Returning the Ball after injuries to the Opposition

[Donnywolf]

 Yes - I am back - last posted October 2016 and after yesterday just as relevant imo - maybe even more relevant


I posted last Season (2015) about this subject and I would like to offer this opinion on here to see if its dud or good

Originally giving the ball back to the Team with an injured Player seemed a "sporting" thing to do and was quickly adopted by most Teams. However it has now become a chance for time wasting and we have all seen Opponents exploit the situation when (say) a Defender goes down whilst they are under pressure and all their team implore us to kick it out or the Ref to stop the game.

After treatment the Ball is kicked back (increasingly grudgingly) to the opposition and so the time has been wasted and the Team that was in possession is no longer in possession - SO

I would propose that Rovers as a Club should start a new trend and via their Programme and Letters to the Opposition and Match Day reminders to the opposition and the Officials they should say this ...

a) In the event of the Referee stopping play to allow treatment to an opponent we WILL return the ball from wherever play is restarted to the opposition Goalkeeper or as close to him as is reasonably practicable

HOWEVER

b) If an opposition Player goes down for whatever reason and the opposition kick the ball dead to allow the Trainer onto the field we WILL NOT return the ball to the Opposition but will restart play as normal and retain possession

I think this sportsmanship has had its day and should be now quietly "consigned to the dustbin" of football history.

In the Case of a) We would then be locked in to passing back to their Keeper or at least towards the 18 yard box and would do so every time this happened

In the case of b) I think all Teams would immediately fall in line and if Home sides said they are not going to give the ball back "as of right" then away Teams would follow suit immediately.


There would still be phantom injuries to try to waste time but if the Ref does not deem it serious enough to stop play then the Team with 11 v 10 should play on (in most cases) until the Ball goes dead and then keep possession on the restart so at least they are not double penalised

     

[Donnybob]

With so much play acting, time wasting and feigning injury in the modern game, one man and one man only should decide when a game stops and starts, the referee. He may be guided by his other 3 officials when necessary.

Peterborough's game plan was obvious from the start. To frustrate. Win the toss, turn the teams round to play towards their fans first half rather than second. A mind game. Niggle, wrestle, complain, do the ugly things, hope to nick a goal.

Worked perfectly. Six minutes, 1-0, now close out the game, run down the clock. Waste time, play on the break.

But come on. The time wasting was ridiculous, if effective. It breaks up the flow, kills the atmosphere, prevents momentum from building.

The first booking was coming. The ref had warned them twice. Third time was enough.

The second booking was a proper heads gone moment. Fully deserved but from that moment, Toney, having given a fair impression of a wrestling octopus for 40 minutes, completely lost it and deliberately tried to get Wilks sent off. It was blatant cheating and should be reviewed as the incident as not punished.

However, when a team of charlatans, like Peterborough, cheat so openly and deliberately how can they expect the opposition to then observe some unwritten code of moralistic conduct that is alien to everything that has gone before it in the game?

What caused the keeper to throw the ball into touch is bewildering. There is no logical explanation. He made a mistake and in a game of fine margins it is the role of the opposition to try and punish errors, however they may be presented.

Football is a physical contact sport. Occasionally a player gets injured. Whether a game is stopped is clearly in the remit of the officials. Players should play on. The only exception is if there's a clear and obvious head injury.

I get Peterborough's frustration. They had every opportunity to hurt us had they played to their strengths, ie, attacking us. Be in no doubt they have a team that during the early part of the season was scoring for fun. Instead they chose to be negative.

No good crying over spilt milk now. Bad tactical choices cost them dearly. The rest is simply trying to deflect attention And garner undeserved sympathy.

[pib]

Superb summary that DonnyBob

[RobTheRover]

I think they turned us round because Ferguson knew the sun would be in our defenders eyes first half and not be there in the 2nd half.

[scawsby steve]

With so much play acting, time wasting and feigning injury in the modern game, one man and one man only should decide when a game stops and starts, the referee. He may be guided by his other 3 officials when necessary.

Peterborough's game plan was obvious from the start. To frustrate. Win the toss, turn the teams round to play towards their fans first half rather than second. A mind game. Niggle, wrestle, complain, do the ugly things, hope to nick a goal.

Worked perfectly. Six minutes, 1-0, now close out the game, run down the clock. Waste time, play on the break.

But come on. The time wasting was ridiculous, if effective. It breaks up the flow, kills the atmosphere, prevents momentum from building.

The first booking was coming. The ref had warned them twice. Third time was enough.

The second booking was a proper heads gone moment. Fully deserved but from that moment, Toney, having given a fair impression of a wrestling octopus for 40 minutes, completely lost it and deliberately tried to get Wilks sent off. It was blatant cheating and should be reviewed as the incident as not punished.

