Fluminese v Botafago
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
Problem is what can referees do about it? They can't prove that they aren't really injured, and if they didn't allow treatment and it turned out it was genuine they'd be thrown to the wolves. There were a couple at the weekend: Dominguez of Forest having to be carried off because he seemingly couldn't walk, then as soon as they got to the touchline they put him down and he walked unaided to a seat in the dug out. Then Onana yesterday, Andy Madley knew fell well there was nothing wrong with him but what could he do?
Similar last week where Bruno Fernandes went down in supposed agony on the edge of the Fulham penalty area, only to then spring back up once he realised the ball was coming to him. Far from criticise him, his manager came out after and said he had done nothing wrong.
Not for the refs. Ifab needs to sort it. The game is far too frequently stopped for 'injured' players who aren't injured. Usually they go down for tactics reasons (to get a rest or to actually allow tactical instructions).
Thoughts...
Max 2 players can receive tactical instructions at a break play?
Allow trainers on in play in certain circumstances?
If play is stopped the player must go off the pitch for 30 seconds?
We definitely need to do something about feigning injury that takes it out of the referees hand.
We have the caveat that a player can remain on field of play if an offender is cautioned which would mean that those injured/hurt after a reckless or excessive challenge aren't unfairly penalised.
I think it needs to be a proper deterrent. Hold your head to get the game stopped you have to go off for 5 minutes to be checked over, something like that.
It's a proper 'boy who cried wolf' situation and someone will end up receiving delayed treatment when in urgent need at some point.
Like the first one, but very difficult to police. Unless you stopped them from going over to get a drink I can't see how a 4th official could control 2 technical areas and what instructions were being given.
Allowing physios on during play works in rugby, but the movement around the pitch is much slower and obvious. Football isn't like that it can be from one part of the pitch to the opposite corner in just a few seconds. Think it would be too dangerous.
PGMOL have obviously unofficially created the 30 second rule, be interested to see whether it is used in other leagues and incorporated into law. It is certainly an incentive to not go down unnecessarily, but it has also unfairly penalised teams who have had to defend with a player less even though the player was very clearly injured.
Don't think there is an easy answer, other than adding the time on.
All valid thoughts.
If you go down that route though (adding time on) then you need a clock imo.
Are there any head injuries (short of ones that would be incredibly obvious with blood everywhere) where a matter of an extra 60 seconds between player going down and getting treatment can make a big difference?
I'm far from a medical expert, but I wouldn't imagine that a player who has taken a big bump on the head and is concussed, is going to have his life saved by receiving treatment a minute quicker than if we wait for a more natural break in play or a ball in a defensive area?
As I said, I'm no expert so I could very well be wrong, don't come at me if I am!
I'm far from a medical expert, but I wouldn't imagine that a player who has taken a big bump on the head and is concussed, is going to have his life saved by receiving treatment a minute quicker than if we wait for a more natural break in play or a ball in a defensive area?
As I said, I'm no expert so I could very well be wrong, don't come at me if I am!
Yes, if their airwaves were blocked, and we've seen that several times in football, that extra 60 seconds could be very serious. I'm no medical expert, but I'd guess the terrible head injuries received by the likes of Petr Cech, Ryan Mason and Raul Jimenez could have been much worse if not dealt with promptly.
The Ginger Ref
Active Member
If a player is knocked out, that 60 seconds could be the difference in them swallowing their tongue.
Without being too dramatic, the first 60 seconds of CPR is the most important.
Any head injury is extremely serious and should be treated as such.
I knew that with regards to if they’re knocked out or unconscious, I’m on about situations where a player is rolling around holding his head.
Would it still be the same?
(Obviously I always treat it seriously and stop the game, I’m just playing devils advocate)
Would it still be the same?
(Obviously I always treat it seriously and stop the game, I’m just playing devils advocate)
Problem is for head injuries they don't really roll around, they lay still holding their heads. It tends to be be for non-head injuries that they roll around holding various different parts of their bodies.
