I don't know what the existing rules are in terms of treatment on the pitch, but it seems so often that the treatment is done before the player then has to walk off the pitch. Which then makes the whole thing a farce. Unless a player can't or shouldn't be moved i.e. serious injury then I don't think any treatment should be allowed on the pitch and the physio should only be allowed to assess an injury whilst on the field of play. Then any treatment can take place off the pitch with the game restarting and the player can return one minute later
To eliminate time wasting, by players feigning injury, why not have injury time added on to the end of each half? ;-) Seriously. The 4th official should have the responsibility for timing how long the trainer is on the pitch, so that it can all be added on, to stop the fake, time wasting injuries. Refs rarely add on sufficient wasted time. The same should be done for substitutions. From the moment the ref indicates a substitution is being made, the 4th official should start his stopwatch (perhaps one can be incorporated into the board with players numbers? Then as soon as the board goes up, the clock starts.) This way, instead of the ref adding on the standard 30 seconds for each substitution, he can add on the correct amount of time. This might stop players being sent over to the Kingsland stand, with a slow walk back, as I have seen so often, just to run the clock down.
Its not so much of a farce really, or at least it shouldn't be. The going off the pitch thing is supposed to make players think twice about feigning injury. It obviously doesn't work so I suppose you could argue that it has become somewhat pointless.
Why stop play for injuries at all? Just let the physio run on and treat the player when the ball is away and then carry on playing. It would be amazing how many fewer people would get injured...
However, the team with an injured player would be disadvantaged....even if the injury was the result of a foul. Hardly fair.
If it was a foul then play has already stopped. I am more frustrated by the guy who falls down, rolls about and waits for someone to kick the ball out. Kicking the ball out should be a bookable offence! It is up to the ref to stop play. >grumble grumble grumble<
Because you encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour in another way as each team tries to kick the living daylights out of each other to gain an advantage at a certain point. Players who foul cannot gain an advantage. It's bad enough that sometimes a player has to go off to be treated while the team who commits the foul keeps 11 players on the field. Better to let the odd feigner get away with it on the pitch and be caught with retrospective action perhaps, than let the foulers prosper.
Players are so protected that it's virtually impossible to put in a heavy challenge and not pick up a booking. Hell, JWP got booked Saturday for his lame/failed attempt at a shirt pull. We saw at first hand against Midgetland how teams can take feigning injuries to an extreme to stop momentum and frustrate opponents. The vast majority of injuries are impact challenges and if you were playing without the presence of a medical professional. You would get up, dust yourself down and run it off and show off your bruise later. In fairness, most players do this when it suits, but if it's 1-0 with 5 minutes to go it can be like a scene from ER. Only for a player to limp off and run back on again which allows his team to regroup and take a breather.
http://tbrfootball.com/super-saints-havent-credited-outplaying-mourinhos-chelsea/ Article suggesting (what we all know) that Saints didn't get enough credit for the win against Chelsea. Of course, to Saints fans there can never be enough credit.
I would suggest it is okay in conversations and I would suggest a forum is more like a conversation than writing an article.
I've read a lot of match reports & interviews since that game, and I don't think I've seen a more one sided focus before. One report I read was a two page spread, & I **** you not, we got two sentences where it pointed out that Mane scored & Pelle wrapped up the points. Disgraceful. Then there's Jose Mourinho's interviews where he bemoans every decision going against him (not his side, but him, the tosser). When asked about our two penalty shouts he's says 'He prefers not to comment.' And walks off. Yeah, I bet you don't want to comment, because you know, don't you Jose. You can tell that I'm a bit annoyed!
Rules like "never start sentences with because" are not really all that helpful. What it really means is we shouldn't leave our subordinates hanging. Because a subordinate is no use without a main clause, we rarely start with "because".
I would like it placed on record please that I have never hanged any of my subordinates. I have sacked a few but I have never had to resort to hanging them. I might have liked to have done with one or two who were difficult to manage and were troublemakers.
I was foolish enough to read the Mail report on Monday*. Not a bloody word about Saints or even the game really. On the facing page they then put another article about the blessed Jose. I guess all those passionate Chelsea fans, the ones who never stopped singing and supporting their team on Sat **, deserve all the coverage. * I did not buy it, I was in a cafe. ** sarcasm for any Sheldons out there.
