Don't shield viewers from nasty tackles. It's football, not ballet

It's rare in football that a decision gets made on grounds of morals, taste or ethics. I'm not talking about events off the pitch. We all agree that the behaviour of those brazen hussies at Man United's Christmas party, taking advantage of young, naive football players, was morally reprehensible. David Beckham - remember him? - his latest tattoos, covering his whole body, should be hidden from the public eye as a matter of good taste.

There's a flashing, annoying pitch-side advert I believe should be banned for ethical reasons. "Like football? You'll love the army." Dear God, think of all the poor lads lured to their deaths thinking they'll be playing five-a-side in Iraq.

But it was something on the pitch that really worried me. I switched on the telly last Saturday exactly at kick-off for Birmingham City v Arsenal, looking forward to watching James McFadden, one of my fave players, but my stupid Sky digibox went wonky. It turned itself off, saying there was no satellite signal. I screamed and shouted and kicked the telly.

The upshot was that I missed the first three minutes. It came on just at that moment when Martin Taylor of City had done a bad tackle. I didn't see it, but Arsenal's Eduardo was lying in a heap with the ambulance men racing on. They'll show it again in a second, I thought, as they always do. But they didn't. Taylor was now being red-carded, but still they didn't replay the incident.

For eight minutes the game was held up, during which time the commentator told us, very virtuously, not to say pompously, presumably with the director shouting in his ear, that they would not be showing the tackle - on grounds of "taste".

I can understand not giving us close-ups of poor old Eduardo, no doubt in agony, his leg broken, though such scenes are often seen, or if his leg was hideously distorted - though that, too, has been shown. All I wanted was to see the tackle and decide for myself whether it was brutal and premeditated or a clumsy accident. Where's the bad taste in that? What were they saving us from?

I understand it when these days they don't let us see a streaker, of either sex, running across the pitch. It did get shown, many years ago, and I was amused by it, being easily amused. But once they stopped showing it, the streakers gave up. A good decision, reached partly on grounds of taste, that stopped games being interrupted and discouraged exhibitionists.

But a nasty tackle? It's football, not ballet. Showing it would have brought shame on the player and acted as a warning to all players, perhaps lessening the chances of such tackles happening again. For a while, anyway. It would have helped the TV fans understand a decision and also made them aware of the realities of football, which couch potatoes can forget. It's a brutal game, played at incredible speed. Tackles are for real. I'm always surprised there aren't more breakages.

In the event, I did see the tackle - next morning on Match of the Day, as the BBC had no reservations about showing it. (I don't watch MoD on Saturday evening, come on, I'm in bed by ten, sometimes 9.30, if I'm awfully sleepy.)

Having videoed it, I could play it back several times. It wasn't horrific, not at normal speed. But in slow motion you saw the studs hit the ankle. Definitely a red card. Deliberate? Who knows? I'd like to be the judge, not have Sky protect me from imagined harm. The government does enough of that . . .

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website