Question re (non-) call in InterLiga match

[FlashMan]

Maybe some of you saw it; I'll try to recap what happened:

70th or so minute, Tecos v. Morelia, the Tecos left winger sends in a cross from the left. It immediately whaps off the Morellia defender and pings straight back out of bounds, while at the same time the Morelia defender goes down in a heap. From the tv it was hard to tell where he got hit.

The Tecos winger immediately retrieved the ball, tossed it into a compadre, who whips in a cross. Diego Jimenez (ex-MLSer) headed it in for a goal. Meanwhile, all the Morelia players had their hands raised up claiming play should have stopped because of their fallen teammate, and pretty much gave up on the play.

After the goal the Morelia players went crazy obviously claiming play should have been stopped. The Morelia player who'd been knocked down, got up soon thereafter as well, as there was no long delay except for the relatively brief scuffling between the players over what had happened, i.e., he wasn't seriously hurt. After a minute or so of jostling, play resumed.

So I guess I'm trying to understand the new fair play rule: was the ref (Ricardo Salazar) right in waiving play on, not knowing whether the Morelia play was seriously hurt or not? Or should have play been stopped?

Thanks.

[boylanj64]

So I guess I'm trying to understand the new fair play rule: was the ref (Ricardo Salazar) right in waiving play on, not knowing whether the Morelia play was seriously hurt or not? Or should have play been stopped?

There is no fair play "rule" - there is a code of conduct that gentleman are expected to observe, but the tools officials have to force them to do so are few. Without having seen the match, I would say that unless it was the GK who was down injured the CR was right to allow play to continue if he felt the injury was not serious.

[jkc313]

So I guess I'm trying to understand the new fair play rule: was the ref (Ricardo Salazar) right in waiving play on, not knowing whether the Morelia play was seriously hurt or not? Or should have play been stopped?

Thanks.

There's no new or any other kind of "fair play" rule. Law 5 tells us the referee stops play, if in his opinion, a player is seriously injured. The referee is to allow play to continue, if in his opinion, the player is not seriously injured. What constitutes "serious" injury changes with age and skill level of player. This is very high level play. The referee obviously felt the player was either not seriously injured or, possibly, embellishing the injury. In any event, what happened to play the whistle. These guys are pros and should continue play until play is stopped. The fact the "injured" player bounced back up only lends credence to the referee's decision to not stop play.

[ManiacalClown]

FYI: The referee was Ricardo Salazar.

I happened to be watching, and it looked like he was in position to see what happened and assess the seriousness of the injury. He obviously felt that it was something worth stopping play for, and I think that the player returned to his feet shortly thereafter only supports that decision.

[IASocFan]

...I happened to be watching, and it looked like he was in position to see what happened and assess the seriousness of the injury. He obviously felt that it was something worth stopping play for, and I think that the player returned to his feet shortly thereafter only supports that decision.


Is that what you meant to say?? :eek:

[bluedevils]

I can't believe nobody has pasted this in here yet. From Law 5 (The Referee!) - Powers and Duties:


(The referee) allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in his opinion, only slightly injured.

To me, that implies -- and everything I recall hearing over the years jives with this -- that the referee is expected to stop play / postpone the restart until the injured player has been dealt with.

And the related bullet points from IFAB Decision 1:

A referee is not held liable for:
• a decision to stop or not to stop play to allow an injured player to be removed from the field of play for treatment
• a decision to request or insist that an injured player be removed from the field of play for
treatment

For me, it boils down to this:
• By the LETTER of the law, the referee seems to have been incorrect.
• By the SPIRIT of the law, the referee may have been 100% correct.

Personally, I didn't watch the game, nor did I see a clip of the incident.

[boylanj64]

The referee allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in his opinion, only slightly injured

To me, that implies -- and everything I recall hearing over the years jives with this -- that the referee is expected to stop play / postpone the restart until the injured player has been dealt with.


