Stopping play for an injured player

[Bozza]

Watching MotD on Saturday night there was a game where a player went down injured but the opposition carried on playing, which is always a bit controversial.

It reminded me that we did the same thing on Saturday when a Leicester defender went down on the edge of the area. Schmeichel attempted to kick the ball out but failed to do so, and we just carried on. Play was brought to a halt when a Leicester player made a very intentional foul on one of ours - I can't remember who - as we sought to attack.

If the positions had been reversed, we'd have been calling for the ref to be shot, but because we were looking to profit it sort of feels justifiable.

Is it OK to carry on when an opponent is injured and the opposition want play to be halted?

(No poll to follow)

 

[Simster]

Forest v Derby? Derby scored didn't they?

Anyway, I think it is always the referee's call. In this case, the challenge was inoccuous and not a head injury. Play on, I say.

 

[strings]

I thought that, in the Premier League, a convention had been agreed that only the referee would stop play for an injured player. This started last season, maybe the season before, because the number of players feigning injury to get the game halted was astronomical.

I'm not sure if the same convention is applied in the Football League - to be honest there seems to be fewer pretend injuries as you travel down the league pyramid.

 

[sam86]

Play on. Too many fakers in the game nowadays. Not going to do any harm if someone's got a knock to the ankle to play on for another couple of minutes.

The majority of the time you'd know if it was a really serious injury.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Yeah it happened in the Forest Derby game.

The player wasn't badly hurt, not a head injury, happened right in front of the ref and so play on I say. It wasn't exacting in a critical part of the pitch and so you cant' say Derby profitted directly from it. The defenders and keeper should be looking at themselves and wonderin how he was allowed to run along the touch line and put the ball in at the near post without being tackled or the keeper stopping it.

They changed the ruling to try and make it more clear cut (i.e. refs decision, play to the whistle) but players do still kick it out of play out of sportsmanship which complicates it.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I like the fact that rugby carries on regardless (unless the injury is very serious), but then they have rolling subs and there are far more injuries than a football match.

It would be nice to have the football continue, to stamp out those that feign injury to stop the game, but difficult to enforce correctly.

 

[middletoenail]

Always play on, in a ideal world we would do what they do in Rugby and let the physio on the pitch without stopping the game.

Its too open for abuse IMO and Im sure if play did not stop, the players would soon get up!

 

[rool]

What I find more annoying is when the injured player's team returns the gesture by walloping the ball back over the goal line, usually nearest to the corner flag, instead of returning it to the keeper.
Don't know why but it just annoys me.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Carry on, every day of the week. Let the referee make the decision. I am sick to the back teeth of players tapping the ball out for an "injured" team mate or opponent who gets a quick prod from the physio and leaps miraculously from his death bed to his feet fifteen seconds later.

I pay to watch a game, not grown men fannying around clutching their shins and moaning. If players want treatment, *most* of the time they can easily go off for it if they want to. I wish officials would clamp down and make more players leave the pitch, including ours. Frankly, 90% of these "injuries" are simply knocks that would be run off if you were in the playground, so tell them: run it off, or go off quickly to be assessed. You'll be amazed at how the number of injuries plummets.

 

[Common as Mook]

That foul by the Leicester player Saturday was a disgrace. AmI right in saying he didnt even get a yellow card?

After the ref blew early for the free kick instead of allowing their early goal, we barely got a decision go our way the entire game.

 

[Gazwag]

Two things which really annoy me with the "modern" game

Players after having treatment being made to go off and wait until the ref tells them to come on again

Teams being expected to kick the ball out for an injured player and then the throw in having to be kicked back to the keeper - the ref can tell if an injury is bad and he can stop play if so and start again with a DROP BALL

 

[strings]

Whilst I'm thinking about the subject, there is one thing about the 'kicking the ball out for an injured player' convention that really annoys me and can most commonly seen in Champions League football.

Team A is attacking, although one of their defenders is down apparently injured. The referee does not stop play. Team A are happy to continue attacking whilst their own player is down. Suddenly Team B intercept the ball and launch a counter-attack. All of a sudden, Team A are surrounding the referee calling for play to be halted. Clearly this is an unfair situation, as Team A are only happy for play to continue whilst they are in possession. In my opinion, either the player is injured enough for play to be stopped, or the player is not injured enough for play to be stopped - there should be no grey area.

 

[rool]

Abso bloomin' lutely.

Why is there the need to treat a player two feet from the touchline?

 

[Springal]

It depends really, as a ref, if a player is injured but there is no foul or clear problem, I ask if player wants treatment, while play is going on, if he does not, carry on. Most teams will put the ball out anyway and be sporting, so it has never been an issue yet.

 

[BigGully]

It is an honourable gesture, but teams are using it as a ploy to effect the outcome of a dangerous attack against them.

If it isnt an obvious serious head injury then the play should continue until any passage of play has concluded.

 

[mikeyjh]

If it's a red dog player, play on, every time....

 

[JBizzle]

The problem is its such a difficult one to officiate. If the ref allows play on, he risks ignoring a bad injury; if he stops play every time it ends up with players faking it for an advantage. Personally, I think its in the best position possible at the moment where the ref decides but he needs to be strong in his convictions. If he allows play to continue, he has to allow it until the ball goes out of play.

To be honest, it REALLY irritates me when a Brighton player kicks the ball out of play for an injured player on the opposition. The player invariably gets up, hobbles off wincing painfully before sprinting back into play 5 seconds later.

 

[SurreySeagulls]

Referees will stop play if it is a head, blood injury or an obvious broken bone injury. The reason why play now continues is to stop the pansies disrupting the play when they clearly do not need treatment and again the law to make players leave the field fo play was to stop play acting as they would be down to ten men until the Ref called them back on the the field of play.

This isn't a perfect way of dealing with 'cheats' as this is what they really are if they are not really hurt but it is currently the best way of delaing with the situation.

 

[rool]

and again the law to make players leave the field fo play was to stop play acting as they would be down to ten men until the Ref called them back on the the field of play.

.

The thing I don't like about this one is that if the injury was the result of a foul where a free kick has been given it is effectively penalising the offended side. In those circumstances I think the offender of the foul should be made to leave the pitch also.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

It is only up to the referee if he considers the injury to be serious, i.e a head injury or a leg brake. If the injury is minor the referee will allow play to go on, and the game is then stopped at the teams discrestion.