Stopping play for an injured player

[CheeseRolls]

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.

I have no time whatsoever for the view that Rugby Union somehow have all the answers for officialdom.

Why when there is a scrum is the line judge not used to watch the referees blind side. You end up with refs giving penalties for collapsing a scrum, when they have no visibility over who has transgressed.
Why doesn't the clock stop when a kicker can spend half a lifetime preparing to take a penalty. The only people to benefit from this dumb rule is the TV companies
If only footballers behaved more like Rugby players ......and faked blood injuries.
Why when video replays are available does the ref refuse to check if a penalty has gone between the posts ?
On the plus side if football had adopted the same principle for extra time, I could almost certainly have prolonged my own footballing career. I never lost the ability to hoof the ball into touch.

 

[gazingdown]

The ref was RIGHT BY the injured player so knew it was no broken bone, head injury etc.

I can understand when it's 50/50 as to whether they are badly injured but in this case he was spot on. It's just about the message, unless you are obviously badly injured I will not stop the game. Yes, the odd player who is genuinely injured will have to wait for treatment (instant if it's bad as the ref will stop play) but this will be outweighed by those feigning injury to halt play (a "tactic" used to diffuse a good spell for the oppo).

Maybe there should be a "minimum" injury layoff time. i.e. if not up in 60 seconds, then take (for example) min 3 minutes off the pitch (or only allowed back on once ball out of play or game stopped/free kick etc.). If they are genuinely injured it will take at least that long to recover and will also prevent players coming back on who *think* they're ready to come back on only to collapse seconds later and do more damage (i.e. it must be safe to play on).

 

[Giraffe]

Personally I hate nothing more than when the opposing team kick the ball out for an injured player on the other team. Absolute nonsense. Fine if it's your player but why do it for them. Frankly it makes it so open to abuse it's silly and is bound to lead controversy. They should just bloody stop it.

 

[BensGrandad]

Personally I hate nothing more than when the opposing team kick the ball out for an injured player on the other team. Absolute nonsense. Fine if it's your player but why do it for them. Frankly it makes it so open to abuse it's silly and is bound to lead controversy. They should just bloody stop it.

As an extention of that it annoys me when the team then kicks the ball back to the goalkeeper. I think that the team taking the throw in should throw it to a player of their team who either kicks it out where it went over thus giving the throw in back to the other side or better still kick it over for a throw in down by the opponents corner flag/penalty area but not put it back in the keepers hands. He could have a good kick and score from the drop kick, many have.

 

[CheeseRolls]

As an extention of that it annoys me when the team then kicks the ball back to the goalkeeper. I think that the team taking the throw in should throw it to a player of their team who either kicks it out where it went over thus giving the throw in back to the other side or better still kick it over for a throw in down by the opponents corner flag/penalty area but not put it back in the keepers hands. He could have a good kick and score from the drop kick, many have.

There was an incident on the Football League show this week, where, the opposition kicked the ball back to the keeper from a drop ball within the opposing half. Off camera the keeper and Centre back collided and the opposing forward stuck the ball in the back of the net. The ref allowed it. Farcical really.

 

[Springal]

There was an incident on the Football League show this week, where, the opposition kicked the ball back to the keeper from a drop ball within the opposing half. Off camera the keeper and Centre back collided and the opposing forward stuck the ball in the back of the net. The ref allowed it. Farcical really.

Why farcical ? What should the referee have done, within the laws of the game ?

 

[CheeseRolls]

Why farcical ? What should the referee have done, within the laws of the game ?

The idea is to promote fair play and for the opposition not to gain an advantage. In this instance they clearly did gain an advantage, all be it due to some unseen comedy moment between goalkeeper and defender. OK I admit I am sulking because the cameras missed the slapstick moment.

 

[magoo]

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)

Did he try and kick it out? Looked like a normal goal kick to me lol. That's why i assumed, quite fairly that we carried on playing if they weren't going to kick it out.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I have no time whatsoever for the view that Rugby Union somehow have all the answers for officialdom.

I doubt that anyone contends this but Rugby (both League and Union codes) do not allow match officials to be harrassed/bullied by club players and representatives; this seems to be encorouraged in football at both professional and amateur levels.

