[Football] Zerbi kicking off

[Bozza]

Apologies if this point has already been made (I've not read the whole game)

The simple solution to the feigning head injury to get the game stopped is to say anyone with a suspected head injury has to leave the pitch for 5/10 mins for a concussion assessment to be carried out, you can bring on a temp sub in that time, and if the player cannot continue the sub stays on the field and you lose on of the 5 allowed substitutions. Unfortunately the powers that be vetoed that suggestion recently.

Premier League temporary concussion substitute trial rejected at Ifab meeting

The PFA’s head of brain health said the decision was ‘extremely disappointing’ while the FA’s Mark Bullingham said the process would stay ‘under active review’

www.theguardian.com

I'm not sure that would help significantly given the accusation at those with feigned head injuries is that they want to disrupt play and break up opposition momentum.

Having to go through a substation for a "head injury" will only disrupt proceedings even further and would be quite easy to workaround by keeping a big stopper back as your "concussion sub" to throw on when needed. In fact Fulham had the ideal man in Shane Duffy to fulfil that role.

 

[Mustafa II]

If Fulham fake head injuries five or six times and the ref follows the rules and stop the play, maybe the problem is Fulham rather than the ref.

Maybe its time to realise that pretty much everyone in the Premier League is trying to make it as difficult as possible to officiate games properly and that is the problem that should be dealt with rather than blaming the ref for struggling with dealing with the the 22 cheaters for 90 minutes.

How about if these millionaires take a bit of responsibility. Very cheap to cheat your way through games knowing that you'll get zero blame because everyone will blame the ref instead.

The best way to return from a flounce is definitely to just carry on as if none of it ever happened

 

[Seagull58]

If Fulham fake head injuries five or six times and the ref follows the rules and stop the play, maybe the problem is Fulham rather than the ref.

Maybe its time to realise that pretty much everyone in the Premier League is trying to make it as difficult as possible to officiate games properly and that is the problem that should be dealt with rather than blaming the ref for struggling with dealing with the the 22 cheaters for 90 minutes.

How about if these millionaires take a bit of responsibility. Very cheap to cheat your way through games knowing that you'll get zero blame because everyone will blame the ref instead.

You know very well that you cannot expect all footballers (or even many footballers) to play fairly by the rules. You've surely seen enough of Zaha and Grealish swallow-diving to know that. So it has to be up to the officials to clamp down on it. Tackles from behind and over the ball tackles are no longer allowed and are generally penalised. Let's make use of VAR to review head injuries and advise the referee when there has been no head contact.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

I'm not sure that would help significantly given the accusation at those with feigned head injuries is that they want to disrupt play and break up opposition momentum.

Having to go through a substation for a "head injury" will only disrupt proceedings even further and would be quite easy to workaround by keeping a big stopper back as your "concussion sub" to throw on when needed. In fact Fulham had the ideal man in Shane Duffy to fulfil that role.

I think it will stop players as it disrupts them to possibly shift tactics and personnel twice in a short space of time. Obviously Fulham may have had an advantage that they could have brought Shane Duffy on for about 7 different 5 min spells but not everyone has one of him on the bench.

Plus the concussion rules already allow for a permanent substation in the event of a suspected serious head injury even if all subs have previously been used which would have meant Fulham could have used the current rules to get him on had they really wanted to.

 

[Guinness Boy]

If Fulham fake head injuries five or six times and the ref follows the rules and stop the play, maybe the problem is Fulham rather than the ref.

Maybe its time to realise that pretty much everyone in the Premier League is trying to make it as difficult as possible to officiate games properly and that is the problem that should be dealt with rather than blaming the ref for struggling with dealing with the the 22 cheaters for 90 minutes.

How about if these millionaires take a bit of responsibility. Very cheap to cheat your way through games knowing that you'll get zero blame because everyone will blame the ref instead.

Which team do you suggest goes first?

I nominate Fulham.

 

[dazzer6666]

I'm not sure that would help significantly given the accusation at those with feigned head injuries is that they want to disrupt play and break up opposition momentum.

Having to go through a substation for a "head injury" will only disrupt proceedings even further and would be quite easy to workaround by keeping a big stopper back as your "concussion sub" to throw on when needed. In fact Fulham had the ideal man in Shane Duffy to fulfil that role.

5 mins but no sub.

 

[Swansman]

Agree with the sentiment but teams will do what they can get away with to win. It's literally the ref's job to prevent it and they have the power to do so very easily. So there is still a problem with the refereeing.

Ok, so what exactly should he have done to prevent Fulham players from going down clutching their heads?
What he did yesterday was to follow the laws of the game = stopping play when someone go down with (alleged) head injuries.
You might say its his job to prevent it but you could also argue its a footballers job to play football rather than rolling around on the grass screaming for mummy.

