Player returning to the field of play

[es1]

It's also worth bringing into this discussion that football really needs to think about introducing 10 minute temporary substitutions for a head impact assessment. Almost every other major contact sport in the world has introduced some kind of process designed to encourage teams to take a player off and submit them to the appropriate tests - football insisting on failing to do so is starting to look dangerously close to negligent.

agree, this is a good suggestion as well.

however...as a sceptic though i foresee teams taking advantage to essentially make another substitution in the latter stages of a game. so you'd need rules on who decides that a concussion sub is allowed and that they can only be replaced by a player in a similar position

 

[PinnerPaul]

In other words, we have to order them off the FOP, merely to wave them back on immediately following unbelievably rapid first-aid

Just another 'on the list' James! Saw it in the Championship all last season, 'assessment' takes several minutes, 'treatment' once off takes several seconds!

 

[PinnerPaul]

I actually like the authority given to the referee this way. It is at your discretion when you wave them back on. This whole process is to stop players from cheating (your pet peeve) by fainting injury. I have used this discresion to good effect to ensure there is no second occurrence of a faint injury.

As I said above though, this simply doesn't happen at the top levels. Treatment IS allowed on fop and players ARE waved back on immediately.

 

[Justylove]

This law has little to do with trying to punish fake injuries. 99.9% of referees have little or no medical training and so are not entitled to decide if an injury is genuine or fake. To be honest, I've always been slightly uncomfortable with the idea that we are expected to assess if an injury is serious and requires a stoppage, or is more minor and play can continue around them - because we're not trained to make that assessment.

That’s a cop out in my eyes. We’re not expected to be able to identify the exact problem, but in my 7 years of refereeing it’s always been quite easy. 99% of injuries are based on a challenge for the ball, which means you have a view of how the injury has occurred, that coupled with the reaction of the injured player will give you an idea as to whether the injury can wait until the ball is dead or need to stop play immediately.

In cases where you are not sure, I.e the player goes down holding his head, err on the side of caution and stop the game, pretty much all managers are accepting of the fact that if you genuinely think it’s a head injury you stop the game, even if it turns out not to be.

 

[GraemeS]

That’s a cop out in my eyes. We’re not expected to be able to identify the exact problem, but in my 7 years of refereeing it’s always been quite easy. 99% of injuries are based on a challenge for the ball, which means you have a view of how the injury has occurred, that coupled with the reaction of the injured player will give you an idea as to whether the injury can wait until the ball is dead or need to stop play immediately.

In cases where you are not sure, I.e the player goes down holding his head, err on the side of caution and stop the game, pretty much all managers are accepting of the fact that if you genuinely think it’s a head injury you stop the game, even if it turns out not to be.

Fine, but you're addressing a side point I made rather than the actual point of the post. Major/minor injury - YMMMV on if it's reasonable for us to be expected to react appropriately to that. But the actual point of the post is that a medically untrained referee running around and distracted by an ongoing match is certainly not qualified to distinguish between a minor injury and a fake injury. So we treat both the same - that's the bit @Big Cat had a problem with in the post I was replying to.

 

[Ben448844]

Fine, but you're addressing a side point I made rather than the actual point of the post. Major/minor injury - YMMMV on if it's reasonable for us to be expected to react appropriately to that. But the actual point of the post is that a medically untrained referee running around and distracted by an ongoing match is certainly not qualified to distinguish between a minor injury and a fake injury. So we treat both the same - that's the bit @Big Cat had a problem with in the post I was replying to.

Agreed, and this would be one of the reasons for stop clocks. No requirement for the referee to determine the severity of the injury apart from if its a head injury or not. If its a head injury the play should be stopped regardless, not sure theres any worthy argument against that. All over injuries to be assessed by the medic once the ball leaves play. I say "all", but obviously if someone's leg is hanging off then the ref would stop play!

 

[socal lurker]

Stop clocks are pretty implausible at lower levels. But why do you need a stop clock for dealing with injuries? The Laws already provide that time lost should be added back. To the extent faking injuries to waste time is effective, it is not a flaw in the LOTG, but a failure of refs to properly compensate for the lost time.