That is not at all what that law says. It says the referee should allow play to continue if a player is only slightly injured. We can, I suppose, debate what slightly means, but from the description it seems clear the player was not seriously injured; therefore, he must be slightly injured. He was hit with the ball; should we really stop a professional match because a player is dinged? That is, as the laws clearly indicate, really not our role. The players are welcome to kick the ball out of bounds so the player can gather himself, but I am not using my whistle for that purpose. He's a big boy, and unless it is serious (broken bones, blood, etc) it is slight, and the laws say play on.

[andymoss]

I too haven't seen the clip, but will offer that I've heard from a number of authorative sources that unless it is head injury, we play on.

I think this was from the FA to get rid of the "kick-the-ball-out-of-play-when-on-opponent-falls-over" nonsense.

As others have mentioned, different age groups, levels, etc., will require a different approach, but in a pro match, looking where the player was hit, how he or she hit the ground and what they are doing will direct my response.

Hit in the, erm, midsection = there's nothing I can do, so play on.

Rolling around like a spinning top means no serious injury - try doing that with a broken leg - so we play on.

No movement having made no attempt to break the fall - I'm more likely to consider a whistle.

Lying pretty still and screaming the scream only a seriously hurt human being can scream - you'll know it when you hear it = whistle.

[bluedevils]

That is not at all what that law says. It says the referee should allow play to continue if a player is only slightly injured.
I don't understand why you removed and seem to have ignored the "until the ball is out of play" part. It's in there for a reason.

We can, I suppose, debate what slightly means, but from the description it seems clear the player was not seriously injured; therefore, he must be slightly injured. He was hit with the ball; should we really stop a professional match because a player is dinged?
But the ball was out of play, right?! Meaning the match already had been 'stopped.' The player restarted play with a throw-in after the player was hit by the ball and by the accounts I've heard, the ref saw the downed player.

If the ref decided the player wasn't really hurt much and/or the player was trying to embellish or fake injury in an attempt to prevent the opponent from taking an advantageous quick throw-in in the attacking end...and on that basis, the ref decided the right thing to do was allow the throw-in to be taken and NOT hold up the restart to deal with the injured player -- hey, I totally get that and it's a great line of reasoning. I just don't think it is supported by the letter of the law. If the powers that be would like to encourage us to do stuff like that, it would be nice to see it written somewhere.

[bluedevils]

I too haven't seen the clip, but will offer that I've heard from a number of authorative sources that unless it is head injury, we play on.

I think this was from the FA to get rid of the "kick-the-ball-out-of-play-when-on-opponent-falls-over" nonsense.

As others have mentioned, different age groups, levels, etc., will require a different approach, but in a pro match, looking where the player was hit, how he or she hit the ground and what they are doing will direct my response.

Hit in the, erm, midsection = there's nothing I can do, so play on.

Rolling around like a spinning top means no serious injury - try doing that with a broken leg - so we play on.

No movement having made no attempt to break the fall - I'm more likely to consider a whistle.

Lying pretty still and screaming the scream only a seriously hurt human being can scream - you'll know it when you hear it = whistle.

I agree with all that, but you are assuming the ball is still in play and has not gone out of play - right? My understanding is that in the situation from the Interliga match, the ball went into touch (i.e. out of play) after the player went down, and play was restarted while the player was still down.

[boylanj64]

But the ball was out of play, right?! Meaning the match already had been 'stopped.' The player restarted play with a throw-in after the player was hit by the ball and by the accounts I've heard, the ref saw the downed player.

Ohh my bad, you're right. I didn't quite follow the OP with regards to the ball being out of bounds. If it was out, I agree play should've stopped, even if just to tell the player to get on with it. Once the CR made the decision to let play restart, there is little to be done, but it was poor game management to allow the throw in to take place.

[NHRef]

I'd like to support bluedevils here, the ball was out of play, all the "fair play" directives and stop for injury direction we are given is whether or not the ref should stop play. Ball was out of play, play is stopped.

At this point what should happen? That is the issue and it is very different from stopping play.

[PVancouver]

Both Goff and Galarcep have the play on their blog.