You know very well that you cannot expect all footballers (or even many footballers) to play fairly by the rules. You've surely seen enough of Zaha and Grealish swallow-diving to know that. So it has to be up to the officials to clamp down on it. Tackles from behind and over the ball tackles are no longer allowed and are generally penalised. Let's make use of VAR to review head injuries and advise the referee when there has been no head contact.

But apparently you can expect all referees to watch all 22 players simultaneously for 90 minutes and make correct decisions about whether they actually get injured or if they're just faking it?

I wouldn't mind VAR being used in that way, but this is presently not the case.

Which team do you suggest goes first?

I nominate Fulham.

Won't be a team managed by a Portuguese...

5 mins but no sub.

And then we're back to the core issue with this idea: you get rewarded if you cause head injuries and punished if one of your players has one. This is the reason we will never ever see this seriously flawed "if you get an head injury, you'll have to sit 5/10 minutes on the sideline with no replacement" rule.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Ok, so what exactly should he have done to prevent Fulham players from going down clutching their heads?
What he did yesterday was to follow the laws of the game = stopping play when someone go down with (alleged) head injuries.
You might say its his job to prevent it but you could also argue its a footballers job to play football rather than rolling around on the grass screaming for mummy.

But apparently you can expect all referees to watch all 22 players simultaneously for 90 minutes and make correct decisions about whether they actually get injured or if they're just faking it?

I wouldn't mind VAR being used in that way, but this is presently not the case.

Won't be a team managed by a Portuguese...

And then we're back to the core issue with this idea: you get rewarded if you cause head injuries and punished if one of your players has one. This is the reason we will never ever see this seriously flawed "if you get an head injury, you'll have to sit 5/10 minutes on the sideline with no replacement" rule.

If you deliberately cause a head injury you should get a red card. No one's proposing that part of the laws are changed.

 

[Swansman]

If you deliberately cause a head injury you should get a red card. No one's proposing that part of the laws are changed.

You can do it without anyone noticing it or being able to claim it was deliberate. In comes the corner, you get up to head it but know that neither you or your opponent will get the ball and just put your forehead in the temple of the opponent and there you go, five minutes 11 vs 10.

But not just deliberate cases. In any case where a player get a head injury, it means you get punished. If Dunk or Webster blocks a shot with their head and has to lay down for a minute, should you really get punished for that? Or if fans throw a coin or something in the head of a player and they get injured from it, should they then have to play with 10 men for five minutes? The whole "you get sent off for five minutes if you get a head injury" idea is absolutely absurd.

 

[Justice]

Seven fake Fulham head injuries yesterday. No wonder RDZ lost it.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

You can do it without anyone noticing it or being able to claim it was deliberate. In comes the corner, you get up to head it but know that neither you or your opponent will get the ball and just put your forehead in the temple of the opponent and there you go, five minutes 11 vs 10.

That is an absolutely ridiculous scenario that would never happen, for a start you've pretty much described an off the ball headbutt, it would take a tremendous amount of skill to make that look accidental and avoid being sent off. And equally the player who goes in with his forehead runs the risk of being injured himself so even if he wasn't sent off would have to go off for treatment as well, especially when you consider that player is likely to go down clutching his head as well to make it look more accidental and try to avoid the red card.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You can do it without anyone noticing it or being able to claim it was deliberate. In comes the corner, you get up to head it but know that neither you or your opponent will get the ball and just put your forehead in the temple of the opponent and there you go, five minutes 11 vs 10.

But not just deliberate cases. In any case where a player get a head injury, it means you get punished. If Dunk or Webster blocks a shot with their head and has to lay down for a minute, should you really get punished for that? Or if fans throw a coin or something in the head of a player and they get injured from it, should they then have to play with 10 men for five minutes? The whole "you get sent off for five minutes if you get a head injury" idea is absolutely absurd.

If you have a head injury, whether it's caused by a coin, a block, a deliberate act or a clash of heads you should not be on the pitch full stop. You cannot be on it if you are pouring blood until it's stemmed (which would happen now for coining) and in all other circumstances there is a risk of concussion.

We're talking both player safety and stopping cheating. Not stopping the game for head injuries would be far more dangerous.

 

[Swansman]

That is an absolutely ridiculous scenario that would never happen, for a start you've pretty much described an off the ball headbutt, it would take a tremendous amount of skill to make that look accidental and avoid being sent off. And equally the player who goes in with his forehead runs the risk of being injured himself so even if he wasn't sent off would have to go off for treatment as well, especially when you consider that player is likely to go down clutching his head as well to make it look more accidental and try to avoid the red card.

Fine. And the other arguments?