I'm not saying it isn't an issue, tonight in the Sheff Wed vs Plymouth game the young Wednesday keeper Beadle was clearly feigning injury. That led to a break in play where both teams had a full on briefing session by the technical area and it was very obviously orchestrated by Wednesday. But what can the referee do, he can't restart the game without a keeper being present.
Perhaps introduce a rule that during an injury break there's an exclusion zone around the technical areas, if players want a drink it has to be brought onto them by a member of the medical, not coaching, staff. But that doesn't fix the issue of the game being broken just to kill off any momentum.
The Ginger Ref
Active Member
I like the devils advocate scenarios 
, there's also the scenario where a team will try it on and claim a head injury to get the game stopped.
But, the FA guidance is pretty clear and it could be deemed a safeguarding issue if a head injury is seen to be ignored / treatment delayed by the referee because they didn't perceive it to be serious.
However, for anyone that has done a First Aid course, you may have heard a version of the following:
In the case of multiple casualties; "If the casualty is screaming in pain, then they aren't your priority because you know they are concious and breathing"
All in all, I'd rather be seen to stop a game for a head injury (or non head injury), than allow play to continue, the injury be severe and then trying to justify to the powers that be that "I didn't deem (a head injury) it to be serious".
, there's also the scenario where a team will try it on and claim a head injury to get the game stopped. But, the FA guidance is pretty clear and it could be deemed a safeguarding issue if a head injury is seen to be ignored / treatment delayed by the referee because they didn't perceive it to be serious.
Referees must follow the instruction below when dealing with injured players:
- Play is allowed to continue until the ball is out of play if aplayer is, in their opinion, only slightly injured
- Play is stopped if, in their opinion, a player is seriously injured or receives a head injury
However, for anyone that has done a First Aid course, you may have heard a version of the following:
In the case of multiple casualties; "If the casualty is screaming in pain, then they aren't your priority because you know they are concious and breathing"
All in all, I'd rather be seen to stop a game for a head injury (or non head injury), than allow play to continue, the injury be severe and then trying to justify to the powers that be that "I didn't deem (a head injury) it to be serious".
I think part of the problem is that we’ve become accustomed to the fact that if a player is down and play isn’t stopped, if a team score the team will argue that play should have been stopped, but the reason for stopping play is nothing do with the fact that they’re a man down, so it’s a poor excuse for conceding. Only if the player is proved to have been seriously injured, is the referee wrong to allow play to continue.
As said above, that’s not a chance we can take, but equally, a player being injured should never be a stick a team can beat a referee with if they concede a goal. The laws around stopping the game are not for that reason.
As said above, that’s not a chance we can take, but equally, a player being injured should never be a stick a team can beat a referee with if they concede a goal. The laws around stopping the game are not for that reason.
Last edited:
This is no contest. Yes, players cheat, feign injury, waste time. We could bring in all kinds of stricter Laws to prevent this, but they carry the danger of letting a serious head injury go unchecked. So let's weigh up the alternatives:
A Present Laws: injuries get treated but cheating is possible.
B Stricter Laws: cheating cut down; a player might die.
Football is only a game. No contest.
A Present Laws: injuries get treated but cheating is possible.
B Stricter Laws: cheating cut down; a player might die.
Football is only a game. No contest.
think that's a bit of a stretch
the laws need changing to add disincentives to go down feigning injury.
empower refs to stop play as they currently do, but once they do, the player in question goes off for minimum 30 seconds for off field assessment? there's many things along those lines which can be implemented without endangering anyone any more than currently
Worth baring in mind the minor difference in wording. The 30 second rule brought in by PGMOL is that if the player receives treatment they must leave for 30 seconds, where as a rule that if play is stopped for an injury to said player they must leave for 30 seconds would stop a player feigning injury to get game stopped, then getting up and being ok (as happened in the Liverpool v Forest game I believe?!)
Not saying it makes a big change, but it's slightly different.