Tony Leen

THE pub chatter dropped to a hush as glances at the television became stares. The irony of no tv replay on Aaron Ramsey’s horrific leg break was lost on no-one. That viewers were being denied the opportunity to make their own judgement on the tackle by Stoke’s Ryan Shawcross last Saturday was a tacit confirmation of the serious and graphic nature of the injury.

After all,  no-one has forgotten the Eduardo incident at Birmingham in a hurry - and Sky Sports didn’t show replay of that either.
But were the paymasters of the Premier League, the unofficial marketing arm of English league football, correct in their editorial judgement? While many understood the reasoning behind the decision not to replay the tackle, did Sky, de facto, remove the viewer’s ability and right to form his or her own opinion on the tackle that is already a YouTube favourite (half a million hits and counting)?
It’s an interesting debate. BBC’s Match of the Day on Saturday night chose to replay the challenge in slow-motion and from several angles but it did so in an enlightening and sensitive way. Sky opted not to. Whatever else informs opinion these days, the facts must always be sacrosanct and without access to the full range of angles on Shawcross’s tackle (replays, slo-mo’s etc), there is a real danger that our full understanding of these important incidents will remain elusive. In the context of some of the slightly hysterical (if understandable) conspiracy theories espoused by Arsene Wenger afterwards, it’s a dangerous vacuum to leave.

A quick check of Monday’s newspapers confirms that most used graphic images of the grotesque results of the clash, and while there is broad agreement that the Stoke defender mistimed his tackle rather than stamped on Ramsey, doubts will remain.
Not least, of course, if you are an Arsenal supporter, having already seen Abou Diaby and Eduardo da Silva sidelined for protracted periods by opposition tackles.
However grotesque the tackle might seem, it cannot compare with assassinations of presidents, the shooting of Pope John Paul II, or more recently, the graphic images of death and destruction at New York’s Twin Towers or the earthquake in Haiti?
That’s different you think? Well when Ayrton Senna died tragically in a horrific smash at Imola sixteen years ago, I don’t remember an outcry to stop showing the fatal smash. When boxer Michael Watson collapsed in a heap in 1991 after being stopped in a brutal, bloody fight with Chris Eubank - a battering that left him in a 40-day coma and requiring six brain operations to remove a blood clot - the television companies tripped over themselves to show it again and again on the basis of the debate about boxing’s dangers.
The point is that the media and the public must be allowed make our own judgements with all the available facts. I understand the sensitivities at play here. Having spoken to Sky sources, there is no hard and fast editorial policy on these incidents. Saturday, much like the incident at St Andrews two years ago, was a decision taken on the hoof by Sky - and, in fairness, that always makes a considered decision impossible.
But there are key issues still at play here. Aaron Ramsey’s immediate future may have been cruelly decided, but the jury is out on Ryan Shawcross, guilty until proved innocent in some ways.