Everyone seems to have had their say regarding Ryan Shawcross’s challenge on Aaron Ramsey over the past week and a half. Many seem to be more interested in the media reaction to the tackle than the tackle itself. Though it is valid to wonder whether Shawcross would be cut so much slack if he weren’t English, and to draw comparisons with the media reaction to other badly-timed challenges down the years such as Aldo Duscher’s on David Beckham, none of this really gets us anywhere.
Shawcross probably did not mean to badly injure Aaron Ramsey. But that he did, should not be a fact that surprises anybody. It has been shown over the years that it is a lot easier than expected for a player to break another’s leg. Both of Djibril Cisse’s breaks came from fairly innocuous challenges. In fact, the second in 2006 simply arose from the awkward way his foot landed in the turf. Henrik Larsson suffered a similarly terrible injury in 1999 which neither he nor the Lyon defender chasing him could have possibly expected to happen. No tackle was made; the player’s legs simply tangled and Larsson came out of it badly. The simple fact is that when you get strong men moving at high speeds, this can happen unexpectedly and with surprising ease.
Ryan Shawcross, and indeed anyone who has ever played football, had to have been aware of the risks that come with making reckless tackles. But the way he threw himself into the challenge on Ramsey didn’t seem to show any regard for the safety of the opposing player. This is the problem that has led to the young Welshman’s broken leg; not the referees, suspension rulings or the speed at which the game is played. Shawcross displayed an unacceptable level or recklessness by going into a 50/50 challenge so forcefully. He had to have known that by throwing his weight so hard into an area where another player’s legs would shortly be that there was a good chance (not a small chance) that he could inflict at least serious pain on his opponent, or maybe more. Nonetheless, he threw himself in and is now having to deal with the consequences. Ramsey too, though he is clearly the victim in all this, must not escape with out a caution; he threw himself into the challenge in a way that was even more risky to himself than Shawcross did. His decision to stay on his feet and swing a single leg at the ball (and towards Ryan Shawcross’s boots travelling in the opposite direction) was also reckless. He took a risk and he has paid the price. In essence, he showed too much commitment and let his thoughts get away from him.
So, both players decided to take a risk to win a 50/50 challenge. Shawcross’s reputation has come off infinitely worse (though still not that badly) because he suffered no injury and Ramsey very much did. The Stoke defender did not take an appropriate amount of care to ensure that his opponent wouldn’t be injured by his actions. Why not?
He has a track record of throwing himself into some rather unsavoury challenges, notably against Emmanuel Adebayor, Francis Jeffers, and to a lesser extent during his time on loan at Royal Antwerp when he was still a Manchester United youth team player. Arsenal fans have obviously latched onto this as evidence that Shawcross is a malicious player. Those at Stoke City have, again obviously, gathered to refute those claims, saying what a nice lad Ryan is, evidencing his tears on the pitch after Ramsey went down, and the fact that his mummy came and picked him up from the stadium after the game. I do not think Shawcross is a malicious player; he is simply one prone to carelessness. Aaron Ramsey has recently discovered that this can be just as bad. His tears after the incident showed that he simply wasn’t expecting to snap the Arsenal midfielder’s leg at all, despite the thundering nature of his challenge. To me this seems to straddle the border of ‘totally thoughtless’ and ‘extremely stupid’. He really did seem surprised that he had broken Ramsey’s leg. That he did not mean it is less significant than the fact that he didn’t expect to seriously injure another young man with such a forceful challenge.
Of course, players are under a lot of pressure to win, and to show ‘commitment’ from managers and fans. Perhaps footballers are encouraged, not explicitly but implicitly, to prescribe to a mentality whereby their safety means less than the success of the team- that throwing yourself into a 50/50 and getting hurt is somehow glorious and makes you a ‘good lad’, whereas assessing the situation and pulling out means you lack commitment to ‘The Shirt’. As previously stated, both Shawcross and Ramsey displayed a lack of regard for their, and each other’s, well-being by going for the ball so single-mindedly. Both players will probably be coddled by their clubs to believe that they did nothing wrong that night, but the fact is they both did to different extents.
Sometimes it seems that everyone around football (mostly the fans, but often the players too) forget that it is just a game, something we are only reminded of when an ex-player passes away or some other tragedy occurs, as this seems to be what it takes to shake most people into having a sense or perspective at all. The way Shawcross challenged Ramsey would lead any empirical observer to believe that, as far as he was concerned, the possibility of breaking another player’s leg, being suspended, being vilified in the media and having a horrible memory for the rest of his life meant less to him than the possibility he might be able to kick a football in a totally insignificant area of the field. Shawcross clearly didn’t go through that thought process (if he did, you’d like to think he’d have decided differently), but his instincts, as a pro who has played tens of thousands of minutes of football already in his life, should have made the decision for him. Maybe in future they will.
Besides all that, the number one priority for a footballer, though the tribal nature of fandom (now brought to you in HD) may dictate otherwise, should always be their own safety and that of the other players. Whether fanatics or Sky Sports like to admit it or not, football is not gladiatorial combat in Ancient Rome where one man must die. It’s a game that is recreational and played for fun, not a gauntlet of death. This message really goes without saying, which in practise means it actually isn’t said very much by managers or coaches, so young impetuous players can often forget. Whilst most players seem to have the sense to adhere to the rules of general safety, more must be done by coaches to ensure that players do not have to fear for their health when on the field of play. The solution does not lie with harsher suspensions or more stringent rules on bookings; players must be given more, not less, responsibility for what happens on the field, and be taught more explicitly from a young age that challenges such as Shawcross’s are unacceptable, and that it is possible to have respect for their opponents whilst remaining competitive.