Mark Holmes believes there was no need for Tottenham winger Gareth Bale to hit out at Charlie Adam over the Liverpool man's recent late tackle.
Never has a mistimed tackle in a friendly caused so much controversy. Adam's clipping of Bale's heels in the US over the weekend would normally have gone largely unnoticed, but the history between the two players - Adam sidelined Bale for three months when at Blackpool - led to Bale labelling Adam a "coward" and, subsequently, all hell breaking lose.
Adam's record in the tackle has come in for scrutiny - last season he committed nearly as many fouls, 58, as he made successful tackles, 62 - while Bale has been labelled mardy for complaining about a foul which, as it turns out, did not even prevent him from playing in Tottenham's next friendly.
There is some substance to that criticism of Bale. In the heat of the moment, it is understandable that he felt angry about a late tackle from a player that has injured him previously, but in the cold light of day it was not worth getting upset about.
It was the sort of cynical trip you see in the Premier League every weekend and, although arguably unnecessary in a friendly, was neither malicious nor dangerous enough for anyone to get het up about.
The fact that Adam has injured Bale previously is totally irrelevant. The Welshman's pace means he is one of the most fouled players in the League, and there are no doubt countless players that have fouled him on numerous occasions without injuring him.
Does the fact that Adam has previously injured him mean he should err from tackling him in future? Of course not. Football is a contact sport in which injuries are an unfortunate but unavoidable part of, and it's about time people stopped moaning every time one occurs.
However, what is perhaps even more irritating is the fact that some people believe a tackle is only worth moaning about if it causes an injury.
As a Stoke fan I have seen first hand the way a player can be vilified for being unfortunate enough to injure a fellow professional. And unfortunate is exactly the right word to use because there are often hundreds of tackles a season more dangerous than those rare few that cause serious injury. Occasionally there is a horror tackle that causes a horror injury, but more often than not it comes down to pure luck whether damage is sustained.
Why everyone can't just accept bad and mistimed tackles are part of the game, I'll never understand, but those that are intent to moan about them should moan about every bad tackle and not just those that cause injury.
Therefore the way Bale has been rounded upon because he did not get seriously injured is ridiculous. The fact that he started the next game does not mean he was not hurt at the time, and the fact that he was substituted and later put on crutches certainly does not mean he was faking injury - it was simply a very common precautionary measure taken by Tottenham.
The only question should be, how bad was Adam's tackle, not how bad was Bale's injury.
In this instance, Adam's was not that bad at all and not worthy of Bale's ire or the discussion it has provoked since. But people need to get it into their head that every tackle should be judged on the tackle itself and not the injury it causes.
Maybe then there'll be some consistency and less of these ridiculous club vs club wars that break out every season.