[opiated]

happened last week in man u's loss to liverpool..could be the worst one i've ever seen

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/homepage/sp1_01.jpg">http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/ ... sp1_01.jpg</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/homepage/sp1_02.jpg">http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/ ... sp1_02.jpg</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/homepage/sp1_04.jpg">http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/ ... sp1_04.jpg</a><!-- m -->

[PortlandCarbo]

..could be the worst one i've ever seen

jesus Steve, that last pic made me wince.

[skelty]

AIEEE! the last one, sheesh!

[opiated]

he broke his ankle and his leg...it was by far the worst injury i've ever seen happen..it's even worse than the monday night joe injury

[j-monster]

I heard about this injury. I'm kind of queasy about these things, so I'll just take everyone's word that it was a nasty injury and not look to find out for myself, thank you very much.

[Corby]

pic #2:

"here, let me help you up.."

but, seriously, ouch!

[skippy the wonder dog]

I saw a shot of a high school baseball player in the states breaking his leg in a slide -- not just one shot but a sequence. That was the worst sports injury photo I've ever seen. Apparently the kid was a promising player, but the injury finished his sports career.

Those are always hard photos to look at.

There is always this debate around war photography appealing to ghoulishness, but sports injury photos make me think: at least war photography has an important subject....

[Stephen Dame]

There is always this debate around war photography appealing to ghoulishness, but sports injury photos make me think: at least war photography has an important subject....

My Grandfather, who deify's Churchill and Man U equally, would disagree with you.

[robert goulet]

That is on par with Moises Alou injury that he sustained after rounding first base a few years back...as a matter of fact it's almost identical.

I once dislocated my knee playing hockey, after a player fell on my back in front of the net while my leg was trapped under someone else...my leg looked like it was pointing at 3:00 when I stood up to skate off the ice....that's right, I skated off under my own power (one arm on a teammates shoulder)...Don Cherry still tells the story.

RG

[john cage]

It going to take a looooong time for Alan Smith to get back on the pitch.

Not the worst I've seen, though. Back in the early 80s in a club match, a guy on my team and an opponent went after a loose ball, they met it at the same time, the other guy had more force, and my teammate's tibia and fibula snapped at a 90 degree angle (the tibia was exposed at the break). It was so bad, people playing softball on fields 1/4 mile away heard it break. That was awful.

[skippy the wonder dog]

There is always this debate around war photography appealing to ghoulishness, but sports injury photos make me think: at least war photography has an important subject....

My Grandfather, who deify's Churchill and Man U equally, would disagree with you.

You can argue that sports are important, but there's no utilitarian argument for publishing a series of photos depicting a terrible sports injury. There is, however, a utilitarian argument for publishing photos of casualties of war.

When those photos hit the newspaper pages, though, reader reaction against graphic war photos is always very strong. Witness the recent Grope & Flail reader comments reacting to the Canadian winner of the World Press Photo prize this year (although that was a photo of famine victims, not combat casualties); it was universally negative, suggesting that the photographer was immoral (or amoral). I don't see any similar reaction to graphic sports injury photos.

This is a little curious, I think. In this example, isn't publishing three photos of this injury, including a closeup, somewhat gratuitous? There's no story told by that sequence, i.e. you can't learn how the injury occurred, etc. It's just three views of the same thing. You would never see any newspaper or media website publish a series of three photos of a man with a gunshot wound lying on the ground, for example.

[opiated]

skippy.you saw the title of the thread, and saw there were links..if you didn't want to see them, don't click on them...

[Lizard King]

Im a HUGE Man United fan, and it was hard to see Smith go down like that. He was a real hardworking, courageous type mid-fielder, its a tough loss. But he'll back.. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.4thegame.com/club/mufc/news/186046/smith_back_before_years_end.html">http://www.4thegame.com/club/mufc/news/ ... s_end.html</a><!-- m -->

[cferneyh]

Im a HUGE Man United fan, and it was hard to see Smith go down like that. He was a real hardworking, courageous type mid-fielder, its a tough loss. But he'll back.. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.4thegame.com/club/mufc/news/186046/smith_back_before_years_end.html">http://www.4thegame.com/club/mufc/news/ ... s_end.html</a><!-- m -->

I don't follow soccer, but isn't cheering for ManU like cheering for the Yankees, only worse?

[Stephen Dame]

There is always this debate around war photography appealing to ghoulishness, but sports injury photos make me think: at least war photography has an important subject....

My Grandfather, who deify's Churchill and Man U equally, would disagree with you.

You can argue that sports are important, but there's no utilitarian argument for publishing a series of photos depicting a terrible sports injury. There is, however, a utilitarian argument for publishing photos of casualties of war.

When those photos hit the newspaper pages, though, reader reaction against graphic war photos is always very strong. Witness the recent Grope & Flail reader comments reacting to the Canadian winner of the World Press Photo prize this year (although that was a photo of famine victims, not combat casualties); it was universally negative, suggesting that the photographer was immoral (or amoral). I don't see any similar reaction to graphic sports injury photos.

This is a little curious, I think. In this example, isn't publishing three photos of this injury, including a closeup, somewhat gratuitous? There's no story told by that sequence, i.e. you can't learn how the injury occurred, etc. It's just three views of the same thing. You would never see any newspaper or media website publish a series of three photos of a man with a gunshot wound lying on the ground, for example.

I'd argue it's called human nature. There's no morals involved. We move through space, then we're gone: the photos don't hurt anybody, so I file them under "that's life." No big deal. War is war, sports are sports, here's some photos... what's fer dinner?

As somebody with newspaper experience, I know I'd want powerful images in my pages. Those are powerful images, they're real. Sensibilities are subjective: some people will be offended? Oh well, life goes on.

"Utilitarian Argument?" It's a photograph, it doesn't require an argument. It's there, then it's yesterdays news. Life; it's wars, sports and bake sales: 'aint always comfy to look at.

If you need one, I think the argument for publishing is obvious since we're talking about it and clicking on the links.

It happened. Here it is.