is that I may have strong views on a lot of things, but one thing I am certainly not is biased or narrow minded ;))
Not sure about Boa Morte being sent off though.
If you look at it, Lampard fell awkwardly on him then tried to give a little kick at Boa Morte which is why Boa Morte kicked back and Lampard pushed him.
should have just been 2 yellow cards and get on with it... Walton did lose control as you said, but that is unsurprising as he is one of the poorer refs in the league!
 
steevio_uk said:
Well this is exactly what I mean... Eduardo was so quick footed and the incident happened so quickly, that it is almost impossible for a few pictures to capture the real action of the incident.
At the point Eduardo knocked the ball away was about a metre away from where Taylor made contact with his leg.
Had Taylor been a tad faster, he would have made contact a further metre away, at ball level and before Eduardo made contact with the ball.
Who knows... perhaps Eduardo may have accidentally injured Taylor if Taylor had have been quicker. It was such a quick pace 50/50 challenge with a sad result.



But would you have called it 'terrible' if Eduardo hadn't broke his leg and only got clipped and got up straight after?
It can only be deemed 'terrible' if it was an attempt to injure the player.. but it wasn't.
Eboue studded Evra intentionally and Makelele went over the ball intentionally... both these can be considered terrible challenges as the intention is clear that they went in to foul the player.

Also, there is no precedent to make it more than 3 games so it shouldn't be extended and won't be.
IF someone determines he intentionally went in to injure Eduardo, then they could make it a lengthier ban, but it is quite clear Taylor had no intention other than to get the ball, so there are no grounds to extend the ban, despite Eduardo's sad injury which does have no bearing on the actual challenge.
Even Bilic who is very loyal to his team and players said it was just unfortunate and doesn't blame Taylor.
He has played at the top level as a superb centre back and knows what he is talking about. Even Eduardo says he doesn't blame Taylor.

(I am glad you have a fairly balanced view on it mate because so many peopl are going way over the top)
Click to expand...


My view on the challenge was that he wasn't sure he would get the ball - and if he didn't then 'oh well'.

Anyway - I do agree with most of what you say and its a difficult one. Taylor seems like a decent bloke and I am 100% sure he is sorry etc and is feeling extremely bad about it.

What angered me the most was people saying it wasn't even a Yellow card - I think that is ridiculous!! It was a late challenge that broke somebodies leg - of course it was a Red card.
 
Whether it broke someone's leg is secondary to the intent, but it was dangerous because it was mistimed and I agree it was a red card.
3 game ban and done with it.

Eduardo is sadly a victim of circumstance and is a shame that he was really starting to show his true worth to the team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom