Sordell

[tomtheblade]

I'm not exactly sure what sordell was trying to achieve with that.

If he was trying to get the ball then he should've gone with an upswinging leg with the tip of his boot (not the studs) outstretched in an attempt to actually play the ball.

If he was trying to block the shot then a forceful stamping motion is also unecessary. Either keeping the weight on the back leg and reaching out, or twisting the body so that you block with the laces, would've been good enough.

Any of these alternatives are good technique and are much less likely to result in a significant injury to the other player.

Intentional... no. But if you are repeatedly injuring players to the point where they're spending extended periods of time on the sidelines (as sordell has), then at some point you have to change your technique, as he should.

 

[diode_blade]

Not going to comment on the tackle as I havn't seen it. Some years ago my firms team played a friendly on the all weather pitch across from the childrens hospital, now as you know the ball can bounce quite high and at the time I was wearing trainers for all weather surface.
I went into a challenge to win a high bouncing ball I raised my right leg and foot to what must have been about just below shoulder height, unfortunately the opposition player also went for the same ball. The toe end of my trainer hit the underside of his trainer resulting in a compound fracture of my big toe and dislocation of the toe.
I went into the hallamshire and had to go under the needle for them to reset the break and the dislocation, it was just one of those things no blame on the opposition player, it was quite funny though in the hospital watching them trying to reset the dislocation whilst I was sat in a wheelchair before going into theater, with two nurses either side holding me down and another two trying to reset the dislocation without any anesthetic....I coudn't feel the pain as I was spltting my sides as the toe the just kept popping back to it's injured position.

Sorry mods if this is not quite blades related.

Just an insight to how these things can happen and as one poster has commented "speed and impact forces".

 

[Danny_Boy]

Sordell is a donkey and it's a donkeys tackle, a cowards tackle in fact, dangling his leg in the air studs up with his back turned and his eyes shut. Poor, cowards tackle but Not intentional, for me he blatantly didn't mean to hurt Coutts he's just a shit cowardly donkey that can't tackle.

 

[Harrisblade]

Sordell is a donkey and it's a donkeys tackle, a cowards tackle in fact, dangling his leg in the air studs up with his back turned and his eyes shut. Poor, cowards tackle but Not intentional, for me he blatantly didn't mean to hurt Coutts he's just a shit cowardly donkey that can't tackle.

But he wasn't at all interested in NOT hurting him was he?
The very essence of "uncontrolled & reckless" - as I said above "this'll slow the cunt down"

 

[Danny_Boy]

But he wasn't at all interested in NOT hurting him was he?
The very essence of "uncontrolled & reckless" - as I said above "this'll slow the cunt down"

Nope that's why it's a cowards tackle, no thought for the opposing player.

 

[South Bucks]

Two forces at play here. Impact and speed. Impact is the boot of Sordell, speed is the leg of Coutts as he attempts to shoot the ball. If Coutts hadn’t been in mid-shot that tackle would have caused very little injury. It’s the combination of both which has resulted in a fracture no shin pad would prevent. Very unfortunate.

Good point, two big things collide, highly unlikely outcome but think of how a bullet proof armour works, spreads the load so the tissue underneath survives. We see a lot about how boots are so thin lots of players get metatarsal breaks and me wonders if shin pads are now so light they don't offer much protection either, difficult choice, heavy boots and pads slow down a player.

 

[Grizzly blade]

If a striker saw a defender coming t head a ball and put his elbow in the way it would be a foul.
I can’t see how this challenge from Sordell cannot be a foul. He’s broken someone’s leg FFS due to his actions. It’s not a collision, his leg is in the air, studs showing and his momentum driving forward towards Coutts.

He deserves retrospective punishment and a dogs abuse at every turn

 

[1889]

Sordell is a donkey and it's a donkeys tackle, a cowards tackle in fact, dangling his leg in the air studs up with his back turned and his eyes shut. Poor, cowards tackle but Not intentional, for me he blatantly didn't mean to hurt Coutts he's just a shit cowardly donkey that can't tackle.

You can't honestly think that, believe me, if he'd 'Dangled' his leg, Coutts wouldn't be laying in hospital now.
Fact is he braced his leg and put the bottom of his boot directly in the path of Coutts follow through, deliberately intending to hurt him, but I would hope, not to break his leg.

 

[Rob86]

At the time I didn't think it was a bad challenge. It looked like he tried to block the shot and they collided.

The picture does look awful though and it was clearly a pen, but as mentioned above there was certainly no malice involved.

If there's no malice why not be next to him apologising and hoping he's ok. I'd be fucking devastated if I'd accidentally broke someone's leg. Not run out of site like a cunt. He knew what he was doing but I agree he probably didn't intend it to end like that.

If it's a genuine accident, you stand there and stop play. No one can tell me he didn't understand the gravity of the injury, your foot sinks into someone's leg, what to do - i'll run off and stand on half way. He thought he'd get sent off. An utter cunt and it is as simple as that.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

It was just an appalling accident.

 

[LJBlade]

Well, you can make your own minds up but watching this clip I’m in little doubt he meant to take Coutts out

How can you be ‘in little doubt’ after watching the clip that you’ve posted. You can barely even see the two players never mind make a sound judgement as to who intended what.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

My view is absence of intention only diminishes, rather than absolves responsibility. We can’t know the lads intentions here, I highly doubt he had this outcome in mind when he went in. However, it’s clearly negligent given not only the matter of this attempted tackle, but also the shocker that left Westwood in a heap. As a bare minimum effective dose, both himself, his club and manager should be reflecting on the fact that the lad’s actions, whether intentional or not, have put a fellow professional in hospital.

 

[dronny_blade]

In a world of bookings for celebrating a goal, for a slight pull of a shirt, for not retreating 10 yards...yet we’re being told that ‘reckless’ tackles will be dealt with I cannot for the life of me understand how this tackle wasn’t or won’t be dealt with accordingly. Reckless is what I’d describe this ‘tackle’, so in today’s world it’s a sending off and penalty, we hear about the so called leg breaker challenge, well unfortunately this was a leg breaker and it went unpunished, I feel like he is part of my family, I guess he is, he’s part of the Blades family and we will rebuild we will support him and let’s hope his return will be when we grace the premiership next season

 

[Esablade]

How can you be ‘in little doubt’ after watching the clip that you’ve posted. You can barely even see the two players never mind make a sound judgement as to who intended what.

Dunno what size screen you’re watching it on but watch it again a few times, clear as day..Sordell runs across at Coutts, then the lunge.

 

[Davalon]

We're all upset for Coutts and how it might affect us going forward, but I can't agree with some of the many comments I've read since last night.

I'd bet my last pound if it had been Clarke or Sharp doing that challenge and breaking their players leg, most of the same people would have a very different view of the incident.

The studs showing thing seems to have OTT in recent years. If it carries on we may as well just play Futsal.

Sadly bad injuries happen but last night was down to bad luck and nothing more than a clumsy at worst leg up. I've watched it a few times and whilst it's not the best angle I don't believe he stamped down on the shin. The main force was Couttsy's follow through.

This challenge can't be remotely called a cowards challenge in my book and is nothing like some of the stuff cunts like Roy Keane did imho.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

We're all upset for Coutts and how it might affect us going forward, but I can't agree with some of the many comments I've read since last night.

I'd bet my last pound if it had been Clarke or Sharp doing that challenge and breaking their players leg, most of the same people would have a very different view of the incident.

The studs showing thing seems to have OTT in recent years. If it carries on we may as well just play Futsal.

Sadly bad injuries happen but last night was down to bad luck and nothing more than a clumsy at worst leg up. I've watched it a few times and whilst it's not the best angle I don't believe he stamped down on the shin. The main force was Couttsy's follow through.

This challenge can't be remotely called a cowards challenge in my book and is nothing like some of the stuff cunts like Roy Keane did imho.

I see what you’re saying, but given the lad’s been involved in a few of these types of incidents, isn’t it fair to say that this clumsy, leg up style of blocking challenge is, in fact, dangerous and has significantly injured a couple of opposition players? I think we can agree that he hasn’t gone in to break Coutt’s leg, but that was the outcome of his risky tackling style. He has to accept some blame, and hopefully look to improve his technique to avoid this happening again.

 

[Davalon]

I see what you’re saying, but given the lad’s been involved in a few of these types of incidents, isn’t it fair to say that this clumsy, leg up style of blocking challenge is, in fact, dangerous and has significantly injured a couple of opposition players? I think we can agree that he hasn’t gone in to break Coutt’s leg, but that was the outcome of his risky tackling style. He has to accept some blame, and hopefully look to improve his technique to avoid this happening again.

As far as I know mate I've only heard comments about a challenge on Westwood.

I'm sorry but I don't remotely see it as a premeditated challenge, just an instant reaction. These things happen. I don't believe for one minute he had the chance to think I'm going to do him.

My 11 year old son is playing tomorrow morning against the same team they played a number of weeks ago. Despite them winning comfortably i and others had a major issue with the referee who let one of the opposition players get away with no less than 3 potential leg breakers, stamping down on exposed planted shins.

One was my son who despite a ripped sock, cracked shinpad and marked shin escaped without injury. Even at 11 those challenges were appalling.

I don't see Sordell's in that mould.

 

[Punk Blade]

The challenge is INSIDE the penalty area.
You often find refs might give a free kick outside the area but not give a decision for the same challenge inside the area,

Also the ref had already given us a penalty, it’s rare for a ref to give the away team 2 penalties.

It’s alarming that referees choose not to apply the laws of the game dependant on what area of the pitch an incident occurs or what has happened previously in the same game.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

As far as I know mate I've only heard comments about a challenge on Westwood.

I'm sorry but I don't remotely see it as a premeditated challenge, just an instant reaction. These things happen. I don't believe for one minute he had the chance to think I'm going to do him.

My 11 year old son is playing tomorrow morning against the same team they played a number of weeks ago. Despite them winning comfortably i and others had a major issue with the referee who let one of the opposition players get away with no less than 3 potential leg breakers, stamping down on exposed planted shins.

One was my son who despite a ripped sock, cracked shinpad and marked shin escaped without injury. Even at 11 those challenges were appalling.

I don't see Sordell's in that mould.

I agree that stamping down with intention is worse, but I’m arguing that repeated, clumsy, dangerous tackling doesn’t completely absolve him of shouldering some blame, just because he hasn’t overtly committed an intentional act.

 

[LJBlade]

Dunno what size screen you’re watching it on but watch it again a few times, clear as day..Sordell runs across at Coutts, then the lunge.

I’m watching it on my phone but unless you’ve got a screen that somehow clears away the players in the way of Coutts and Sordell then there’s no way you can see what you think you’re seeing. There’s certainly no way you can see any sort of ‘lunge’ as other camera angles have shown that never actually happened.

 

[Esablade]

I’m watching it on my phone but unless you’ve got a screen that somehow clears away the players in the way of Coutts and Sordell then there’s no way you can see what you think you’re seeing. There’s certainly no way you can see any sort of ‘lunge’ as other camera angles have shown that never actually happened.

You see Sordell race at Coutts, we’ve seen the photograph where and how he connects, we see where the ball is.

He’s lunged in with his studs up IMO.

Where are the other camera angles showing it?

 

[LJBlade]

You see Sordell race at Coutts, we’ve seen the photograph where and how he connects, we see where the ball is.

He’s lunged in with his studs up IMO.

Where are the other camera angles showing it?

The channel 5 highlights clearly show that there’s no lunge at all. They show a player make a very poor attempt at a block which results in Coutts making contact with the underside of his foot after following through with his shot.

The photograph should not be used for any sort of ‘evidence’. It’s a snapshot in time and doesn’t show what happened, it will only lead you to form your own opinion as to what you think happened.

From the video you’ve posted how can you say there’s ‘little doubt’ he tried to take Coutts out, considering there are players in the way of the camera angle?

 

[1889]

I don't like saying this because it sounds a bit arrogant, but have some of you lot never played competitive football?

Because the aggressor doesn't need to move their foot, let alone 'stamp down', all the momentum is from the opponent kicking through ball, all you have to do is leave your studs in line with their shin. If the ref says anything, the stock reply is along the lines of 'It were an accident Ref, he's followed through and he's kicked my boot'. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

But if we need to get all CSI. Look at the photo and you will see that the ball has travelled about five foot, Coutts foot has risen after striking the ball by about four inches? Yet Sordells foot still makes contact with Coutts shin about another four inches above the foot.
That means the very bottom of Sordells boot is roughly eight inches higher than where the ball was a split second earlier, not only that but his boot is turned square on, to perfectly meet Coutts shin? If his target had genuinely been the ball, his foot would have been side on to the shin and Coutts would be OK. Professional footballers have excellent hand and eye coordination and I'm sorry but they just don't 'accidently' misjudge the position of the ball by eight or nine inches, even in a split second.

What's more turning and running immediately to the half way line is not the reaction of an innocent man. If you ask me, never mind a retrospective red card, the dirty bastard should be getting six month inside

 

[Esablade]

The channel 5 highlights clearly show that there’s no lunge at all. They show a player make a very poor attempt at a block which results in Coutts making contact with the underside of his foot after following through with his shot.

The photograph should not be used for any sort of ‘evidence’. It’s a snapshot in time and doesn’t show what happened, it will only lead you to form your own opinion as to what you think happened.

From the video you’ve posted how can you say there’s ‘little doubt’ he tried to take Coutts out, considering there are players in the way of the camera angle?

By looking at where he’s run from, the angle, how far/how fast and the position he and the ball end up in ( from the photo)

I think he wanted to ‘land one on him’
As 1889 ststes above, it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book..

We’ll have to agree to differ on this one.

 

[PokerBlade]

Honestly, I've watched it on the official site as many times as I can take and I think only Sordell will know what his intention was there. The ball's dropping from a height, and if it's anyone of our players I want them to go for it and prevent a clean strike at goal, but it's a horrendous effort. Gets nowhere near the ball, studs showing, takes the man.

The way the game works drives me mad. Booking after booking for tugs on the shoulder, but yet the convention is that if you get a shot away in the box then somehow bad tackles are fair game. We all know that if that's a defender hooking it clear that the ref blows his whistle every single time. How we've reached the stage where leg breaking challenges are let go because, well, you don't get two penalties away from home...It's a fucking mess.

 

[LJBlade]

I don't like saying this because it sounds a bit arrogant, but have some of you lot never played competitive football?

Because the aggressor doesn't need to move their foot, let alone 'stamp down', all the momentum is from the opponent kicking through ball, all you have to do is leave your studs in line with their shin. If the ref says anything, the stock reply is along the lines of 'It were an accident Ref, he's followed through and he's kicked my boot'. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

But if we need to get all CSI. Look at the photo and you will see that the ball has travelled about five foot, Coutts foot has risen after striking the ball by about four inches? Yet Sordells foot still makes contact with Coutts shin about another four inches above the foot.
That means the very bottom of Sordells boot is roughly eight inches higher than where the ball was a split second earlier, not only that but his boot is turned square on, to perfectly meet Coutts shin? If his target had genuinely been the ball, his foot would have been side on to the shin and Coutts would be OK. Professional footballers have excellent hand and eye coordination and I'm sorry but they just don't 'accidently' misjudge the position of the ball by eight or nine inches, even in a split second.

What's more turning and running immediately to the half way line is not the reaction of an innocent man. If you ask me, never mind a retrospective red card, the dirty bastard should be getting six month inside

Have you seen the footage of it in real time or are you just basing your opinion on the photo. The photo should be ignored. It shows exactly what you think it should, it’s a snapshot in time.

