The Cult of Football Contines To Lie to Itself

The problem with football is that it’s like a cult. The same people talk to each other over and over without any contact with the outside world. Because of this, the myths can be warped by just a few influential people, convincing others that they're fact.

Look at Charles Manson’s cult—The Family. He convinced people that The White Album had messages about a war with black people—insane ideas, but people believed them.

This brings me to the utter rubbish being written about the Ramsey/Shawcross incident. I will attempt to explain away the excuses being made for this tackle. I will do this bringing the incident away from the cult of football and back into the real world.

First off, the defence that Shawcross didn’t mean to hurt Ramsey and it wasn’t "malicious." This is so far off the point it's unreal.

If I run over a small child in my car and I end up in court stating that I didn’t mean it, does it matter? I’ve still killed a small child. I doubt I would get any sympathy and no one would defend me apart from my lawyer, and rightly so.

It’s about why Ramsey has a double leg break, not if he meant to break it.

Next is the idea that it wasn't that bad of a tackle and that worse tackles have been made without the player being badly injured.

Ramsey has a clean double leg break of the tibia, the strongest bone in the body, and the fibula. This was not a twisted ankle or a hairline fracture. The severity of the injury means it was overly dangerous and made with excessive force.

You can’t break the strongest bone in the body and another very strong bone without excessive force. It just doesn’t matter if his studs were showing or not.

Imagine me in court saying, "Well, I was only going 40 mph in a 30 mph zone, that’s not that bad. I’ve seen people go 80 mph down that road and get away with it. Why should I be punished, because I was unlucky a kid was there? I don’t even have a grille on the front of my car. They can really hurt people. If they don’t get punished, nor should I.” Doesn’t that sound stupid? Why does it make sense to people in football?

Clearly, there is an agenda for people to explain away the tackle because they want to protect the physical aspect of our game. The myth is that this is what makes the EPL unique and better. The fast-paced, hard-hitting, high-tension EPL is what is promoted and is used to claim it as the best league in the world.

I don’t disagree and we had a game that day with all that before that tackle. Arsenal and Stoke gave each other everything and it was played in good spirits. It was physical without ever being over the top. Stoke used their attributes and Arsenal theirs well within the rules.

That is what we should promote as a league. Don’t get scared the game will change and we will lose our league's attributes if people condemn these tackles. We won’t if we just accept and agree where the line is. Don’t spout rubbish in a vain attempt to protect our game.

Truth is, the swinging right foot tackle crossed that line. I don’t understand why he tried to kick the ball with his right foot when the ball was on his left and side. You’re always taught to tackle with the foot nearest to the ball. It was a bad tackle from a defender who should know better.