If you have a head injury, whether it's caused by a coin, a block, a deliberate act or a clash of heads you should not be on the pitch full stop. You cannot be on it if you are pouring blood until it's stemmed (which would happen now for coining) and in all other circumstances there is a risk of concussion.

We're talking both player safety and stopping cheating. Not stopping the game for head injuries would be far more dangerous.

Ok, so if Adam Webster blocks a shot with his head (or a Palace fan throws a coin at him), goes down for a minute and the docs come and have quick look at him and wants to sub him immediately or get him on the pitch again, but aren't allowed to do that for five minutes and the opponents score a goal in his absence, would you be pleased by this stupid rule?

The IFAB would never be dumb enough to implement a rule where you get punished for a player getting injured. I really struggle to understand why people think playing with 10 men because someone got a head injury would be a fair idea.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Fine. And the other arguments?

I didn't have any comments to make on any of your other arguments which is why I only commented on the ridiculous idea that one player could or would intentionally headbutt another to get the other team temporarily down to 10 players when the risk was a red card or injury to themselves.

If you want to counter argue a point about the unfairness of reducing a team to 10 players for a head injury at least stick to something plausible rather than hyperbole.

 

[Seasider78]

Providing they are not laying in the middle of the goal why not just let the game go on and the physios treat them on the pitch. You would soon see them springing back to life

 

[Guinness Boy]

Fine. And the other arguments?

Ok, so if Adam Webster blocks a shot with his head (or a Palace fan throws a coin at him), goes down for a minute and the docs come and have quick look at him and wants to sub him immediately or get him on the pitch again, but aren't allowed to do that for five minutes and the opponents score a goal in his absence, would you be pleased by this stupid rule?

The IFAB would never be dumb enough to implement a rule where you get punished for a player getting injured. I really struggle to understand why people think playing with 10 men because someone got a head injury would be a fair idea.

I’d be a lot more upset if he came back on too early, got serious brain damage and had to retire

 

[Swansman]

I’d be a lot more upset if he came back on too early, got serious brain damage and had to retire

Which happens very rarely, while genuine less severe head injuries happens nearly every game.

Would spending five minutes on the sideline (without being allowed to make a sub) prevent brain damage? If he's obviously brain damaged, is it fair you can't replace him for five minutes? If he's brain damaged but it doesn't show immediately, how do we know that five minutes is enough? Symptoms from concussions could appear at any point within 24 hours.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Which happens very rarely, while genuine less severe head injuries happens nearly every game.

Would spending five minutes on the sideline (without being allowed to make a sub) prevent brain damage? If he's obviously brain damaged, is it fair you can't replace him for five minutes? If he's brain damaged but it doesn't show immediately, how do we know that five minutes is enough? Symptoms from concussions could appear at any point within 24 hours.

Rather than answer that, let me give you an example from another sport.

My friend's son is an aspiring Rugby Union player. He was one of the best scrum halves in London in his age group and is now at a rugby playing college where many professionals come from.

My friend works in the NHS and can't always make games due to shifts but one Wednesday afternoon he drove 30 miles to see his son playing. When he go there the teams were warming up so he drove into town to get some food and came back ten minutes before kick off. His son was sitting away from the team with another lad and they had bibs on instead of match jerseys.

The two had accidentally clashed heads in the warm up. Not only were they removed from the game, they also had to sit out the next three weeks, just in case, despite them being just about the best players in the team.

I my world that's way better than Fulham players stopping play with a grazed eyelash while real concussion is played on through.

I note also that you're back straight after a defeat, posting at a million miles an hour and always wanting the last word with ever more silly arguments. You have learned nothing.

 

[Albion my Albion]

(speaking about the referee at the 18/2/2023 Fulham match)

He clearly had an agenda against us today.

 

[Swansman]

Rather than answer that, let me give you an example from another sport.

My friend's son is an aspiring Rugby Union player. He was one of the best scrum halves in London in his age group and is now at a rugby playing college where many professionals come from.

My friend works in the NHS and can't always make games due to shifts but one Wednesday afternoon he drove 30 miles to see his son playing. When he go there the teams were warming up so he drove into town to get some food and came back ten minutes before kick off. His son was sitting away from the team with another lad and they had bibs on instead of match jerseys.

The two had accidentally clashed heads in the warm up. Not only were they removed from the game, they also had to sit out the next three weeks, just in case, despite them being just about the best players in the team.

I my world that's way better than Fulham players stopping play with a grazed eyelash while real concussion is played on through.

I note also that you're back straight after a defeat, posting at a million miles an hour and always wanting the last word with ever more silly arguments. You have learned nothing.

I am using the same "silly arguments" as Bozza: namely that punishing teams for getting head injuries is a bad solution. Why are you not calling his arguments silly?
I've made four posts in this thread today. As many as you, so who the f*** are you to criticise my number of posts?