A&H

Leaving FOP following injury and caution

JamesL

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
So yesterday during MAN U game Jesse Lingard was fouled, by Holgate I think. Play was stopped, physio cam on to assess/treat the injury and then Jesse Lingard was ordered off the FOP until play resumed, despite Holgate receiving a caution.

Now, this isnt the first time I have seen this in the PL, I think it happened in an arsenal game recently, Koscielney i think, so it's got me wondering am i missing something?

LOTG says:
. Exceptions to the requirement to leave the field
of play are only when:
• a goalkeeper is injured
• a goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need attention
• players from the same team have collided and need attention
• a severe injury has occurred
• a player is injured as the result of a physical offence for which
the opponent is cautioned or sent off (e.g. reckless or serious foul
challenge), if the assessment/treatment is completed quickly.

is there a directive of when this should and should not be applied or is it one that appears to have slipped through the net?
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Probably because the treatment/assessment wasn't completed quickly enough. It did take a lot longer than the time it took Andre Marriner to issue the caution.
 
From what I've seen players have been going off more than staying on following a caution to the player who fouled them. I guess it comes down to the definition of quickly, that really is massively open to interpretation. I know that one national association have decreed that the player only stays on if treatment is finished before the caution is completed, which in reality is going to be next to never.
 
RustyRef said:
From what I've seen players have been going off more than staying on following a caution to the player who fouled them. I guess it comes down to the definition of quickly, that really is massively open to interpretation. I know that one national association have decreed that the player only stays on if treatment is finished before the caution is completed, which in reality is going to be next to never.
Click to expand...
Given the way cards are flashed at PL I suspect this booking was completed before physio was on scene. It really is wide open to interpretation which is why I was interested if there was a directive.

My interpretation is you allow the treatment on pitch if quick.
I think the player should only leave if its taken an amount of time in which you have to ask them to leave to continue treatment. If its complete before that point then stay on.

That seems common sense to me...
 
RustyRef said:
From what I've seen players have been going off more than staying on following a caution to the player who fouled them. I guess it comes down to the definition of quickly, that really is massively open to interpretation. I know that one national association have decreed that the player only stays on if treatment is finished before the caution is completed, which in reality is going to be next to never.
Click to expand...

That rather ignores the fact that treatment isn't supposed to take place on the fop at all!
 
PinnerPaul said:
That rather ignores the fact that treatment isn't supposed to take place on the fop at all!
Click to expand...
Lotg say otherwise... in the exceptions to the law:
a player is injured as the result of a physical offence for which
the opponent is cautioned or sent off (e.g. reckless or serious foul
challenge), if the assessment/treatment is completed quickly.
 
Yeah, I remember discussing this at the seminar when the LOTG were changed. I think the conclusion was that you administer the caution and then basically if the player is essentially back on his feet of his own accord, or looks pretty much OK by then, you let him stay on - if he's still struggling, you need to encourage the physio to help him off.

Essentially, you need to make a decision one way or the other around the time the caution is finished - he doesn't have to be up and moving by then, but you do have to feel like he's basically sorted.
 
When this was introduced, some fairly lengthy and detailed guidelines were given in the 2016-17 Laws document. Here is an extract of the main part relating to the current discussion:

"In principle, the delay should not be any longer than currently occurs when a medical person(s) comes on the field to assess an injury. The difference is that the point at which the referee used to require the medical person(s) and the player to leave is now the point at which the medical staff leave but the player can remain.

To ensure the injured player does not use/extend the delay unfairly, referees are advised to:
• be aware of the match situation and any potential tactical reason to delay the restart
• inform the injured player that if medical attention it required it must be quick
• signal for the medical person(s) (not the stretchers) and, if possible, remind them to be quick

When the referee decides play should restart either:
• the medical person(s) leaves and the player remains or
• the player leaves for further assessment/treatment (stretcher signal may be necessary)

As a general guide, the restart should not be delayed for more than about 20–25 seconds beyond the point when everyone was ready for play to restart.

The referee must make full allowance for the stoppage."