 

[GraemeS]

Agreed, and this would be one of the reasons for stop clocks. No requirement for the referee to determine the severity of the injury apart from if its a head injury or not. If its a head injury the play should be stopped regardless, not sure theres any worthy argument against that. All over injuries to be assessed by the medic once the ball leaves play. I say "all", but obviously if someone's leg is hanging off then the ref would stop play!

I might be wrong, but I thought the "head injury" was one of those law myths that keeps going round?

AFIK the referee is only expected to stop play when a serious injury occurs. It's reasonable that a head injury should usually be considered as serious, but only in the same way that you would expect a referee to consider a broken leg to be fairly serious. But there's nothing innately special about a head injury requiring it to be treated differently in law compared to a different type of serious injury. And a referee is still technically entitled by to consider some head injuries non-serious and not stop the game for them - one of many reasons why I generally worry about putting that judgement in the hands of an untrained referee!

 

[Ben448844]

I might be wrong, but I thought the "head injury" was one of those law myths that keeps going round?

AFIK the referee is only expected to stop play when a serious injury occurs. It's reasonable that a head injury should usually be considered as serious, but only in the same way that you would expect a referee to consider a broken leg to be fairly serious. But there's nothing innately special about a head injury requiring it to be treated differently in law compared to a different type of serious injury. And a referee is still technically entitled by to consider some head injuries non-serious and not stop the game for them - one of many reasons why I generally worry about putting that judgement in the hands of an untrained referee!

Interrsting point. Whether its in law or not, the perception at football at all levels and in all roles is that play must be stopped if its a head injury in my experience. I thought it was mandatory but I accept i may well be wrong. It would be interesting to know for sure from someone on here.

Couldn't agree more regarding we are untrained medically to make those judgements. I suppose its not about judging the severity to a medical level. Its about judging whether we need to stop the game to take a look at something which may be serious. To look at whether we need the services of someone who is trained to judge the injury.

 

[LothianRef]

Interrsting point. Whether its in law or not, the perception at football at all levels and in all roles is that play must be stopped if its a head injury in my experience. I thought it was mandatory but I accept i may well be wrong. It would be interesting to know for sure from someone on here.

See the screenshot below - I have highlighted the important bit. It is from Law 3 which states;

The referee

• allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is only slightly injured
• stops play if a player is seriously injured

There is no mention of head injuries, so despite what many fans think, there is no obligation to stop play immediately if it is only minor.
The management team of my local club who I watch whenever they’re at home are particularly bad for this. There was one game earlier this year where a player took a minor knock on the arm, and went down. The ref correctly let play continue, and when the player noticed this he then started holding his head. Cue furious shouts from the dugout of “HEAD KNOCK REF, YOU’VE GOT TO STOP THE GAME”. The ref had none of it and only stopped when the ball went out for a throw in.

 

[Ben448844]

See the screenshot below - I have highlighted the important bit. It is from Law 3 which states;

There is no mention of head injuries, so despite what many fans think, there is no obligation to stop play immediately if it is only minor.
The management team of my local club who I watch whenever they’re at home are particularly bad for this. There was one game earlier this year where a player took a minor knock on the arm, and went down. The ref correctly let play continue, and when the player noticed this he then started holding his head. Cue furious shouts from the dugout of “HEAD KNOCK REF, YOU’VE GOT TO STOP THE GAME”. The ref had none of it and only stopped when the ball went out for a throw in.

View attachment 4521

Thanks. I've learnt something today.

 

[one]

This wasn't put in for fake injuries-

This law has little to do with trying to punish fake injuries

I think IFAB thinks otherwise.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm not sure I buy it as it is a very old provision that long predates anyone currently involved with IFAB. But that is pretty irrelevant at this point, as fake injuries are clearly part of why it remains--though the instant wave on being not only permitted but expected certainly undercuts that part of the purpose.