Presuming we'll get a rugby style things, heard during explanations, and occasionally during play when calling advantage ect
Rugby style would be good for transparency but unfortunately it is going to be American football style
www.bbc.co.uk
No surprise - what he detailed has never been in law . . .
Interesting. That will provoke a reaction if it happens over here!
No surprise. In one of his "You Are the Ref" books he says that it is illegal for GKs to wear short sleeves!
*Mic on*
Because having the option adds pressure to put that player back on the field when that might endanger them. It is safest for the player to take no further part if there is concern over a head injury.
Conversely, knowing that if you take a player off due to concerns over concussion would result in you not being able to return him if he's cleared could be argued to incentivise a reluctance to use the protocol in the first place?
Problem is there have been countless occasions where a player is assessed after a head injury, allowed to carry on, only to then have to go off with concussion. Perhaps they were because the physios didn't have enough time to properly assess him, perhaps it was due to pressure from the player or management team. If the latter then the current concussion subs don't help, a manager isn't going to want to permanently take off their star player if there is a chance he will be OK, whereas if they can bring him off for proper assessment and then send him back on they are less likely to object. Which ultimately protects the health and safety of the players.
Belatedly, since the guidelines were issued last July, are they the first time the laws (and guidelines) have suggested you can be "in control" of the ball but not have "possession"? I can't recall when they were not interchangeable terms.
