God, I hate football!

[Ewe Ram]

5 hours ago, MadAmster said:

There is no Law demanding a player plays the ball. The ball has to be within playing distance otherwise the shielding becomes obstruction. Talking of which, how many times did you see an indirect kick for obstruction given last season?

Is this a rhetorical question? I’m female 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MadAmster said:

Came in with good reason. Designed to discourage players from going down injured when they're not. Also agree with the part of that same rule that says you don't have to leave the field following treatment if the offending player received a card for the foul or you are the keeper.

I understand what it was designed to do, I’m not that daft.  But it doesn’t work properly.  A player can be genuinely injured even if the foul isn’t severe enough draw a yellow.  The rule as it stands sort of suggests that the severity of the injury is linked directly to the quality of the challenge - which is complete BS.  The very fact that a foul is given at all should not be cause to effectively disadvantage the team that the foul was committed against.  And like I said how daft is it when there is a “technical issue” that would be plain and simple enough for the ref to see, unless the rule makers think that players are gaming the system by having their boots fail at a specific advantageous moment in the game?

[Grimbeard]

4 hours ago, Ewe Ram said:

Is this a rhetorical question? I’m female 

Is this?

[MadAmster]

13 hours ago, Ewe Ram said:

Is this a rhetorical question? I’m female 

Not intended as such but it does work in that fashion too.

[MadAmster]

13 hours ago, Andrew1 said:

I understand what it was designed to do, I’m not that daft.  But it doesn’t work properly.  A player can be genuinely injured even if the foul isn’t severe enough draw a yellow.  The rule as it stands sort of suggests that the severity of the injury is linked directly to the quality of the challenge - which is complete BS.  The very fact that a foul is given at all should not be cause to effectively disadvantage the team that the foul was committed against.  And like I said how daft is it when there is a “technical issue” that would be plain and simple enough for the ref to see, unless the rule makers think that players are gaming the system by having their boots fail at a specific advantageous moment in the game?

There are, as in most things these days, 2 opposite ends to this. How do you discourage players feigning injury on the one hand and not disadvantage teams who have a player injured in a foul tackle? That middle ground is hard to find. I'm not sure if there IS middle ground in this question. Do you have any thoughts on it?

[Guest]

Yes get rid of the rule, if a player simulates, just book him!

My only caveat to this is that a player goes down holding his face or head, then they should be immediately concussion substituted whilst an assessment is done for a 5 minute minimum.  This both assures protection against a serious head injury, whilst discouraging the sort of (at times embarrassing) play acting that has become entrenched in the last few years.