alekaras
The ITK of IDK
My bad. Thought the 4-game ban applied only for a second straight red.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
OMT: Mighty Spurs vs Forest
- Thread starter alekaras
- Start date
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
So you can claim concussion sub, then say, oh actually it wasn’t concussion, thanks for the two free extra subs?
Sounds open to abuse.
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
They get an extra sub too
And the player is off the pitch regardless
Kandi1977
Garth Crooks
You didn't think before you wrote that, did you?
Well, I guess you can call it's 'open for abuse' if you start with your reserve players....
seaside spur
Ronnie Rosenthal
Unfortunately it's probably worse regarding time scale. I heard it was a deep gash and if he requires stitches he might be out for longer than the 5 day concussion rule.
Bullet
Andy Thompson
As he walked off, his left elbow was bright red, indicating he had been lying in blood
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
He was definitely bleeding but you can wear protection for that like Kulu does
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
it gives you an extra sub window with no penalty, yes the opposition can make one too, but they might not have as much on the bench as you
I thought the whole idea was it could only be used when concerned for a player with potential concussion, and if you used it, they went through protocol
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
The protocol is the assessment off the pitch
Kandi1977
Garth Crooks
You say it yourself there! Potential concussion! He got a nasty whack in the head and went straight down like a sack of potatoes, and even got a bad cut in the head. Doesn't get much more potential concussion than that, so of course it'll be a concussion substitution.
And what or who the opposition have on the bench is totally irrelevant!
Oh sorry, but you aren't allowed to make a substitution, because the opposition one have brick players on the bench, so it would be unfair '
Come on man!
Last edited:
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
yeah, I thought any player, removed as a concussion sub, had to go through the graduated return to play
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
that's what I'm saying, if its a potential concussion, its a concussion sub, and irrespective of whether it's medically concussion or not, he goes through the process of graduated return to play
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
FA Concussion Guidelines are here,
Kandi1977
Garth Crooks
They assess and if it turns out he doesn't have a concussion, he's good to go. And if he has, then he can't play until he's OK again, minimum one week. That's it.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
agreed, but by their own guidelines that takes a minimum of 4 days, during which they are not allowed to be involved in contact football
seaside spur
Ronnie Rosenthal
Bentancur should take Bissoumas place as the 6 imho
seaside spur
Ronnie Rosenthal
I hope so. We need everybody right now. All hands to the pump.
The Udogie suspension will hurt us the most for the next game, really lacking cover at left back now.
Mrs Vert
Pascal Chimbonda
I may have missed it but cos I thought the ref was a macaron I'm guessing it was a weak yellow? And again the opposition only begins to get cards with 10min to go despite kicking us to bits. It wasn't funny at beginning of season and less funny now as we are running out of players
thfcsteff
George Hunt
The ref had a terrible game, and once again, his failure to address the game early on led to a series of awful decisions (Yeates should've been sent off by HT). But of all the awful decisions today, the failure to give a penalty when Son was wrestled to the ground was the worst. 'Mutual contact' or some such horsebrick; I have not seen a clearer wrestle all season. Michael Olliver in the VAR room failed miserably.
Robbo
Paul Walsh
Mutual holding, I think. Ridiculous decision. It was clear as day to see that Son was held back when he tried to make a run behind the defender. Son wrestled to get free, that's a huge difference.
It's the kind of situations you can forgive the ref for not spotting, but that's why you have VAR, isn't it. For a so called professional referee to review that situation and call it "mutual holding" is baffling.