The referee sees him down injured and his teammates see him down injured. If both his teammates and the referee decide his injury is not serious enough to warrant the game being stopped then why would the game suddenly need stopping a few minutes later just because the opposition team finally won the ball?
Better still if you go down with for an example a leg injury but the game doesn't stop, all of a sudden hold your head so the ref has no choice but to stop it for an head injury, even though he's been conned.
Ref should have realised straightaway it was a head injury and that would have avoided any frustration
It wasn't a head injury there was **** all wrong with him. Physio didn't give him any actual treatment at all and he was happy as Larry as soon as the game was stopped
He had a choice to stop it when it happened and not wait until we got the ball surely. He did see the player on the floor earlier but if other him until a few minutes after when we got the ball
The best part was, the guy stood back up, the referee saw him stand, then he dropped back to the floor and the ref then signalled for a head injury. Absolutely baffled as to why the referee stopped play in that situation. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
It seems like no-one else saw this? The ref thought the injury wasn't worth stopping the game for so we carried on. Once we got the ball one of Brighton's players went over to the ref and pointed at their 'injured' player whilst tapping his head and saying 'head injury'. The ref didn't really have a choice then as he would be in serious trouble if the player did have a head injury and he didn't stop the game after a player had brought it to his attention.
He originally was holding his leg. He only started holding his head when he saw we had the ball and wasn't kicking it out, so then the ref had no choice but to stop the game but should have known nothing was up with the player.
It's extremely embarrassing watching grown men simulate injury for the slightest of things. That knob Joey Barton another example yesterday. It needs cutting out of the game because it reflects very badly on the sport in general.
Whether you accept the game has to be stopped or not, at the restart, the team in possession should be given the ball. As it happened and generally does anyway, the opposition pass it back to our keeper. It's hardly placing us in an advantageous position, as we were. Is there a case for introducing indirect free kicks in situations like this? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is a good idea in principle but in the case where the player is in the box in front of goal there is a lot of scope for interferrence. I do like the idea of an indirect free kick as a way of restarting though