What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010:04:06:23:05:44 by Padre Pio.

The pundit is spot on.
I just find it funny that the 'supporters' of these tackles call us whingers. When it seems more likely that they're whinging about not getting rules bent so they can hurt us.

What I find even funnier is that even some Arsenal fans buy into it. Leaning over backwards to prove to Wolves fans that we are fair. I dont care what Wolves fans or the Guardian thinks, I will trust the evidence of my eyes - Rosicky's calf is bleeding and is bandaged up, because he has the nerve to run around afterwards that makes him a cheat.

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010:04:05:12:44:58 by Padre Pio.

I thought it was a red the minute I saw it. Couldn't
understand why MOTD pundits thought otherwise. Was
prepared to alter my opinion if I saw evidence to the
contrary but I have not.

Henry was lucky he didn't get a red for stamping on
Walcott. He certainly didn't need to.

Not only is there not evidence to the contrary but above video shows that both fouls were reds

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

I still think a yellow would have sufficed but as stated the tackle was silly and gave the ref(who has dished out more reds than any other) the chance to show red.
Padre I see two sides as I feel it is me you are refering to,opinion is mine and the right is reserved,my stance was that it was inferred that Arsenal got KH sent off which was a fallacy.
Also that TR was eigning injury,which was also a fallacy.

No I was referring to some Arsenal Blogs that were bending over backwards to be fair.

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

My bad then,apologise.

Sorry but I already fell for it, my opinion a yellow card for a foul, not a sending off for serious foul play. 20 years ago it probably would have been seen as a good tackle. Henry does not desereve a 3 match ban for this tackle.

If someone had broken his leg with a studs up challenge it would have been the same punishment 3 match ban.

Also It is not an offence to tread on someones foot only if it is deliberate.

He didnt make any effort to get his foot off Walcott

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

on no planet is that a yellow..sorry..nothing else to talk about really ..deserved red

forget about the OBVIOUS stamp on walcott

tackle from behind at that speed with that force and that high up on rosickys leg = RED CARD any day of the week by any sane ref


[arsenalsigs.blogspot.com]

If you have access to some decent analysis you will clearly see that at no point in time do Henry's studs come into contact with Rosicky's calf during that particular incident.

Rosicky is a clever player - he saw Henry coming from the side and angled himself perfectly. Yes, it was a tackle from behind, and as such, despite getting the ball, it was a foul. A sending off it wasn't.

As for the so-called "stamp" on Walcott,it makes me smile. Had it have been the other way around, we'd never have seen a replay, let alone hear about it from the bleating Emirates faithful.

Tune into the game at Upton park a couple of weeks back when both Jones and Doyle were on the receiving end of calf stamps. One was ignored by the ref 10yrds away (in thepenalty box), the other a foul was awarded and yellow card issued.

Henry loses his balance. Yes, he probably could have gone out of his way not to put pressure down on the opponent - and you're telling me that Song or Diaby, or Viera in years gone by, would'nt have done the same?

@ name too long to type

I couldnt careless if it was an arsenal player that did the same exact thing...

stamp = red card simple

tackle from behind like that = red card

whats the discussion about?

If Henry does that tackle in Europe = Red Card

If he does it in the world cup = Red Card

Just stop believing your lying eyes and continue with the foolishness and keep playing football like that..Im sure other teams throughout the world will try to copy your beautiful style of play yeah

above post......................blinkered fool !

There is no place in football for the kind of tackles that 3 Arsenal players have been on the receiving end in the past few years. They were awful. I simply don't see those challenges in the same category as what Henry committed on Saturday. At the point that he commits himself to tackle Rosicky is to the side with the ball in his sights. At the point at which he connects (with the ball and player) Rosicky has angled across and he has effectively caught him from behind.

I'm not defending KH. He has been committed a challenge from behind, and it was a foul. But has he gone in to "do" Rosicky? No. Even Arsene agrees with that point - and let us be clear, Arsene rarely sees a challenge on one of his players as anything other that GBH or Manslaughter.

At full speed it looks crude. The ref, nor the rest of us have the benefit of slo-mo. However I stand by my earlier comment, he's slid in, without feet raised, and at no point do Henry's studs come into contact with Rosicky.

I was "relieved" to see Rosicky get to his feet soon after the magic sponge was applied...and the red card issued! He's a "model" professional.

Quote:

Wolfadder
Sorry but I already fell for it, my opinion a yellow card for a foul, not a sending off for serious foul play. 20 years ago it probably would have been seen as a good tackle. Henry does not desereve a 3 match ban for this tackle.
If someone had broken his leg with a studs up challenge it would have been the same punishment 3 match ban.

Also It is not an offence to tread on someones foot only if it is deliberate.

Sorry but Wolfadder don't you think you've answered your own question!

Its 2010 and as some posters have rightly pointed out you try doing that sort of challenge in the world cup. Cesc in midweek made a sensational challenge from the side where he got all of the ball and he's momentum to him into the man He got an immediate yellow card, its not 1970 anymore.

Not a red - Same old arsenal, Always cheating !

Oh diddums, he got a little cut on his little leg, argggh bless his little cotton socks.

5 minutes of ET aswell to get the 3 points - Top 4 protected by the cheating @#$%& in the black !

Arsenal 0 - 3 Barca and Chelsea for the title

Quote:

longname
There is no place in football for the kind of tackles that 3 Arsenal players have been on the receiving end in the past few years. They were awful. I simply don't see those challenges in the same category as what Henry committed on Saturday. At the point that he commits himself to tackle Rosicky is to the side with the ball in his sights. At the point at which he connects (with the ball and player) Rosicky has angled across and he has effectively caught him from behind.

the tackles you keep talking about should require LONG TERM bans..they are ABOVE red card offenses imo...tackle from behind is a red card offense..you don't have to cause permanent injury mate

Quote:

At full speed it looks crude. The ref, nor the rest of us have the benefit of slo-mo. However I stand by my earlier comment, he's slid in, without feet raised, and at no point do Henry's studs come into contact with Rosicky.
I was "relieved" to see Rosicky get to his feet soon after the magic sponge was applied...and the red card issued! He's a "model" professional.

dont forget the red dye the physio used to mark rosickys leg...just to frame Henry

using your line of thinking..fouling a player to stop a goalscoring opp. isnt a red card either..(forget rule books) the player was able to continue wasnt he..how is that a red

where to begin

Quote:

Not a red - Same old arsenal, Always cheating !

laughable

Quote:

Oh diddums, he got a little cut on his little leg, argggh bless his little cotton socks.

yeah..to bad thats considered EVIDENCE...joker

Quote:

5 minutes of ET aswell to get the 3 points - Top 4 protected by the cheating @#$%& in the black !

yes..lets take forever to throw in and take goal kicks..then think that the ref wont add on the extra time for time wasting...(rockstaar now feels pity)

Quote:

Arsenal 0 - 3 Barca and Chelsea for the title

the barca game will generate more money that your entire season..win or lose and cheering for another london team..shameful..just shameful

Quote:

2longinthetoothWolf

At full speed it looks crude. The ref, nor the rest of us have the benefit of slo-mo. However I stand by my earlier comment, he's slid in, without feet raised, and at no point do Henry's studs come into contact with Rosicky.

I was "relieved" to see Rosicky get to his feet soon after the magic sponge was applied...and the red card issued! He's a "model" professional.

I wonder would you stand by those comments in a court of law! Lets observe the evidence shall we.

Your Captain has part of Rosicky DNA on his boot, Rosicky has your captain's stud marks plus a nasty gash on he's calf and yet your still insisting that at no point Karl H's studs come into contact with Rosicky??? "Why its elementary my dear Watson", I mean its not like you need CSI for this one

Quote:

unconcerned wolf
Not a red - Same old arsenal, Always cheating !
Oh diddums, he got a little cut on his little leg, argggh bless his little cotton socks.

5 minutes of ET aswell to get the 3 points - Top 4 protected by the cheating @#$%& in the black !

Arsenal 0 - 3 Barca and Chelsea for the title

"A wise man once said never argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell the difference between me and you"

Sad just Sad

Oh and as for Chelsea winning the title surely it should be United after you bent over backwards and held your ankles for them earlier in the season (sorry couldn't resist).

Tackle from behind that takes the man = red card. Simple as that. No excuse such as late, unintentional, boots touching the ball...etc..

I'm pretty sure that Rosicky's calf was not marked by Henry's studs in that challenge. Henry's feet were firmly at ground level. The mark on the calf must have been there beforehand IMO.

We need some quality HD video on slow motion to see it properly. If that shows as I believe that Henry did not catch Rosicky's calf during that challenge then this raises far more sinister questions IMO.

Henry treading on Walcott's calf does not look great I will grant you, but you cant justify a sending off based on an earlier incident going unseen and unpunished. If any of you gooners kept a video of your win at Molineux, you will be able to see a dreadful cynical tackle by Fabregas on Dave Edwards in the 2nd half when you were already 3 goals up where no yellow card was even issued. Just another example of referees rolling over for the Premierships leading teams.

What about the Fabregas handball against Liverpool. Raised his arms above his head to stop a free kick and the ref having picked his spot to supervise the free kick claimed he didnt see it. Dreadful. I'm old enough to have witnessed Wolves last victory at Arsenal 31 years ago and I firmly believe that the standard of refereeing in England is now at an all time low.

oh dear

Stud marks, bleeding leg - contact

Official 1000th poster in the classic transfer rumors thread of 2014.

Quote:

Stourport Wolf
I'm pretty sure that Rosicky's calf was not marked by Henry's studs in that challenge. Henry's feet were firmly at ground level. The mark on the calf must have been there beforehand IMO.
We need some quality HD video on slow motion to see it properly. If that shows as I believe that Henry did not catch Rosicky's calf during that challenge then this raises far more sinister questions IMO.

Henry treading on Walcott's calf does not look great I will grant you, but you cant justify a sending off based on an earlier incident going unseen and unpunished. If any of you gooners kept a video of your win at Molineux, you will be able to see a dreadful cynical tackle by Fabregas on Dave Edwards in the 2nd half when you were already 3 goals up where no yellow card was even issued. Just another example of referees rolling over for the Premierships leading teams.

What about the Fabregas handball against Liverpool. Raised his arms above his head to stop a free kick and the ref having picked his spot to supervise the free kick claimed he didnt see it. Dreadful. I'm old enough to have witnessed Wolves last victory at Arsenal 31 years ago and I firmly believe that the standard of refereeing in England is now at an all time low.

Even the standard definition footage demonstrates that Henry's studs were not grounded. You're not looking for something you don't want to find. So, that argument is null and void: Henry did make contact.

I'm actually disturbed that in response to a clip (I'm uploaded this to clarify and debunk the usual idiocy that would result from this incident) in which a Wolves player intentionally and cynically stamps on a player's leg and goes studs-up in the back of a player's leg, you're looking for sinister questions to raise about Arsenal?

The stamp on Walcott doesn't justify the red card, but if people want to raise the issue of what 'should' have happened, then any arguments made that Henry 'should' have only been given a yellow card and therefore 'should' not have been sent-off is immediately countered by what 'should' have been the initial yellow or red card for the stamp on Walcott's leg. This is logic.

I'm also disturbed at how you write that it's '"dreadful" that Fabregas wasn't penalized for a handball, but you only describe Henry's stamp on another player's leg intentionally as "does not look great".

how many times does it have to be said, touching the ball first has nothing to do with deciding if its a foul or not, tackles from behind that end up making any contact with an opponent are red card - yes red card offences - also one done that endangers an opponent be it full frontal, from the side or from behind are all red card offences, seeing as Henry's tacke was from behind, he made contact with Rosicky's standing legs(and that is even without stud marks all over his calf), is dangerous and done at the speed and force Henry's was means there was at least 3 seperate points that the ref was right to send off him for, please look up the rules, not go on old wives tales of what is and is not a foul or red card offence or go on what was allowed ten twenty or fifty years ago, jeez we have all seen footage of goalies being barged over the goal line, does the fact it was once allowed mean that if a wolves players does it then the ref should allow it, or if its done against arsenal that it is no longr a foul


as for the muppet complaining about 5 minutes injury time being played cos it was so a big four side could win, six subs came on and that is three minutes right there, then of course your captain getting sent off adds more, then the fact he would not go off is more again, then Rosicky having to get treatment is more, never mind all the time wasted by wolves on goalkicks, freekicks and throw ins, the agrument should be that five minutes was far too little time after all that went on.

Having watched Henry play for 4 seasons now I can say that he is not by nature a dirty player and knowing his temperament pretty well I'd certainly give him the benefit of the doubt. Henry is no Joey Barton or Kevin Muscatt thats for sure. His studs went in the back of Walcott's calf no argument, but there was no stamping action involved and if you watch the video carefully it could easily be argued that momentum carried him forward as Walcott went down in front of him and treading on Walcott's calf was unintentional. I just dont buy the pundits view that this was deliberate or that he could easily have taken his foot away while he was trying to retain his balance. Incidently Walcott would have been hurt by that, intentional or not, but there was no theatrical exagerated writhing around unlike Rosincky.

The Henry challenge on Rosincky was rash and I would not argue with a yellow card. Not for the contact but for tackling from behind. I can see no way that Henry's studs would have come into contact with Rosincky's calf so you obviously have a better screen than I have.

My comment about the Fabregas handball being "dreadful" was aimed at a ref conveniently missing the unmissable, which happens all too often in favour of those challenging at the top of the premiership IMO.

Quote:

Having watched Henry play for 4 seasons now I can say that he is not by nature a dirty player and knowing his temperament pretty well I'd certainly give him the benefit of the doubt.

LOL how many times have we heard this type of comment?

yellow card on walcott stamp + yellow card for tackle from behind = red

if the fa gives him a 1 game suspension then fair enough

think at the end of the day its the referees that need to be looked at

if he gave henry a yellow card instead of a stupid "lecture" after the stamp on walcott then henry would probably not have gone in aimlessly and tackled rosicky cause he knows he would be sent off

but the ref didnt do that and henry probably thought he can go in hard and tackle an arsenal player and HOPE he gets the ball knowing that the ref will only give him a yellow card

again wolf you miss the point, a tackle from behind is a red once an opponent is taken out, and you are making yourself look stupid with this insistance that Henry did not make contact with Rosicky calf with his studs, the clear fact is that Rosicky's calf had fresh stud marks all over his calf after the henry tackle, they were bleeding and all, now Arsenal fans have been accused of being paranoid and of being blinkered were tackles are concerned, yet they have nothing on you with this nonsence that henry did not make contact with Rosicky's calf, are you really trying to say TR faked it, that the phyiso painted the stud marks on him, that he smeared blood on the marks, you must miss the x files big time.

Having watched Karl henry twice, i can tell you he is a dirty player.

Official 1000th poster in the classic transfer rumors thread of 2014.

but tom he loves his mother, so he is allowed to do what he likes

Did he cryed?

Official 1000th poster in the classic transfer rumors thread of 2014.

Posted by: The Crystal Ship (IP Logged)
Date: 05 April, 2010 21:23


Did he cryed?



he has been crying to every journo who would listen

Its a sheep that bleats, ironic as there are many of them here and they are not Wolves.

Quote:

The Crystal Ship
Having watched Karl henry twice, i can tell you he is a dirty player.

Karl Henry - 32 premiership starts, 6 bookings plus 1 (dubious) straight red = a card every 4.57 games.

Alex Song - 24 premiership starts, 9 bookings. A card every 2.66 games.

So you tell me gooners, who is the dirtiest player? The official premier league stats tell their own story.

Also saw on the Arsenal official site that Rosicky was supposedly only 50:50 for the Barcelona game due to 4 stud marks on his calf. Methinks more spin from Arsenal to distract from the overreaction. He was OK to run around for half an hour after the so called diabolical tackle on Saturday and even played a part in the build to the goal so how can he be doubtful for Barcelona based on that tackle?

Nothing wrong with that tackle it was the way he went down like he had been shot..footballers go down far to easy and with all the arsenal players running upto the ref to pressure him is wrong.

It was obviously stigmata on Rosicky's leg. He must
be a saint. Can be the only explanation, I guess.

St.Rosicky, heal all our injured.

Quote:

Also saw on the Arsenal official site that Rosicky was supposedly only 50:50 for the Barcelona game due to 4 stud marks on his calf. Methinks more spin from Arsenal to distract from the overreaction. He was OK to run around for half an hour after the so called diabolical tackle on Saturday and even played a part in the build to the goal so how can he be doubtful for Barcelona based on that tackle?

oh dear

playing thru pain is unheard of fellas...god forbid you swell up AFTER...

(rockstaar pauses..then realises he is wasting his time)

Henry didn't foul Rosicky from behind, the ref was paid to give the red instead of following the rule books, the arsenal physio then painted red marks on Rosicky and Rosicky dived..because no one would feel pain since Henry came in with no force whatsoever

there..no need to continue

Pick up thy bed and walk St Ros

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.