Just watching the Rugby Union and the trainer was on the pitch mending a player while the game went on around him. Is that something that could work in football instead of kicking the ball out because a player's down?
I was thinking this, football could learn a lot from both codes of the game. Respect to the referee, getting hit and not rolling on the floor like girls.
The respect thing is definitely something rugby could teach football about and the game would improve as a consequence. I thought the on pitch treatment could help stop players being unsure if they're supposed to stop or carry on with the game.
Weldone to the ref there. Dzeko was looking for it. He drew the tackle, lost the ball, then sat up and whinged a bit and then went down like he'd been shot after Liverpool had got down the other end. Cracking finish by Sturridge.
I remember exactly this topic being discussed 10-15 years ago by fans and pundits. Nothing has ever been done though. I really think FIFA and others in charge intentionally keep controversy in the game
I'm not sure, play can switch from one end of the pitch to the other pretty quickly in football. Whereas in rugby there's usually a lot more time to tend to an injured player without getting in the way.
You see it in both codes, but more often in Union where the injured played is getting tended to a couple of feet away from the play, it's a bit distracting but it stops players going down like they've been shot so they can get the medics on.
Its a great idea and would work if teams and managers played in the spirit of the game but they dont. football is all about cheating, ways to bend the rules however possible. Look at the rule to take a goal kick from either side. It was intended to speed play up, whats happened? Even longer to take a GK as they saunter across to the opposite side deliberately.
On the other hand, rugby would benefit by adopting the football philosophy of not trying to gouge another players eyes out, scraping studs down legs/faces/body and punching the **** out of each other. I know, its all manly, and they have a beer with each other afterwards while wearing women's clothes and singing songs but its not very sportsmanlike is it? The respect for the ref thing will never happen until the refs actually earn it, and that will require the use of goal line technology and a 4th official who can add something to the game.
Rugby is all about trying to maim the other players without being caught. Sure sometimes the GK does that, and also sometimes they get to take them more quickly. Scrums are collapsed and theres all sorts of other ways to cheat in rugby, so honestly, stop trying to make out its an honourable sport, it's not, although it IS a good way to keep 30 thugs off the streets for 80 mins.
Stick mics on the refs so you can hear whats been said and put into place bans and fines for any disrespect and swearing towards the refs thatd make them think twice about been twats if they constantly banned and fined! Itd never happen like
You could see the Man City fans foaming at the mouth with that one, I agree with you and maybe a lesson to be learnt if more teams did the same.
Goal line technology is a red herring, it doesn't happen enough to be needed, when it does happen the refs are more accurate than the technology and the technology can't pick up infringements prior to that point. The refs suffer at the moment as they have to compete with 2 dozen conmen. A post match panel review with far reaching powers for those found cheating could turn that into two dozen extra refs. But...that's digressing. The ability of trainers to come onto the pitch would reduce the number of players falling over to break up an opposition attack.
There isn't a written rule that the ball has to go out of play, unless it's an injury to the head, in which case the referee will blow the whistle. City fans do it all the time, if our player is down it's "Kick the ball out you dickhead!" but if it's one of theirs, the same people go "Play on! Ignore him!". It's a stupid thing to do; if a player receives treatment when he isn't actually injured and then gets up and he is completely fine, he should be booked, because it's simulation and interfering with the flow of the game. If that player goes down in simulation, he knows the ref will stop the game if he feigns injury and it's therefore a bookable offence to do so. But it isn't, for some reason. I'm not saying a player has to have a broken leg to receive treatment, but I think the referees should be more strict as to what constitutes some bloke with a sponge piss arsing about being allowed to waste the time of everybody there. All because the player got cramp. I get cramp at home and I don't need medical assistance!
The only time I ever got sent off playing football was for swearing at the ref. Before the game the red had clearly told us that any bad language directed at him would constitute dissent and we'd be off. I didn't have a leg to stand on and was bang to rights. All my team mates called me a right bellend after the game as well. How long would it take to sink in that calling the ref a ****ing ****er would mean an early shower if players were sent off as soon as it happened. When a team were down to nine men after ten minutes the manager might actually get a grip and do something about his players behaviour. I played rugby to a lot higher standard than I did football and we had to call the ref sir. If you even questioned a decision he'd walk you back ten metres. In any other walk of life you wouldn't get away with it so why do the likes of Rooney, Terry etc think they can call an official from a pig to a **** for daring to give a decision against them. Arseholes.
This, this and this. Referees need to be made accountable for decisions. We need to hear referees explain their decisions. But I doubt many parents want to hear Phil Dowd run his mouth off in front of their kids.
