Braden StokesStop putting the ball out for injured players
April 29th 2008 08:50
I have always thought that the practice of putting the ball out when a player goes down injured is a really nice gesture of goodwill between teams. However, the more football I watch, the more it irritates me that this sporting practice has been hijacked for competitive advantage. My disillusionment began while watching the 2006 World Cup. Over and over, players would lose possession and go down with an 'injury'. The opposition, rather than continue on a fast break, would sportingly put the ball out, only for the player to leap to his feet - after a sufficient amount of moaning and groaning. Of course, this achieved the objective of a break in play which allowed defenders to get back behind the ball and ruin the momentum of the attacking team. Thus, what began as a expression of sportsmanship and consideration of one's opposition has become little more than a dirty trick to disrupt the opposition.
If it wasn't bad enough that players were using this tactic to halt play, they even seem to be using it to gain field position. I don't want to pick on one player, or team, because everyone does it, but during a recent match between Arsenal and Chelsea, the ball was put out for an injury. The Chelsea player threw the ball to a teammate who promptly roosted the ball downfield towards the Arsenal goal. If I remember correctly, it went out deep in the Arsenal half, meaning that Arsenal then had a throw in an extremely disadvantageous position. Therefore, for the sake of a goodwill gesture, they lost any momentum they may have had, and were pushed back approximately half the length of the field.
It should be obvious by now, to even the most charitable or deluded football fan, that professional footballers are not averse to collapsing at the slightest provocation. Can we please finally stop pretending that none of the players is hamming it up? Like every other sport, it should be at the discretion of the referee to stop play if they feel an injury of sufficient seriousness has been sustained. Compare it to Australian Rules, where the game is not stopped unless the injured player is in the way of the game, or has suffered a serious injury. This way, the game is stopped and the team with the ball keeps it in exactly the same position. Otherwise, the game continues, and if it means that one teams plays a man down for a short period, so be it. It happens all the time when players go off the field for treatment.
Unfortunately, ridding the game of the practice of putting the ball out for injuries will not be easy as it is now considered an obligation: it is basically an unwritten rule. As with most rules, if it is not controlled by some impartial authority, people will use it to their own advantage. There is no point deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise. Even if a player is feigning injury, if the umpire stops the game, the decision is at least an official one. The problem is that now the fans expect that this is the way things should be done. If a team plays on while there is a man on the ground, the boos ring out around the stadium and persist until the ball is out of play. And heaven protect a team that scores while an opposition player is down!
I feel incredibly sad to be asking for the withdrawal of a generous gesture. However, it has ceased to be a generous gesture and become an obligation of which people take advantage. The sooner the decision is placed in the hands of the referee, the better.
If it wasn't bad enough that players were using this tactic to halt play, they even seem to be using it to gain field position. I don't want to pick on one player, or team, because everyone does it, but during a recent match between Arsenal and Chelsea, the ball was put out for an injury. The Chelsea player threw the ball to a teammate who promptly roosted the ball downfield towards the Arsenal goal. If I remember correctly, it went out deep in the Arsenal half, meaning that Arsenal then had a throw in an extremely disadvantageous position. Therefore, for the sake of a goodwill gesture, they lost any momentum they may have had, and were pushed back approximately half the length of the field.
It should be obvious by now, to even the most charitable or deluded football fan, that professional footballers are not averse to collapsing at the slightest provocation. Can we please finally stop pretending that none of the players is hamming it up? Like every other sport, it should be at the discretion of the referee to stop play if they feel an injury of sufficient seriousness has been sustained. Compare it to Australian Rules, where the game is not stopped unless the injured player is in the way of the game, or has suffered a serious injury. This way, the game is stopped and the team with the ball keeps it in exactly the same position. Otherwise, the game continues, and if it means that one teams plays a man down for a short period, so be it. It happens all the time when players go off the field for treatment.
Unfortunately, ridding the game of the practice of putting the ball out for injuries will not be easy as it is now considered an obligation: it is basically an unwritten rule. As with most rules, if it is not controlled by some impartial authority, people will use it to their own advantage. There is no point deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise. Even if a player is feigning injury, if the umpire stops the game, the decision is at least an official one. The problem is that now the fans expect that this is the way things should be done. If a team plays on while there is a man on the ground, the boos ring out around the stadium and persist until the ball is out of play. And heaven protect a team that scores while an opposition player is down!
I feel incredibly sad to be asking for the withdrawal of a generous gesture. However, it has ceased to be a generous gesture and become an obligation of which people take advantage. The sooner the decision is placed in the hands of the referee, the better.
| 95 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
