Fouling Player off until victim is fit to return to play

_blank_

Seemingly the EPL refs want the player who commits a foul, and forces a player off for treatment, to not be allowed to return to the field of play until the victim of the foul is back on the pitch.

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_2660364,00.html

English referees want fouling players to be forced to stand on the touchline until the player they have injured is fit to carry on.

At the moment the transgressor's team gains an advantage as they carry on playing with 11 while the injured player's side is reduced to ten men.

That could change if England's elite referees can push through a change to the Laws of the Game. They will take their proposal first to the FA and then to the International Football Association Board, who have the power to change the laws.

The change could not be pushed through for this season but it could be introduced at Euro 2008.

"It's wrong that the opponent who committed the foul challenge remains on the pitch and his team stays at 11, yet the team who has been offended against go down to 10 for a period while the player is treated," said Keith Hackett, the chief executive of the Professional Game Match Officials, in the Daily Telegraph.

"If it is an injury that demands touchline treatment, he [the injured player] comes off and the offender comes off. When he is fit, or a substitute is ready, he [the offender] can come back on."

Hmmm.

I like this idea a lot.

el rabitos

DesF wrote:

Seemingly the EPL refs want the player who commits a foul, and forces a player off for treatment, to not be allowed to return to the field of play until the victim of the foul is back on the pitch.

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_2660364,00.html



Hmmm.

I like this idea a lot.

would certainly add a new dimension to Drogba's game

The Rooster

Great, so whenever Gerrard or Ronaldo or Terry etc commits a foul, there'll be a super incentive to lie down for 20 minutes.......

jester77

The Rooster wrote:

Great, so whenever Gerrard or Ronaldo or Terry etc commits a foul, there'll be a super incentive to lie down for 20 minutes.......

Yeah, I agree with this. Not a good idea. Also, this one just springs to mind, but the Rooney tackle at the weekend. Straight forward accident, the defender (can't remember who it was), shouldn't be punished for this.

_blank_

jester77 wrote:

Yeah, I agree with this. Not a good idea. Also, this one just springs to mind, but the Rooney tackle at the weekend. Straight forward accident, the defender (can't remember who it was), shouldn't be punished for this.

Was Rooney fouled, or was it some inocuous incident?

DerekD Goldfish

If a team had made all thier subs and the injued player has to go off does that mean the fouling player is effectively sent of for what may not even have been a yellow card foul.

stupid rule IMO

Bubs101

It's the worst idea I've heard in years. Considering the amount of diving this is pure crap

Mossy Monk

Nice idea but cannot see how it would work. Could see players lying down for half an hour if Gerrard or someone did the tackle.

BKtje

I would assume that there would be a maximum amount of time that the player remains off for.

Mitch Connor

The Rooster wrote:

Great, so whenever Gerrard or Ronaldo or Terry etc commits a foul, there'll be a super incentive to lie down for 20 minutes.......

agreed - if the players were honest about injuries then yeah, it would be a good idea, but we know there are players who would use this as an oppertunity to take a player out of the game.

Imagine, and i'll use United players as an exaple so there can be no call of bias, United are drawing 1-1 with chelsea at the end of the season, and if they win they win the league.

comes to the 90th minute, and from a decent crossing position, darren fletcher is the 'victim' of a John Terry tackle. Who is to say Darren won't feel the need to head off the pitch to get some attention, thus forcing Terry off the pitch and significantly reducing the effectiveness of the chelsea back line in dealing with the free kick, which United end up scoring from. Fletcher then comes back on without any sort of problem, or maybe a slight limp for the first couple of yards. United win the league.

It could never be proven conclusively that Fletcher did, or did not need to go off, but there would always be that question mark.

Also, what if a keeper, without meaning to, fouls and injures a player - the defending team have to play for a few minutes without a keeper? It would be a bit of a joke imo.

rahim

Tauren wrote:

Also, what if a keeper, without meaning to, fouls and injures a player - the defending team have to play for a few minutes without a keeper? It would be a bit of a joke imo.

Exactly. It would become a joke, as inevitably certain players (ie: goalkeepers) would have to be exempt or otherwise you get a situation where, a keeper comes out and floors someone from a corner, a penalty is given (doesn't happen very often but it's possible) keeper is given a yellow and has to go off the pitch with the injured or "injured" player. No keeper for the penalty, or they wait for the keeper and the injured player??? It will become far too ridiculous to work.

5starpool

This is a really daft idea, but since the good idea they had in Scotland of retrospectively punishing players for "simulation" was rejected, I really hope this doesn't get approved. I understand that it won't be subject to the reasons that the Scots idea got dismissed, but it could exacerbate the fallout from a team gettign awarded an incorrect freekick if they had to defend it without their star defender or whoever if it suited the attacking team.

Mikeyt086

Another joke from the FA. They need to stop thinking up crap gimmicks and concentrate on their actual jobs which is governing a league.

The best point in this topic is the Michael Dubarry of Reading one. He broke Rooney's foot when attempting to block a shot and it was a pure accident, is he going to be punished if Rooney goes off?

This has no chance.

_blank_

Mikeyt086 wrote:

Another joke from the FA. They need to stop thinking up crap gimmicks and concentrate on their actual jobs which is governing a league.

The best point in this topic is the Michael Dubarry of Reading one. He broke Rooney's foot when attempting to block a shot and it was a pure accident, is he going to be punished if Rooney goes off?

This has no chance.

Did you even read the article I linked to and quoted?

Was the Rooney incident a foul?

PHB

Lads people are picking holes in stupid parts of this idea. The keeper point, since you always have to have a designated keeper on the pitch, and play is already stopped until a keeper is ready unlike an outfield player, I'd imagine something can be worked out.
The rooney point is irrelevent. That wasn't a foul, it was just an accident. Dubery would not have been punished.

The playacting point is real, but the other stuff people are saying is just irrevelent.

Mr.Nice Guy

I can't see how this would work in practice. Say a player was 60-70% fit and was 'injured' from a bad challenge - the perpetrator's club will claim that the challenge was not to blame but rather the fitness of the player.

I think there's a better way of dealing with matters than this.

leninbenjamin

Mikeyt086 wrote:

Another joke from the FA. They need to stop thinking up crap gimmicks and concentrate on their actual jobs which is governing a league.

hmmm, by the sounds of it though these days crap gimmicks are all FIFA will allow. any decent idea is rejected.

The best point in this topic is the Michael Dubarry of Reading one. He broke Rooney's foot when attempting to block a shot and it was a pure accident, is he going to be punished if Rooney goes off?

I assume this would only apply to blown up fouls right, and not accidents like this?

in principle i like the sound of the idea, but in reality it would take a VERY good referee to enforce this effectively, something the game seems to be lacking these days. in fact you could only really enforce this if the retrospective cards for diving were enforced as well... other wise we woulds ee some piss taking.

Galvasean

In theory its a great idea but in practice I'm sure teams' poorer players would 'kamikazee' oppositions star players by pretending that they hurt them.

evil_seed

if this was brought in i'd never watch a game again. there's enough sh1t3 in the game as it is

Mikeyt086

DesF wrote:

Did you even read the article I linked to and quoted?

Was the Rooney incident a foul?

I did read the article. And the Rooney incident was definatley NOT a foul.

I was replying to an earlier post, if thats alright.