epl ... ref as medic

[TheRefIsBlind]

saw this today and thought it was interesting. haven't developed an opinion yet so i thought i'd post it and see what others think. i've reffed for 15 years from college on down and never found the practice overly abused. maybe i was missing something. maybe it's unique to epl. maybe the wc episode triggered a review. just hope the ``cure'' isn't worse than the disease.

Premiership to axe 'injury break'
By Phil Harlow

The Premier League has asked players, managers and referees to end the custom of the ball being kicked out of play when a player goes down injured.
Decisions on whether a break in play is necessary for treatment to be received will now be taken by the referee.

"There was a general feeling that this player-led convention had gone too far," Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson told BBC Sport.

But the Football League told BBC Sport it had no plans to make changes.

The custom has gradually established itself in football over the years, but has never been formalised in the rules.

But the feeling that this "gentlemen's agreement" was being taken advantage of has become widespread, with frequent breaks in play at the 2006 World Cup cited as the most high-profile abuse.

the complete story can be found at this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/4796269.stm

[Wreave]

I agree. The players should play the game. The ref should determine if play should be stopped. A smart ref won't blow the whistle on an attack.

Some of the gamesmanship in the WC with players going down "injured" to kill attacks was disgraceful. Hard to say if it was worse than the diving, but they are both in the same class.

The reasons there are referees is because the players need a third party to keep the game in line. If players could handle it all on their own, we wouldn't be needed. The Laws call for referees to make this decision. Let's play by them.

[bluedevils]

I guess I'm a little confused about what exactly the EPL is asking. They want the players to stop kicking the ball out of play when an opponent is down and apparently injured? Ok, I get it. It doesn't seem to me that the referee is affected much by this. In the cases when the ref does NOT stop play but a player puts the ball out so play can be stopped (sometimes with some encouragement to do so by the ref, but many times without)... the referee is NOT going to stop play given the EPL's new view. These are not serious injuries and that's why the ref has not been stopping play for these situations in the past. The ref is not going to stop play for 5 of these minor injuries a match, resulting in 5 dropped ball restarts.

It seems to me that it may take a while for the players to get accustomed to NOT being entitled to have play stopped by the opponents' sporting gesture. I.e. it will take time for the players to get accustomed to playing through these situations rather than expecting someone from one team or the other to put the ball out.

[bluedevils]

Some of the gamesmanship in the WC with players going down "injured" to kill attacks was disgraceful. Hard to say if it was worse than the diving, but they are both in the same class.
Agreed - there were definitely some unsporting cases in the WC. To me, this *is* simulation and is cautionable. If the ball is put out by a player, ref attends to the 'injured' player and determines that this player was feigning injury (for whatever purpose, but especially in the case of stopping an opponent's attack) -- I'm all for the ref cautioning the player if the situation is obvious and egregious enough. This seems well supported by the laws.

[Doug the Ref]

I was hoping that some of the abuses of the "honor" system would lead to pressure by players and coaches to reduce the simulation. During World Cup, one could notice the frustration on a number of players in posession of the ball, that they didn't fully agree that a key injury had just taken place. They seemed to put the ball out of play, rather reluctantly. Now, the players do not have to police themselves, it's up to the official to make the decision. I think I like that better anyway.

[Englishref]

I can see many problems with this. No matter how annoyed fans get with it, when your team's player is down in front of their own supporters, the fans will still demand the ball is put out. If opponents stop putting the ball out, I can forsee major crowd problems, especially if it's 70,000 Man Utd fans infuriated that a Man City player didn't put it out, or 56,000 Arsenal fans with Spurs the opposition. And woe betide it leads to a goal.

Also, I can see it putting a great deal of pressure on the referee. If the PL are saying that referees should now only stop play for a serious injury that he would normally stop play for, leaving any other players down, really injured or not, then it may work. However, if they are putting the onus on the referee to assess the extent of the injury, and whether it's real or not, I can see the issue of consistency becoming a major factor. Like it nor, at least at the moment, in 99.9% of cases, if a player is down, the ball is put out. What happens if a player is genuinely injured, say a cruciate ligament, but the referee plays on, believing it to be unimportant, and so the players have to, whilst next week, another referee realises it's a serious injury and stops play? Last season, both cases would have been stopped.

It may work, and with no trialling of it, I don't know that it won't. However, I can just see many problems in putting the onus entirely on the referee.

[ref2coach]

My question is; how often is the "injured" player anywhere near the area of active play? In my games I see a player "go down", I get close, look for blood or obvious broken bone, if I see neither I then refocus on play. I will keep myself between play and the "downed" player and stop play if it heads in the direction of the "downed" player, otherwise I wait until the ball goes out of play. Many, Many, Many times when the "downed" player sees that the game is not stopping they get up and rejoin play.

How did we get the to point that in a supposedly "physical" game that the players or we stop play for every little bump or bruise? :confused:

[intechpc]

I don't really like this. My thought is you're now removing sportsmanship when there's already a rule in the LOTG to address this issue. Feining an injury is USB and a cautionable offense. In my opinion instead of throwing more administrative effort on top of the issue and killing one of the few truly sportsmanlike aspects of this game, why not just enforce the laws that are already in place?

[NHRef]

Because it won't work, no ref in his right mind is going to card for this. Putting the ball out of play was a good idea, gone mad. You could actually see the frustration on players faces as they put the ball out of play.

the ref is to stop play if the injury is serious, if the players disagree then they can put the ball out, but it is used to much to stop an attack.

[Englishref]

Apparently exactly what I said, happened at the Emirates Stadium today. Eboue was down injured, Graham Poll told the Villa players they could carry on and they did. Apparently the crowd were in uproar, and the Arsenal players weren't very happy that play continued while a teammate was down.

I just can't see supporters or players accepting this. It sounds fine when it's an opposition player down, but when it's one of your own, the players and fans will be furious. Until that attitude is dealt with, you can't expect this to work without massive problems.

[NHRef]

the players/fans were in an uproar because what has been accepted as the right thing, wasn't done. If it continues, everyone will adjust to it and it will then be accepted and nobody will be upset when it doesn't happen.

[tmaker]

I can't believe how many of you actually support this. Amazing, truly.

Never use a scalpel when a butcher's cleaver is available, I suppose. :rolleyes:

[Shackleton]

When I first started watching soccer, I thought this convention was great and displayed wonderful sportsmanship. As I've become more of a fan over the years, my opinion has changed. It's obvious that players are frequently staying down to halt an attack. Personally, I'd prefer that this convention had never begun, because any gain in sportsmanship has been more than offset by the frequent simulation (at least in many professional leagues and international play).

But, Englishref makes a good point--this convention has become accepted and fans (and many players too) expect the ball to be put out whenever a player is down. When that doesn't happen, there will be friction. Ultimately, whether attempting to end this convention is good idea or not depends upon how willing fans and players are to go along with it. As to that, I don't know.

[bluedevils]

There's more to sporstmanship in soccer than kicking the ball out when an opponent is lying on the ground. I don't understand how/why this has become so expected and such a hot issue among players at all levels of the game. I mean, there is so much cheating and deceipt and dirty play and attempting to injure opponents -- and players at all levels seem to accept this garbage as 'part of the game.' But when their teammate is down injured and it is obvious to see it is not a serious injury -- the players demand that the opponents stop play or there is hell to pay. I don't get it.