Substitution after receiving treatment

[Dutch Referee Blog]

A player has to leave the field of play after injury treatment. He may only re-enter after play has restarted, is what the Laws of the Game say now. But may he be substituted? Or does the substitution have to wait because re-entering was not allowed yet?

 

[Darius]

A tree falls in the woods and there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

 

[RustyRef]

That is an anomaly in the laws and always has been. Even though the injured player has left the field of play and is not allowed back on until after play has restarted, he can be substituted.

Whilst at higher levels teams will rarely do this unless they are sure he won't be returning, at grass roots with repeated subs any sensible team will replace the injured player even if just for the next phase of play to ensure they keep 11 on.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
I see no reason why a referee would prevent this. Take the serious situation of a stretcher removal. Clearly the substitution can take place immediately. Many times teams may give the injured player an opportunity to see if he can come back and play continues. If they know he cannot then it is done immediately.
In reality it is abused by teams at the Pro level all the time. Saw a Chelsea player last year in the PL injure his hamstring in an attack. He knew he was not continuing so he walked from the penalty area and sat down in the centre circle. Once he started his walk it was the cue for the sub to warm up. Play stopped, physio comes on, does some leg stretches etc and then agrees that he is coming off. By the time the 'injured' player gets to the technical area the sub is warmed up and coming on. Team did not play short for any period and I could not see any ref preventing this.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I see no anomaly. He has already left the FOP so that part of the substitution procedure has been completed in advance.

 

[Peter Grove]

There is nothing illegal about substituting an injured player. I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the"spirit of the law" seems to be trending towards not causing a team to be disadvantaged by making them play a man down, when they have not done anything wrong. I don't see why a team should, in effect, be penalised if a player has picked up a genuine injury.

As the example mentioned by RR indicates however, there could be a risk of this being exploited by teams when unlimited subs are being used.

 

[RefJef]

Go back to why the requirement to leave the field of play after treatment was introduced: teams were deliberately slowing the game down with players feigning injury that required treatment so the new directive was introduced to discourage this practice.

Obviously if a player is injured such that he needs replacing he's not trying to game the system, so I think it reasonable and right that a sub can come straight on for an injured player and fully concur with Peter's comments above.

 

[Goldfish]

Even without the rule change most taps forward went back anyway with the next kick. The only real change that it has made is allowed the 2nd player at the kick offs to now be elsewhere

 

[one]

This is sometimes abused by players to waste time when competition rules allow for returning substitutes but don't allow for added time. there isn't too much a referee can do about it. Its the same as asking for a substitution every time the ball goes out of play. I do get selective hearing if I feel it is done to waste time.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I turn completely deaf in the final minute (unless it's the final minute of extra time)

 

[one]

I turn completely deaf in the final minute (unless it's the final minute of extra time)

Apparently I also turn blind as soon as I pick up my whistle