Why when there is a scrum is the line judge not used to watch the referees blind side. You end up with refs giving penalties for collapsing a scrum, when they have no visibility over who has transgressed.

He is.

Why doesn't the clock stop when a kicker can spend half a lifetime preparing to take a penalty.

Just like for free kicks and penalties in football, but there is time limit for taking a rugby penalty though - is there such for a free kick/penalty in football?. And in rugby you get penalised for not retiring 10m.

The only people to benefit from this dumb rule is the TV companies
If only footballers behaved more like Rugby players ......and faked blood injuries.

Your list of examples is how long? And what happened to the purpetrators?

Why when video replays are available does the ref refuse to check if a penalty has gone between the posts ?

Why (assuming you're referring to the recent Wales game), if both the line judges (whose job is to judge this) have ruled the opposite and they have a better view than the ref? The ref only defers to the to the third official if he's unsure.

On the plus side if football had adopted the same principle for extra time, I could almost certainly have prolonged my own footballing career. I never lost the ability to hoof the ball into touch.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It's usually obvious from the reactions of both sets of players if an injury is serious.

Realistically, in any other case, a physio is going to be able to do sod all in thirty seconds on the pitch that couldn't be achieved by running it off. If it's a pulled hamstring or similar, the player knows his game is over anyway so stop running around and hobble off the pitch, is my opinion on the matter.

If you hit your hand with a hammer at work, do you insist everyone else stops working for a couple of minutes so the office First Aider can come and rub it, or do you swear loudly, shake it a bit and then carry on? Do you really NEED that First Aider (ok, I realise most of you are men, with the resulting lower pain threshold, but even so...)?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Oh, and on the subject of rugby, I think footballers should be made to call the referee "Sir", like the egg chasers do.

I'm sure it'd be a lot harder to hurl abuse at an official if you have to remember to use the word "sir" at the end of the rant.

 

[Acker79]

The considerate human in me says "Yes, stop play. People's health is more important than winning a game of football."

The jaded football fan in me says "Players fake injuries too often, to interrupt counter attacks, get opposition players in trouble, etc. Sometimes they stay down and get treatment that doesn't do anything except buy the team time to get a sub ready."

 

[Brightonfan1983]

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.

The ref is/should be king.

I was watching the England/Georgia rugby the other night and heard an English player ask "Who's ball is it, sir?" How good would that be in football?

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

I remember, many years ago, I saw a League Cup game between Sheff Weds and Chester, I think it was, at Hillsbrough. A Wednesday player went down, and play continued for some time with him laying there. It wasn't a head injury so they didn't stop it, but it turned out he'd broken his leg. For me, taking the responsibility away from the players and saying that only the ref can stop the game is dangerous and inflammatory, as Derby's goal against Forest showed. The Forest players switched off because they wanted the game stopped, and not just when Derby got to their penalty box - they weren't just indulging in gamesmanship. They should not have switched off, of course – you should play to the whistle – but can you blame people for wanting an injured team-mate to get treatment?

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

Unless there is blood or their leg is facing the wrong way play on.

 

[BensGrandad]

When a ref or anybody else is knighted then call them sir until then be polite and address them in their correct manner ie "who'se ball is it ref"

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

This. It's the referees call, play until the whistle.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I remember, many years ago, I saw a League Cup game between Sheff Weds and Chester, I think it was, at Hillsbrough. A Wednesday player went down, and play continued for some time with him laying there. It wasn't a head injury so they didn't stop it, but it turned out he'd broken his leg.

The ref didn't stop the game at Hartlepool when LuaLua broke his leg, in fact they went on to score their third goal whilst he was lying on the ground. Only then did the ref go over to him to see if he was ok.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Is there a problem with stopping play if one team kicks the ball out? Playing on would be unfair as one team down to ten men and no opportunity to bring a sub on. They add the time on at the end after all.

 

[Acker79]

When a ref or anybody else is knighted then call them sir until then be polite and address them in their correct manner ie "who'se ball is it ref"

But that's not correct. What on earth is the apostrophe doing there?