How to stop diving?

[argh1]

Now this isn't an original thought, I heard it or read it somewhere.

But why can't FIFA make a rule that a player has to report to the 4th official who may ask a FIFA/Conference/League appointed doctor/therapist/trainer/St.John's Ambulance decide if the player who was injured be allowed to return to game. The 4th official can then either tell the team to substitute (after all we're only concerned about the player's well being) or the 4th official can tell the game ref that the player is fit to return.

I wonder how far away from the 4th official players would be when they look like they're on death's bed if this rule was enacted.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by argh1

Now this isn't an original thought, I heard it or read it somewhere.

But why can't FIFA make a rule that a player has to report to the 4th official who may ask a FIFA/Conference/League appointed doctor/therapist/trainer/St.John's Ambulance decide if the player who was injured be allowed to return to game. The 4th official can then either tell the team to substitute (after all we're only concerned about the player's well being) or the 4th official can tell the game ref that the player is fit to return.

I wonder how far away from the 4th official players would be when they look like they're on death's bed if this rule was enacted.

I posted on this earlier. It is an incentive to go out and injure your opponents, force their players off the field and into this review situation you want or extra minutes off that others advocate, so that while the other team has players off due to your roughness or CHEATING (if that is the word that folks like for doing something against the rules, namely fouling and seeking to injure an opponent), they can use the man or men advantage to a sporting advantage.

All solutions like this are stupid in my opinion, as they are incentives favouring rough play and the side technically inferior. And they will create a new class of footballer, some of whom are out there though as a minority, expert in hurting their opponents and taking them down without the officials seeing it.

Most of the world is not worried any more about this subject than about rough play, bad passing, ugly long ball style, possible doping, corrupt club presidents or hooliganism. In most of the world of soccer it is not nearly as important as it is for Canadians. If you don't like it, don't watch the sport. I watch a bit of NBA but not too much as I hate how showtime has taken precedent over team play, NBA is tactically boring and the coaches are eggheads almost all of them. I dilike all those fat bargers that the NBA thinks are tough under the boards, the crappy defending the NBA thinks makes the game more entertaining, the infantile and rather elitist crowds.

If you are really concerned about it ask your CSA to communicate your concerns to FIFA, and maybe refs will be more rigorous applying diving rules. Watched the end of the Australia-Japan quarter final this morn, starting with the Japan goal, and one Aussie was booked for diving in the midfield. Another Japanese fall in the box was waved off. Think the ref was from a Gulf State. If you think refs should be more on the ball, I can accept that. But I can't accept seeing the issue taking up so much space and worry amongst hypocritical Canadian sport fans who put up with so much cheating and falsification of sporting values in so many other sports all the time.

[The Ref]

Maybe Fifa should consider removing the automatic yellow card for simulating. I think it encourages more and more embellishment so as to make it look real and hence not a simulation. Just leave it at the discretion of the referee, he/she can still book the player for unsporting behavior if he so deems.

[Danny Boy]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I posted on this earlier. It is an incentive to go out and injure your opponents, force their players off the field and into this review situation you want or extra minutes off that others advocate, so that while the other team has players off due to your roughness or CHEATING (if that is the word that folks like for doing something against the rules, namely fouling and seeking to injure an opponent), they can use the man or men advantage to a sporting advantage.

So if a team is deliberately trying to injure their opponent, you don't think the ref will issue a red card? If it's that blatant then there is no advantage in trying to injure your opponent.

I was talking to some people and one came up with an idea that if a player doesn't get up within a certain amount of time (10-20 seconds) then he has to go off the field for a minimum amount of time (5 mins) or be immediately substituted. Then if they are just delaying, they get carded.

[RJB]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Maybe Fifa should consider removing the automatic yellow card for simulating. I think it encourages more and more embellishment so as to make it look real and hence not a simulation. Just leave it at the discretion of the referee, he/she can still book the player for unsporting behavior if he so deems.

What the referee's need to do is start actually giving out that automatic yellow card for simulation. It's not give enough!

