Not so sure myself. If a player is injured following a good tackle then seems a bit harsh on the tackler to have to go off as well. Also, as we know a lot of players will go down despite not being hurt so again, unfair on the tackling player.
Something needs to change with players having to go off and wait after receiving treatment, but I don't think this is the change.
So if Hull are leading Liverpool 1-0, Suarez fouls Jelavic, Jelavic can go down, take treatment off the pitch and Suarez has to go off as well?
Yeah, this won't lead to exploitation of the rules at all...
A player being treated for 89 minutes
So Arsenal are playing Barca in the Champions League Final.....Messi bangs into Jenkinson.......Jenkinson rolls around the pitch like a lunatic.....he is taken off.....as is Messi. We lose a right back for 5 minutes.Barca lose Messi.
Much like any rule it can and will be exploited.
Us Gooners always see the devious, unsporting nature of things.
Not so sure myself. If a player is injured following a good tackle then seems a bit harsh on the tackler to have to go off as well
-----
Would assume it would only apply to foul tackles.
Ridiculous decision and will only make playacting worse. I agree with the suggested sin bin or orange card for a dangerous tackle that doesn't warrant a red but this just causes further potential for exploitation of the rules.
True, would rely on the referee being able to distinguish between an injury from a foul and an injury from a strong challenge.
comment by Robert pan Versie #20 (U1145)
posted 14 seconds ago
Ridiculous decision and will only make playacting worse. I agree with the suggested sin bin or orange card for a dangerous tackle that doesn't warrant a red but this just causes further potential for exploitation of the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I struggle to be a fan of the sin bin, I understand that there is a too big a gap between red and yellow but taking a player out of the game is likely to leave the offending sign parking the bus until they get him back.
Agree with people above, this is just piling more pressure onto referees and to be honest most are struggling with consistent application of the rules as it stands.
We would now ask refs to determine whether a player is genuinely injured.
On top of that, assuming good tackles aren't punishable, we'd ask them to judge whether the injury is as a result of a tackle bad enough for warrant time off the pitch for the offender.
Injuries are part of the game. An unfortunate part without question but still an element of a competative contact sport. Let it be.
$hit player gets fouled by opposition's best player, $hit player pretends he has been shot and goes off the pitch and gets "treated" for 10 minutes. One team loses a $hit player the other loses their best, fair trade.
I can see Spurs making good use of this rule.
I know that change is inevitable, but how does this work when the keeper chops someone down?
Why do we keep trying to change the rules.
LEAVE FOOTBALL ALONE
Instead of a sin bin maybe they should just re-evaluate what should be punished by a yellow. Things like celebrating a goal, time wasting and dissent perhaps should have a different punishment (or none at all). Yellow cards should be for offences that disadvantage the opponents, IMO.
For a start, time wasting shouldn't even be a thing. Add time on, booking a player in the 90th minute does not help the team who has been offended against.
Dissent against the ref? If it is that bad order his team to sub him and give him a ban afterwards.
For me yellows and reds should be for things that affect the opposition unfairly rather than for all these side things that don't influence the actual destination of the result.
it's a brilliant rule in fantasy land where all players are honest
here on earth, it's a cheats dream
How about we just get some properly trained refs who don't take any sheite ???
Brainstorm.
I don't like it.
Could see a cheating player deliberately seeking out an oppositions best player and pretending they are injured from a 'foul' just to get that player removed for 5 mins.
Imagine if the Mig mistakenly fists Carrol in the eye , we would be left without a keeper for periods of the game ,Big Andy returns to the pitch and runs around like headless chicken
comment by T Bone Steak Roysters (U3947)
posted 1 minute ago
Why do we keep trying to change the rules.
LEAVE FOOTBALL ALONE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there are exceptions. Watching footie clips from before the backpass rule always cracks me up.
Can imagine the medical teams and physios on the side taking a facking age to treat players when it suits. Pretend their magic spray bottles aren't working and they need to get a new one and other $hit like that.
Player spends 5 minutes on the touchline trying to tie his boots up. "Oh $hit, still can't do those double knots, do it for me boss!"
Uefa will propose a new rule to the International Football Association Board (IFAB) at the start of next year that would see players temporarily removed from the pitch if a foul they have committed injures another player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
wouldnt you be in red card territory if
if the foul is bad enough that it injures another player
Whoever thought up this latest piece of garbage legislation ,wants banning from going anywhere near a football ground.
it will allow for more cheating, or play acting as they call it.
Say Suarez clips some inferior player, he will feign injury and sit on the touchline for as long as he can cause its took one of the best players in the world out the game
That's the kind of stuff that will happen.
It's an awful rule for those players that rarely require treatment. ie Suarez. I know he rolls around like a pathetic twàt but he very rarely receives treatment or gets injured (touch wood)
comment by MaccaRuss (U18932)
posted 1 minute ago
It's an awful rule for those players that rarely require treatment. ie Suarez. I know he rolls around like a pathetic twàt but he very rarely receives treatment or gets injured (touch wood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to read between the lines, I think the rule is to try and prevent feigning injury in that anyone rolling around be immediately removed from the field along with the "offender". Absolutely rubbish way of going about it though.
Sign in if you want to comment
Injury Rule
Page 1 of 2
posted on 14/5/14
Not so sure myself. If a player is injured following a good tackle then seems a bit harsh on the tackler to have to go off as well. Also, as we know a lot of players will go down despite not being hurt so again, unfair on the tackling player.