Strangely, the Laws never actually give permission to the referee to cause or allow the game to be delayed simply because the ball has gone out of play and a "slightly" injured player is still incapacitated in some way. Yet, obviously, it happens all the time.

[ManiacalClown]

Is that what you meant to say?? :eek:

I don't even know what I meant to say. Shouldn't post when I haven't slept. :)

[bluedevils]

Both Goff and Galarcep have the play on their blog.

Strangely, the Laws never actually give permission to the referee to cause or allow the game to be delayed simply because the ball has gone out of play and a "slightly" injured player is still incapacitated in some way.

I think they do.

[bluedevils]

FYI: The referee was Ricardo Salazar.

I happened to be watching, and it looked like he was in position to see what happened and assess the seriousness of the injury. He obviously felt that it was not something worth stopping play for, and I think that the player returned to his feet shortly thereafter only supports that decision.

Simple matter of a missing word, which I added (in bold) to your post! I knew what you meant.

[Nesto]

Finally got to see this this evening. A few observations...

First, the player hit by the cross was not hit in the head or face. He turned as the ball was struck and it hit him in the side and arm (which was by the his side). He possibly got the wind knocked out of him, maybe it just hurt (your kidneys/liver could be hit), or he could have been faking/embellishing. There would have been good reason to slow play down just then for Morelia too - they had given up two DFKs just outside the PA in the previous 2 minutes and were under pressure.

Salazaar came within about 5 - 7 yards of the downed player just as the throw-in was taken, so it appears he was close enough to assess the "injury." Just before the cross to the scoring header, you can see him indicate play is continuing (two hands face up at his waist).

Maybe the player was faking and Salazaar could see that, but let's assume he wasn't faking. I can't see the reasoning that the "letter of the law" of Law 5 says you MUST stop play for a slight injury. As quoted, the referee "allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in his opinion, only slightly injured." I know I'm parsing closely, but this does not say I MUST stop play for a slight injury once the ball does out of play.

Note that neither Law 5 nor Interpretations and Guidelines tell me what to do once the ball goes out of play and there is a slightly injured player who does not require medical attention. The two sections go into detail about what to do about seriously injured players or players that require medical attention.

Sure, 99% of the time the restart will be held up while the referee checks on the slightly injured player. I can see how that could make this a little unfair - players are used to getting play stopped for a slight injury, almost no matter what. But to me, the Laws allow a corner case like I saw in this game to exist.

[bluedevils]

As quoted, the referee "allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in his opinion, only slightly injured." I know I'm parsing closely, but this does not say I MUST stop play for a slight injury once the ball does out of play.

Note that neither Law 5 nor Interpretations and Guidelines tell me what to do once the ball goes out of play and there is a slightly injured player who does not require medical attention. The two sections go into detail about what to do about seriously injured players or players that require medical attention.

Good post, and good point that the laws and guidance don't give much (any?) advice on what the ref should do when he/she feels a player has been slightly injured.

Still, I think it is implicit in the above quote that the referee should hold up play, once it has been stopped for another reason, to assess or have an injured player attended to. Otherwise, the "until the ball is out of play" portion may as well be removed. It would say simply, "the referee allows play to continue if a player is, in his opinion, only slightly injured." But that's not what it says.

[Gary V]

The player was slightly injured. Maybe hurting, but not seriously injured. Referee allows play to continue. Then the ball went out for a throw-in. Nothing else happened in that interim. The player is still only slightly injured. If injured enough that he wants to go off, he can ask the ref for permission and jog/walk/crawl to the sideline. What basis does the referee have for holding up a restart?

[bluedevils]

The player was slightly injured. Maybe hurting, but not seriously injured. Referee allows play to continue. Then the ball went out for a throw-in. Nothing else happened in that interim. The player is still only slightly injured. If injured enough that he wants to go off, he can ask the ref for permission and jog/walk/crawl to the sideline. What basis does the referee have for holding up a restart?

I'm sure someone will ask Jim Allen for a clarification on this. I've already said my 2 cents on the matter in this thread. I really am surprised that so few people seem to agree with my interpretation of the relevant parts of Law 5.