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I posted on this earlier. It is an incentive to go out and injure your opponents, force their players off the field and into this review situation you want or extra minutes off that others advocate, so that while the other team has players off due to your roughness or CHEATING (if that is the word that folks like for doing something against the rules, namely fouling and seeking to injure an opponent), they can use the man or men advantage to a sporting advantage.

All solutions like this are stupid in my opinion, as they are incentives favouring rough play and the side technically inferior. And they will create a new class of footballer, some of whom are out there though as a minority, expert in hurting their opponents and taking them down without the officials seeing it.

Most of the world is not worried any more about this subject than about rough play, bad passing, ugly long ball style, possible doping, corrupt club presidents or hooliganism. In most of the world of soccer it is not nearly as important as it is for Canadians. If you don't like it, don't watch the sport. I watch a bit of NBA but not too much as I hate how showtime has taken precedent over team play, NBA is tactically boring and the coaches are eggheads almost all of them. I dilike all those fat bargers that the NBA thinks are tough under the boards, the crappy defending the NBA thinks makes the game more entertaining, the infantile and rather elitist crowds.

If you are really concerned about it ask your CSA to communicate your concerns to FIFA, and maybe refs will be more rigorous applying diving rules. Watched the end of the Australia-Japan quarter final this morn, starting with the Japan goal, and one Aussie was booked for diving in the midfield. Another Japanese fall in the box was waved off. Think the ref was from a Gulf State. If you think refs should be more on the ball, I can accept that. But I can't accept seeing the issue taking up so much space and worry amongst hypocritical Canadian sport fans who put up with so much cheating and falsification of sporting values in so many other sports all the time.

Or it may save injuries?

Refs may become nonchalant about players flopping around the pitch like a fresh fish just landed on the wharf. So the truly injured are missed because play acting is so prevalent.

Players alot of times are making the refs look bad and eventually there'll be a backlash.

If most want to watch a game constantly stopped because of diving and time wasting then nothing will change. But if most want to watch a free flowing game than something will be done.

It was only a suggestion man. I personally don't like seeing the theatrics. But I'll keep watching soccer if you don't mind and keep cursing the little weenies rolling around the pitch to jump up 30 seconds later to rejoin the play.

[argh1]

Yes, we want to see good technical play. But we also want to see hard tackles and strong shoulder challenges.

We don't want these outta the game because the ref falls for a budding thespian rolling around the ground because an opposing player drops like a wet sack of potatos because he got within 10 centimetres. It's not all about watching some prima dona make some fancy moves.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Danny Boy

So if a team is deliberately trying to injure their opponent, you don't think the ref will issue a red card? If it's that blatant then there is no advantage in trying to injure your opponent.

You can play rough without continually making blatant attempts to injure players. Look at a team like Blackburn. I'd imagine that they get more red cards than the average. But probably not more than 2 or 3 extra reds. That's despite playing rough all the time!

The last thing we need is more teams like Blackburn.

quote:

I was talking to some people and one came up with an idea that if a player doesn't get up within a certain amount of time (10-20 seconds) then he has to go off the field for a minimum amount of time (5 mins) or be immediately substituted. Then if they are just delaying, they get carded.

Again, that encourages rough play.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Most of the world is not worried any more about this subject than about rough play, bad passing, ugly long ball style, possible doping, corrupt club presidents or hooliganism. In most of the world of soccer it is not nearly as important as it is for Canadians. If you don't like it, don't watch the sport. I watch a bit of NBA but not too much as I hate how showtime has taken precedent over team play, NBA is tactically boring and the coaches are eggheads almost all of them. I dilike all those fat bargers that the NBA thinks are tough under the boards, the crappy defending the NBA thinks makes the game more entertaining, the infantile and rather elitist crowds.

Actually, NBA has more diving than any other sports league that I can think of. Every debatable charge/defensive foul situation you see a defender flopping on his back. Ditto for every screen-play/pick-and-roll... whatever its called.

