For just over two weeks, English football took a very small step towards modernisation. When Ryan Shawcross inadvertently broke Aaron Ramsey's leg, a number of journalists were particularly vocal in their condemnation of the extremely physical approach taken by many teams against, in particular, Arsenal. They said that football was evolving as a sport, and it is now played at a faster speed; ipso facto there is less margin for error if you throw yourself wildly at another player's leg (we're looking at you Ryan) and teams should not be lauded for combating skill and finesse with aggression and brutish, mistimed tackles aimed at kicking their opponents out of the game.

There are some, however, who would like to see football played as if it was still the 1950s. The leather ball would be lumped up and down the muddy pitch, crunching sliding tackles would be encouraged ("What's that Aaron? A broken leg? Well good thing you've still got one that works, we've already used our one substitution. Now hop along after that ball") and the players would be down the pub after the game, pint in one hand, pipe in the other. Phil Brown, manager of Hull City, is one such man it would seem.

Only two weeks on from the Ramsey incident, and with Arsenal again travelling to a Northern team which is near the bottom of the tables, both Premier League and fair play (www.premierleague.com/page/FairPlayTable), you'd have thought the home side's pre-match team talk might go something like this: "Right lads, obviously we're a physical side, and if we're to compete with those fancy dans from North London then we have to do what we do best. That said, I don't want to stoke the fire surrounding the debate about excessive force amongst technically inferior teams, nor do I want to give Wenger a reason to call for further scrutiny of the way we play. Therefore, just be careful how you go about things. Play physical, but do it sensibly."

Obviously Phil Brown was going to struggle with any words of more than three syllables, but he might have come out with something similar. Seemingly though, his advice was to kick the Arsenal players so hard that they'd still be feeling it next season, when Hull are busy trying to get promoted back into the top flight by kicking people in the division below instead. In the end though, as at Stoke, the Gunners were able to sweep aside the bully boys and take all three points back to North London.

The match started brightly enough. Hull's pitch is atrocious (they share it with a rugby team) so it was always going to be difficult for Arsenal to establish their passing game. A more direct approach was therefore the most practical option, but no one expected Arshavin to be the one to bundle the ball past two defenders, although his delightful finish into the corner was entirely predictable. 1-0 to the Arsenal after thirteen minutes, and the sensible money was on the Gunners adding to their lead. The officials had other ideas though. Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink (how many Hull fans have him on the back of their shirts, I wonder) was clearly offside when the ball was flicked over the defence, and when he gratefully tumbled under Sol Campbell's challenge, the referee pointed to the spot and booked poor Sol. Jimmy Bullard gave Almunia no chance with the penalty, and the home team somehow had a route back into the match.

Whilst all this was going on, the Hull players were dispensing 'Northern Football Justice': Denilson was sent flying by a wild challenge from Andy Dawson which earned the latter a booking, and Sagna was pulled to the floor by his throat by Craig Fagan, which earned him nothing. Whilst the referee was busy booking Dawson for his tackle on Denilson, George Boateng thought it would be a lark to poke Nicklas Bendtner in the eye. Bendtner's reaction was verbal rather than physical, but inexplicably both players earned the same punishment, a yellow card. George was clearly a man on a mission though, and just before half time he hacked wildly at Sagna, catching him on his knee with his studs, and the only question was whether the referee would have the balls to give him the straight red which the challenge warranted. He did not, but Boateng was still sent off for a second bookable offence. That's George Boateng, captain of Hull City, by the way.

It's one of football's clichés that it's harder to play against ten men than it is eleven. Erm, no it's not. It's much easier. There are fewer of them, duh. Sometimes, though, it can galvanise a team to work much harder to defend, and that's what happened on Saturday. For a couple of minutes Hull seemed to want to match Arsenal going forward and committed players to attacks, but this could only last so long. Soon it was backs against the wall, as Arsenal came forward again and again. That said, it was, at least initially, pretty ineffective. It was the sixty fourth minute introduction of Theo Walcott which served to change the dynamic. Only moments after coming on he burst into the box and his pullback found Arshavin unmarked in acres of space, but the Russian was clearly wearing Bendtner's boots from last weekend, and he shot wildly over the bar.

Walcott then picked out Bendtner in the middle but he took far too long to set himself and his shot was blocked. Still, you can't keep a good Dane down, and when Denilson's long range effort was parried by Myhill in the Hull goal, Bendtner pounced and his first time shot found the back of the net in the ninety third minute. Arsenal then held on for what could be an absolutely vital three points come May. Credit to Hull though, they really dug their heels in and still managed to look dangerous even with ten men for the entire second half.

Couple of talking points though, raised by Phil Brown after the game. He suggested that Campbell should have been sent off for his challenge which led the penalty. Er, that's after the striker has incorrectly been ruled onside Phil. Whether Campbell should be sent off is a moot point, as whatever punishment he receives will be unjustified.

Brown also mentioned a robust challenge from Campbell on Kamil Zayatte. This issue opens up a bit of a can of worms unfortunately. The ball is won cleanly, but the force with which Campbell eventually hit the player is enough to injure him and force him out of the game. Critics of Arsenal have suggested that Wenger cannot therefore criticise players who have injured members of his own squad with heavy tackles. This line of argument exposes the inherent hypocrisy within both sides of the debate.

Some fans suggest that Arsenal need to be protected from tackles which injure their players, when Arsenal players are sometimes (but not often) guilty of doing the same thing to the other team. Other fans claim there's nothing wrong with aggressive tackling, and that severe injuries are a unfortunate side effect, ergo there's nothing wrong with Campbell's challenge, so there's no reason to criticise him or Arsenal.

First and foremost, Sol won the ball, so it can't have been that bad a tackle. Secondly, I think that the levels of debate that have raged on over the last couple of weeks are a good enough reason for the FA to really address this issue and make it very clear where they stand. Will they though? Unlikely. The FA couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, so expect nothing but silence from them.

Bad challenges and fake tans aside, Saturday was a hard fought and important win for the Arsenal. With any luck we'll never play Hull again, and they'll have to look up from the second tier of the football league at the Gunners being crowned champions of England. Fingers crossed eh?