The Ref Stop

Leeds v Man Utd

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

L

ladbroke8745

Censorship
13th minute I think...
McTominays challenge on Koch.
Anyone giving a card here?
Koch has played the ball and McTominay has, in my opinion, charged into him to a point drew blood in his face on impact. Reckless definitely for me. Endangering may be pushing it but it wasn't nice.
Haven't a clip yet.
 
The Ref Stop
Refereing on outcomes. Just because there was blood does not upgrade the severity of the challenge.

If you want to argue the case that even without the blood its reckless fine. I'd accept that was your opinion but we shouldn't base the sanction on that.

Was the players action reckless is the only question that needs to be answered.
 
I added the blood part as to indicate how strong I felt the challenge was, not because of it being an outcome.
I felt he was late and charged into the player. He was reckless.
The fouled player is down again, showing how hard that challenge initially was. Again, not saying the outcome should warrant the card, but I genuinely felt the challenge was that bad without the subsequent injuries that it should have warranted a card.
 
No attempt to play the ball at all. Just clattered into him to break down an attack. No one would complain with a yellow.
 
One thing that concerns me the most in this game. Koch went off as a normal sub despite the head injury.

What happened to concussion/head injury subs?
 
100% a caution (MINIMUM) and a poor miss by a ref who looks out of his depth.
In rugby it's a red card and should be even more so in football. For some reason no-one expects it.
It you launch into a tackle feet first your off, launch into a pampers head with your shoulder it's fine!
 
RustyRef said:
No, if the medics say it is a head injury they can use a concussion sub. I can only guess that Leeds decided not to use it as they didn't want to give Man Utd, who have a much stronger bench, an extra sub.
Click to expand...
I personally think these concussion subs in first half should only allow an extra one in the first half.
The team who have made the sub haven't exactly gained a huge advantage have they by that "extra" sub. Its not tactical. Its forced. I saw Brentford the other week had 2 off for concussion midway through first half and that allowed the opponents to effectively make 5 tactical subs in the 2nd. They didn't, but they could. That is a huge advantage more than anything.
 
RustyRef said:
No, if the medics say it is a head injury they can use a concussion sub. I can only guess that Leeds decided not to use it as they didn't want to give Man Utd, who have a much stronger bench, an extra sub.
Click to expand...
The concerning side of that is Leeds opting to leave a (potentially) concussed player in the game temporarily to not give United a tactical advantage, although as referees we have no say on that
 
QuaverRef said:
The concerning side of that is Leeds opting to leave a (potentially) concussed player in the game temporarily to not give United a tactical advantage, although as referees we have no say on that
Click to expand...
He clearly shouldn't have stayed on, but the medics can only do an assessment, they can't see hidden causes. It has happened a lot this season where players have had head injuries, stayed on only to then go down again later and have to be subbed.

I don't get the tactical advantage though, had he gone straight off they still wouldn't have done it as a concussion sub. It is the club's choice, the match officials have no say in whether it is a concussion sub or not as far as I am aware.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
I personally think these concussion subs in first half should only allow an extra one in the first half.
The team who have made the sub haven't exactly gained a huge advantage have they by that "extra" sub. Its not tactical. Its forced. I saw Brentford the other week had 2 off for concussion midway through first half and that allowed the opponents to effectively make 5 tactical subs in the 2nd. They didn't, but they could. That is a huge advantage more than anything.
Click to expand...
The clubs agreed the protocols between themselves so clearly they must be happy with how it works.
 
Clearly football has to learn from the HIA / temporary sub protocols in rugby. That was an HIA concussion risk injury from the moment he went down. Player safety protocols must always trump "we have always done it this way" and the half assed concept of concussion subs. Sort it out FIFA/IFAB /FA
 
RustyRef said:
He clearly shouldn't have stayed on, but the medics can only do an assessment, they can't see hidden causes. It has happened a lot this season where players have had head injuries, stayed on only to then go down again later and have to be subbed.

I don't get the tactical advantage though, had he gone straight off they still wouldn't have done it as a concussion sub. It is the club's choice, the match officials have no say in whether it is a concussion sub or not as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I misunderstood. I took your original post as Leeds had left him on to prevent United having an additional sub
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top