However, when a team of charlatans, like Peterborough, cheat so openly and deliberately how can they expect the opposition to then observe some unwritten code of moralistic conduct that is alien to everything that has gone before it in the game?

What caused the keeper to throw the ball into touch is bewildering. There is no logical explanation. He made a mistake and in a game of fine margins it is the role of the opposition to try and punish errors, however they may be presented.

Football is a physical contact sport. Occasionally a player gets injured. Whether a game is stopped is clearly in the remit of the officials. Players should play on. The only exception is if there's a clear and obvious head injury.

I get Peterborough's frustration. They had every opportunity to hurt us had they played to their strengths, ie, attacking us. Be in no doubt they have a team that during the early part of the season was scoring for fun. Instead they chose to be negative.

No good crying over spilt milk now. Bad tactical choices cost them dearly. The rest is simply trying to deflect attention And garner undeserved sympathy.

What an excellent post Bob.

[PDX_Rover]

I lost count of how many times they kicked the ball away after a free kick was given. I’m so happy we won. Football won.

[drfchound]

I think they turned us round because Ferguson knew the sun would be in our defenders eyes first half and not be there in the 2nd half.

That is exactly what I said at the time Rob.

[andyst79]

With so much play acting, time wasting and feigning injury in the modern game, one man and one man only should decide when a game stops and starts, the referee. He may be guided by his other 3 officials when necessary.

Peterborough's game plan was obvious from the start. To frustrate. Win the toss, turn the teams round to play towards their fans first half rather than second. A mind game. Niggle, wrestle, complain, do the ugly things, hope to nick a goal.

Worked perfectly. Six minutes, 1-0, now close out the game, run down the clock. Waste time, play on the break.

But come on. The time wasting was ridiculous, if effective. It breaks up the flow, kills the atmosphere, prevents momentum from building.

The first booking was coming. The ref had warned them twice. Third time was enough.

The second booking was a proper heads gone moment. Fully deserved but from that moment, Toney, having given a fair impression of a wrestling octopus for 40 minutes, completely lost it and deliberately tried to get Wilks sent off. It was blatant cheating and should be reviewed as the incident as not punished.

However, when a team of charlatans, like Peterborough, cheat so openly and deliberately how can they expect the opposition to then observe some unwritten code of moralistic conduct that is alien to everything that has gone before it in the game?

What caused the keeper to throw the ball into touch is bewildering. There is no logical explanation. He made a mistake and in a game of fine margins it is the role of the opposition to try and punish errors, however they may be presented.

Football is a physical contact sport. Occasionally a player gets injured. Whether a game is stopped is clearly in the remit of the officials. Players should play on. The only exception is if there's a clear and obvious head injury.

I get Peterborough's frustration. They had every opportunity to hurt us had they played to their strengths, ie, attacking us. Be in no doubt they have a team that during the early part of the season was scoring for fun. Instead they chose to be negative.

No good crying over spilt milk now. Bad tactical choices cost them dearly. The rest is simply trying to deflect attention And garner undeserved sympathy.

Post of the weekend

[Donnywolf]

Yes a good post - no doubt about it

Back to the OP though and I just wondered if people think its a goer or a no-er

Would it stop a lot of what myself and Donnybob have outlined. After all we did live through 100 + years without giving the ball back to oppos when they had an "injured" player

Cant remember when it started for sure or who started it but personally I would be chuffed to see it disappear

[Donnybob]

One day soon we will have VAR to decide every incident. Computer technology will no doubt be developed to rule out practically all human error. If the players are going to decide on when a game stops and starts, a fourth official determines how much time is added on, what will be the point of a referee at all?

[IDM]

For some of our refs, that won’t be a bad thing.!!

[ravenrover]

I would go further, no team should ever kick the ball out to stop play, leave it to the man with the whistle. All these tactical injuries, including fake head injuries would soon stop
It's either that or allow a player to be treated whilst the game continues and then only stop play when the treatment would interfere with play

[Bentley Bullet]

VAR could well do more harm to the game than it will do good. It will completely put a cloud over impulsive celebrations when a goal is scored.

It's bad enough now when a goal is scored and the initial response of fans is to look at the ref to make sure he hasn't disallowed it for some reason. But those few seconds are nothing compared to a five-minute wait for the VAR courtroom to make a judgement before fans can celebrate. It kills the impulsive reactions of a goal, which is the whole point of the game.

[drfchound]

I would go further, no team should ever kick the ball out to stop play, leave it to the man with the whistle. All these tactical injuries, including fake head injuries would soon stop
It's either that or allow a player to be treated whilst the game continues and then only stop play when the treatment would interfere with play

Or......stop the game and the watch, remove the player from the pitch for treatment, unless it was very obviously a bad injury, then start the game and the watch again.
You would soon find out who was faking an injury because the fakers would be back on the pitch straight away.