On Saturday, we saw a couple of players sent off for potentially nasty challenges. The one from Johnson was particularly dangerous - coming in at knee height - and on another day that could have been a season-ending injury for Shea. Fair enough, Johnson would have been sent off for the challenge, but we had used all our substitutes and would have been down to 9 men through no fault of our own (the same could be said for the Mellis tackle too). We would have got the advantage of Wednesday losing a player, but lost it immediately through injury. Should the rules be amended so that teams are allowed a free substitution (not part of the 3 quota) if a player is injured *and* unable to continue as the result of an offence that results in a red or yellow card?
I think that's a great idea. Red card for violent conduct = extra "free" substitution for the other side. Can't see any harm in that.
Isn't this something in rugby and there was the scandal with the bloke with the blood capsule. No doubt the faking injury situation would just get worse.
Personally I don't think it should depend on injury, it should just be a free substitution regardless. Just to give the side offended against an small advantage.
Yes. And twice yes. A well reasoned, fair suggestion without a down side, so expect FIFA, UEFA and the FA to dismiss it out of hand.
To hard to prove or disprove could not continue. Once one person caught cheating it'd be debated to death. Also couldn't demand fouling team had to remove a player or the player as again too many cheats. Unfortunately
As I said above I don't think it should have anything to do with injury. If a player gets a red for violent conduct, the other team gets another substitution That's it, doesn't matter whether anyone got injured. Like Jay said though, it would never get implemented. The authorities will concentrate on ignoring skull crushing attacks on players which they think didn't happen because the ref was watching at the time.
It's the red card sending off that needs looking at. The Spectators are robbed of an even match for the rest of the game. The manager and the rest of the team are penalised for one players bad decision, or referees bad decision. The player should go into a sin bin for say 15 minutes. No substitute for him. The match on Saturday was spoilt by two men, the referee and the player Frimpong. The referee did not have the understanding of the players passion in the ultimate Derby game. Frimpong,s method off tackling does not look good, and he needs some guidance on that part of his game. Without him adjusting it he will be sent off again. I thought the referee got the first yellow totally wrong like he got it wrong most of the game.
My first reaction was that clubs would use this to their own advantage, as they try to do with every rule change. But thinking about it, if it is only the injured player that can get substituted, for it to be an advantage to the team in question for them to exaggerate the extent of the injury so they can make the substitution, it would need to be the player they would have thought about bringing off anyway, so the chances of that would be slim. But clubs always abuse every rule, hence players having to leave the field of play after stopping the game for an injury. This was done to avoid time wasting by players feigning injury, but it has resulted in teams conceding goals with their centre back stood on the touchline waiting to get back on after being fouled by an opposition striker. And don't get me started on the ruddy 'fair play rule'... To take it to a further extreme though, what if Johnson had gone in at Steele and put him out of the game. Wednesday would then have been down to ten and us down to nine with no keeper. So I'd say it would be a very good rule change.
To take it to extremes, Johnson (for example) could have turned around and punched Steele in the face breaking his nose (leaving us with 9 men and no keeper) and we would have arguably had an harder punishment from the offence than the guilty party.