Something needs to change with players having to go off and wait after receiving treatment, but I don't think this is the change.
posted on 14/5/14
So if Hull are leading Liverpool 1-0, Suarez fouls Jelavic, Jelavic can go down, take treatment off the pitch and Suarez has to go off as well?
Yeah, this won't lead to exploitation of the rules at all...
A player being treated for 89 minutes
posted on 14/5/14
So Arsenal are playing Barca in the Champions League Final.....Messi bangs into Jenkinson.......Jenkinson rolls around the pitch like a lunatic.....he is taken off.....as is Messi. We lose a right back for 5 minutes.Barca lose Messi.
Much like any rule it can and will be exploited.
posted on 14/5/14
Us Gooners always see the devious, unsporting nature of things.
posted on 14/5/14
Not so sure myself. If a player is injured following a good tackle then seems a bit harsh on the tackler to have to go off as well
-----
Would assume it would only apply to foul tackles.
posted on 14/5/14
Ridiculous decision and will only make playacting worse. I agree with the suggested sin bin or orange card for a dangerous tackle that doesn't warrant a red but this just causes further potential for exploitation of the rules.
posted on 14/5/14
True, would rely on the referee being able to distinguish between an injury from a foul and an injury from a strong challenge.
posted on 14/5/14
comment by Robert pan Versie #20 (U1145)
posted 14 seconds ago
Ridiculous decision and will only make playacting worse. I agree with the suggested sin bin or orange card for a dangerous tackle that doesn't warrant a red but this just causes further potential for exploitation of the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I struggle to be a fan of the sin bin, I understand that there is a too big a gap between red and yellow but taking a player out of the game is likely to leave the offending sign parking the bus until they get him back.
posted on 14/5/14
Agree with people above, this is just piling more pressure onto referees and to be honest most are struggling with consistent application of the rules as it stands.
We would now ask refs to determine whether a player is genuinely injured.
On top of that, assuming good tackles aren't punishable, we'd ask them to judge whether the injury is as a result of a tackle bad enough for warrant time off the pitch for the offender.
Injuries are part of the game. An unfortunate part without question but still an element of a competative contact sport. Let it be.
posted on 14/5/14
$hit player gets fouled by opposition's best player, $hit player pretends he has been shot and goes off the pitch and gets "treated" for 10 minutes. One team loses a $hit player the other loses their best, fair trade.
I can see Spurs making good use of this rule.
posted on 14/5/14
I know that change is inevitable, but how does this work when the keeper chops someone down?
posted on 14/5/14
Why do we keep trying to change the rules.
LEAVE FOOTBALL ALONE
posted on 14/5/14
Instead of a sin bin maybe they should just re-evaluate what should be punished by a yellow. Things like celebrating a goal, time wasting and dissent perhaps should have a different punishment (or none at all). Yellow cards should be for offences that disadvantage the opponents, IMO.
For a start, time wasting shouldn't even be a thing. Add time on, booking a player in the 90th minute does not help the team who has been offended against.
Dissent against the ref? If it is that bad order his team to sub him and give him a ban afterwards.
For me yellows and reds should be for things that affect the opposition unfairly rather than for all these side things that don't influence the actual destination of the result.
posted on 14/5/14
it's a brilliant rule in fantasy land where all players are honest
here on earth, it's a cheats dream
posted on 14/5/14
How about we just get some properly trained refs who don't take any sheite ???
Brainstorm.
posted on 14/5/14
I don't like it.
Could see a cheating player deliberately seeking out an oppositions best player and pretending they are injured from a 'foul' just to get that player removed for 5 mins.
posted on 14/5/14
Imagine if the Mig mistakenly fists Carrol in the eye , we would be left without a keeper for periods of the game ,Big Andy returns to the pitch and runs around like headless chicken
posted on 14/5/14
comment by T Bone Steak Roysters (U3947)
posted 1 minute ago
Why do we keep trying to change the rules.
LEAVE FOOTBALL ALONE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there are exceptions. Watching footie clips from before the backpass rule always cracks me up.
posted on 14/5/14
Can imagine the medical teams and physios on the side taking a facking age to treat players when it suits. Pretend their magic spray bottles aren't working and they need to get a new one and other $hit like that.
posted on 14/5/14
Player spends 5 minutes on the touchline trying to tie his boots up. "Oh $hit, still can't do those double knots, do it for me boss!"
posted on 14/5/14
Uefa will propose a new rule to the International Football Association Board (IFAB) at the start of next year that would see players temporarily removed from the pitch if a foul they have committed injures another player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
wouldnt you be in red card territory if
if the foul is bad enough that it injures another player
posted on 14/5/14
Whoever thought up this latest piece of garbage legislation ,wants banning from going anywhere near a football ground.
posted on 14/5/14
it will allow for more cheating, or play acting as they call it.
Say Suarez clips some inferior player, he will feign injury and sit on the touchline for as long as he can cause its took one of the best players in the world out the game
That's the kind of stuff that will happen.
posted on 14/5/14
It's an awful rule for those players that rarely require treatment. ie Suarez. I know he rolls around like a pathetic twàt but he very rarely receives treatment or gets injured (touch wood)
posted on 14/5/14
comment by MaccaRuss (U18932)
posted 1 minute ago
It's an awful rule for those players that rarely require treatment. ie Suarez. I know he rolls around like a pathetic twàt but he very rarely receives treatment or gets injured (touch wood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to read between the lines, I think the rule is to try and prevent feigning injury in that anyone rolling around be immediately removed from the field along with the "offender". Absolutely rubbish way of going about it though.
Page 1 of 2