I would say that based on these guidelines, I think more players should be allowed to stay on than is currently the case. In fact I am struggling to remember a single instance of this law actually being implemented. Can anyone else recall an example?
 
I'm baffled as to why only a referee can allow a medical person on to a pitch, seconds can count in serious situations and it would be no issue whatsoever to allow medical staff on like Rugby to get on with their job, this ceremonial having to bring players off and back on has got silly and wastes time and supporters think its silly too!!
 
Peter Grove said:
When this was introduced, some fairly lengthy and detailed guidelines were given in the 2016-17 Laws document. Here is an extract of the main part relating to the current discussion:

"In principle, the delay should not be any longer than currently occurs when a medical person(s) comes on the field to assess an injury. The difference is that the point at which the referee used to require the medical person(s) and the player to leave is now the point at which the medical staff leave but the player can remain.

To ensure the injured player does not use/extend the delay unfairly, referees are advised to:
• be aware of the match situation and any potential tactical reason to delay the restart
• inform the injured player that if medical attention it required it must be quick
• signal for the medical person(s) (not the stretchers) and, if possible, remind them to be quick

When the referee decides play should restart either:
• the medical person(s) leaves and the player remains or
• the player leaves for further assessment/treatment (stretcher signal may be necessary)

As a general guide, the restart should not be delayed for more than about 20–25 seconds beyond the point when everyone was ready for play to restart.

The referee must make full allowance for the stoppage."

I would say that based on these guidelines, I think more players should be allowed to stay on than is currently the case. In fact I am struggling to remember a single instance of this law actually being implemented. Can anyone else recall an example?
Click to expand...
Thanks @Peter Grove exactly what I was looking for.
And no I havent seen an example yet, although I have utilised this law myself - which is why I wanted to make sure I was doing it properly.
 
Peter Grove said:
I would say that based on these guidelines, I think more players should be allowed to stay on than is currently the case. In fact I am struggling to remember a single instance of this law actually being implemented. Can anyone else recall an example?
Click to expand...
I've seen a handful of examples of this being done properly, primarily at the international level, though there was an instance in August 2016 (or so) where a Celtic player had gotten injured in a tackle where the opponent was cautioned. Trainer, quick treatment, stayed on the FOP.
 
JamesL said:
Lotg say otherwise... in the exceptions to the law:
a player is injured as the result of a physical offence for which
the opponent is cautioned or sent off (e.g. reckless or serious foul
  • allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is only slightly injured
  • stops play if a player is seriously injured and ensures that the player is removed from the field of play. An injured player may not be treated on the field of play and may only re-enter after play has restarted; if the ball is in play, re-entry must be from the touchline but if the ball is out of play, it may be from
challenge), if the assessment/treatment is completed quickly.
Click to expand...

Not for the first time laws are slightly contradictory - as the passage you quote applies to the requirement to leave the fop.

Before that it says

  • An injured player may not be treated on the field of play
There aren't any exceptions listed to this mandatory requirement - just that, as you say, the word 'treatment' is introduced in the exceptions to the leaving the fop requirement!
 
You're right it does. I take this to mean that where no caution only an assessment may take place and treatment off field.
Where caution or dismissal then so long as quickly completed then treatment on FOP is ok. But i agree reading it does make it appear contradictory.
 
I don't see it as really being contradictory - I think it can be read as starting off by saying a player cannot be treated on the field, which means he normally has to leave the field for treatment, but that one of the exceptions to the requirement of having to leave the field (which includes having to leave the field for treatment) is when the opponent has been cautioned or sent off and the assessment/treatment can be carried out quickly.
 
I've always found that in those instances where an injured player is being "looked at" by his team's coach/physio/first aider, the opposition players are quick to start moaning about time wasting and saying things like "is he staying on or coming off then ref?" or "come on ref, can we get on with the game?" This in fact aids your decision-making as a referee and makes it easier to sell to the injured player and his team when you say "okay then mate, you've either got to go off now or get to your feet and play on cos the match is restarting".
Just my take on it ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top