The footage shows no evidence of any malice, it shows a player making a poor attempt at blocking a shot. I’ve made the same attempt in many games before but not once have I tried to injure the opponent. Making contact with a player at any point does not mean he’s meant to injure anyone.

Did you make similar comments about Jake Wright after he hit Martin Waghorn with a similar late tackle against Ipswich?

 

[LJBlade]

By looking at where he’s run from, the angle, how far/how fast and the position he and the ball end up in ( from the photo)

I think he wanted to ‘land one on him’
As 1889 ststes above, it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book..

We’ll have to agree to differ on this one.

No we’ll have to agree that you’re talking bollocks because nothing on the video you’ve posted proves that he intended to ‘land one on him’. It’s probably the worst video you could have posted for the point you’re trying to prove because it shows absolutely nothing, you can’t even see the players in question.

What does ‘where’s he’s run from’ prove? What does how far he’s run prove? Would you not want a United player to show similar desire to get a block in? The position on him and the ball on the photo are no evidence at all in terms of proving that he intended to ‘land one on him’ so you can leave that out.

I’m just as upset as everyone else about the incident on Friday night but making shit up will not make it any better.

 

[1889]

Have you seen the footage of it in real time or are you just basing your opinion on the photo. The photo should be ignored. It shows exactly what you think it should, it’s a snapshot in time.

The footage shows no evidence of any malice, it shows a player making a poor attempt at blocking a shot. I’ve made the same attempt in many games before but not once have I tried to injure the opponent. Making contact with a player at any point does not mean he’s meant to injure anyone.

Did you make similar comments about Jake Wright after he hit Martin Waghorn with a similar late tackle against Ipswich?

Yes, I'm basing my opinion on the photo and having the exact same thing done to me on several occasions. Sordell is nowhere near the ball, it's not a poor attempt at blocking a shot it's a good case of leaving one on him, whilst disguising it as a poor attempt to block the shot.

Explain to me why Sordells foot is about 8" above where the ball ever was and his foot is square on to Coutts shin, and not side on heading toward the ball ?? Do you honestly believe a professional footballer 'misjudged' the position of the ball by such a huge margin?

As for Jake Wright or anyone else, if I thought they done something similar I'd say so. I am not under the illusion that Utd players aren't up to the same tricks, it just so happens that on this occasion there has been catastrophic consequences for probably our most valuable player and I don't believe it was an unfortunate collision.

So, can you answer my questions?

 

[Davalon]

I don't like saying this because it sounds a bit arrogant, but have some of you lot never played competitive football?

Because the aggressor doesn't need to move their foot, let alone 'stamp down', all the momentum is from the opponent kicking through ball, all you have to do is leave your studs in line with their shin. If the ref says anything, the stock reply is along the lines of 'It were an accident Ref, he's followed through and he's kicked my boot'. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

But if we need to get all CSI. Look at the photo and you will see that the ball has travelled about five foot, Coutts foot has risen after striking the ball by about four inches? Yet Sordells foot still makes contact with Coutts shin about another four inches above the foot.
That means the very bottom of Sordells boot is roughly eight inches higher than where the ball was a split second earlier, not only that but his boot is turned square on, to perfectly meet Coutts shin? If his target had genuinely been the ball, his foot would have been side on to the shin and Coutts would be OK. Professional footballers have excellent hand and eye coordination and I'm sorry but they just don't 'accidently' misjudge the position of the ball by eight or nine inches, even in a split second.

What's more turning and running immediately to the half way line is not the reaction of an innocent man. If you ask me, never mind a retrospective red card, the dirty bastard should be getting six month inside

Lol

 

[highgreenintokyo]

For me, if you look at the picture, it looks a horrible possibly intentional tackle. Watching it live, it didn't even look like a penalty, and none of our players tried to claim for one, either. Watching the video footage, looks like a penalty, and a shitty clumsy challenge, but genuinely can't see how you'd call it an intentional attempt to injure. I think the majority of neutrals would see it the same: show them the photo=Sordell's done a job on him, show them the footage=clumsy striker's challenge.