In the 'old' days, a player goes down and the ball gets played out, by either team. I know the 'official' stance has changed and play is supposed to continue until the ref stops the play. Most of the time in MLS, it seems to me, the etiquette remains kick it out. And so it was in tonight's' game, at least for 84 minutes. I'm not sure how many times it happened, but I can recall at least twice (once for each team) and don't recall any time when a player went down and one team or the other kept playing. Until the 84th minute when San Jose kept playing and scored while Rivero lay at midfield. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the game result on that play. But after multiple occasions of both teams playing by the same set of 'unofficial' rules, what do you think of one team deciding to stop and try and take advantage? On the one hand I say good for San Jose, they aren't bound to play it out, why not try and take advantage of the situation? On the other hand, it just doesn't sit well with me. Had the teams let the player stay down and continue play throughout the game, I'd feel differently.
I'm pretty sure I remember, when Freeman went down the first time last night after getting his ankle stepped on, the teams played on and the ref whistled it dead about 15-30 seconds later. And then he went down again. And again. And Rivero went down a few times, too. We might have just earned this SJ goal for crying wolf too many times. Not that the players didn't have stingers at the moments or anything, but it does all add up. I also seem to remember a game 5-6 years ago where Terry Cooke kept sprinting down the sideline and put in a cross for a winning goal, just moments after injuring an opponent. So while I don't love the rule of playing on through injuries, I less love the way players are dishonest and take advantage of the friendly arrangement to play the ball out any time there's an "injury". So I'll take the rule we have now. And some nights, you are helped by it, other nights victimized. Them's the breaks.
I have no doubt my memory of other down players may be faulty. There is a lot about last nights game that has invoked my brains natural instincts for forgetting. The only two that stick in my mind were both in the second half. One resulting in a San Jose player kicked the ball out of touch deep in the Rapids east touchline and the other saw Casey doing the same deep on the west touchline. Both reactions to the other teams purposely playing the ball out. My curiosity is not about any advantage as I'm not sure there was one, but more about the playing on.
The proper etiquette is to keep playing until there's a stoppage in play. The referee is supposed to stop play if the injury requires immediate attention or if the injury involves a goalkeeper. Otherwise, it's okay to play on. The old way was to knock it out, but teams started taking advantage of that and would go down easily to try to get the other team to knock it out, breaking up the opponent's attacks / rhythm, and simply wasting time while trying to preserve a 1 goal lead. I think it was after the 2006 World Cup that FIFA basically sent out a directive to all the FAs telling them that the "old" etiquette was no longer acceptable and that teams should keep playing unless the referee stops the action.
Its Ref Discression on stopping game. Etiquette the world over pretty much is unless you are counter-attacking, you play ball out of bounds to stop play. There are tons of examples both for Rapids and against where counter attack continued with a man down on field so in no way was what SJ did wrong. However, another piece of this is, when giving ball back to other team you kick it to GK. However, SJ's goldie-locks kicked it out near our end-line (And booo'd roundly) forcing a deep throw for Rapids, a little bit before this all took place. Rapids returned this gesture not long after.
It's a very dim line, but I think this pretty much sums it up. If you're in flight on the attack, then it's up to the ref. If you're knocking the ball about looking for an opening then knock it out of bounds.
This is what pissed me off. Lenhart is living up to the reputation he's getting in this league for being a jacka$$. He's actually the player everyone claims Pablo is (except not as good). As for the goal sequence I'd have to watch again but I remember it not taking that long from Rivero going down to the goal being under siege. I'm not sure there was enough time for the SJ attackers to realize there was a player down before it got into the situation where nobody would expect the ball to be played out. I know some people were upset at Rivero for staying down and giving up on the play, but I didn't have a problem with it. Either he was hurting and couldn't help the play, or he wasn't but he was the slowest Rapid out there at that point and was unlikely to catch up to the play anyway. his odds of getting the play stopped due to injury were probably better than stopping the play by getting back into it. RapidStorm, are you sure it was Terry Cooke? I remember a game against FSL in SLC that the FSL fans were furious about when Nico scored the winning goal while they had a player down, but I thought that was Dedi (maybe?) that whipped in the cross.
I remember that game, too, now that you mention it. But I seem to remember this one being against...Chicago? Kansas City? We were in the blue&black striped kits. It's all somewhat hazy beyond that.
It is very situational for me, I will wait a little for a natural stop in play or for the player to get up. And then if I didn't see what happened I will whistle to stop play, talk to player to see if they can continue, if it appears they can't call on the trainer. If I did see what happened and I'm pretty really quite certain they're gaming we play on and usually they get up when play comes back their direction. With a natural stop to play the restart is as it would have been with just a delay to it. If I have to whistle the stop the restart has to be a drop ball but most teams are pretty good about letting the ball go to the team that had possession. I try not to stop w/o clear possession but if I have to F.I.F.A. 'by the book' drop balls are the rule. I also consider it a natural stop to play if the goalkeeper has it in his hands, I whistle the stop and then just drop it back to him and let him pick it up for the restart. I also will tell a team to kick it out (old school) if I saw what happened and know we need to stop I then tell the throwing team that sportsmanship requires them to give it back, so far no one has called b.s. or "F.I.F.A. says ..." on me. Those examples are competitive club matches U-little to U-19, High School is more rigid procedurally with less 'spirit of the game' leeway. The match last night? No problem with that sequence. Someone probably should have had a yellow for persistent infringement with all the fouls on Hunter, plenty (earned) yellows as it was though.
I think that you have summarized the situation exactly. While it seems sporting to play the ball out providing the Ref an opportunity to stop the match and allow the "injured" player to receive some medical attention, today's game is full of cheaters. Feigning injury to encourage the ref to yellow/red card a player or to deflect a dangerous attack is too common to ignore. Moreover, often a team on a strong attack may disregard an injured player on their own side in order to take advantage of the momentum of attack. Often teams are booed for disregarding the "sporting option", but in view of the orchestrated nonsense, lying and cheating by so many players choosing the"sporting option" may simply be naive and hurtful to your team. By agreement or proclamation this gentlemanly gesture must be abandoned!!!