[Danny Boy]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

Again, that encourages rough play.

So I guess the debate becomes do we want to elimnate diving or do we want to eliminate rough play?

I'd almost prefer rough play because at least there will be emotion in a game and maybe (hopefully) a code amongst players will develop (kinda like hockey and fighting), rather than have players flop all over the place and ruin the the flow of what should be the beautiful game.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Danny Boy

So if a team is deliberately trying to injure their opponent, you don't think the ref will issue a red card? If it's that blatant then there is no advantage in trying to injure your opponent.

I was talking to some people and one came up with an idea that if a player doesn't get up within a certain amount of time (10-20 seconds) then he has to go off the field for a minimum amount of time (5 mins) or be immediately substituted. Then if they are just delaying, they get carded.

Perfect. If the guy is really injured or is hurting like hell, punish him even further for being hurt.

I don't know if you have ever bumped heads with another player in the air. Maybe one day you got distracted and hit your head on the garage door, or on the edge of a shelf in the tool room. It hurts like hell (odd you have to be told this). You fall down or sit down a bit, make sure you are alright, feel for the blood, over and over again. You feel a bit dizzy. Then, after maybe a minute, you get up, rub your head, go look in the mirror, and go back to what you were doing. Is that faking an injury?

Ever twisted your ankle on a broken sidewalk? I mean it is the same thing. If you are reasonably intelligent you should not get up and start running around at full speed on it until you are sure you are okay, or have someone look at it. IN any case maybe you just walk more slowly for the rest of the day to not push things. If the next day it is not swollen and stiff well it was nothing much. That cannot be decided in 10-20 seconds as you say.

All these so called "solutions" are so royally stupid and arm chair that it is amazing they even have to be answered. The only acceptable solution, since the ref is not a doctor and you don't risk a pro athlete by forcing him to play on a injury and make it worse cause if not his team will be a man down, is to add extra time.

In basketball a team under pressure and needing a break calls a time out. The team rests. But so does the other team. Sure, maybe their momentum is broken, maybe it helps the team having to defend more (because a team a goal down will not fake injury, though they may embellish to get a free kick or penalty to get them back in). I have always wondered why teams complaining about an opponent taking too long to be treated don't simply trust the ref to add extra time to make up for it, and take the break to talk a bit and benefit from the break tactically. Are footballers really so bonehead? You are worried about the guy wasting time, but you are incapable of taking the break to your advantage the way a coach in other sports with time outs would by rallying his players and providing a tactical insight or change to try to alter the course of things.

Any more genious solutions that have not been thought out more than 12 seconds out there?

By the way, if folks think that people would enjoy the game more if there were more goals, then the solution is to open it up a bit more. And if an inferior team is constantly fouling, and keying on the talented opponents all the time, you are looking at what is called anti-football. The formula for a scoreless draw. If rough play were more severely dealt with we would have more goals and more incentive to tackle cleanly, which needs a hell of a lot more talent and skill than tackling roughly.

There are all kinds of solutions that could be offered to make the game more open and favour the more technical, talented teams, in attack and defence. Some have been introduced (eliminate back passes to be picked up by the keeper, give the attacker more benefit of the doubt in offsides, eliminate positional offsides), and others could still be looked at (put the wall further away on free kicks, allow more subs as that would theoretically mean fresher players on the pitch, not the typical attrition that sets in when both sides are tiring).

[Danny Boy]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Perfect. If the guy is really injured or is hurting like hell, punish him even further for being hurt.

I don't know if you have ever bumped heads with another player in the air. Maybe one day you got distracted and hit your head on the garage door, or on the edge of a shelf in the tool room. It hurts like hell (odd you have to be told this). You fall down or sit down a bit, make sure you are alright, feel for the blood, over and over again. You feel a bit dizzy. Then, after maybe a minute, you get up, rub your head, go look in the mirror, and go back to what you were doing. Is that faking an injury?

Ever twisted your ankle on a broken sidewalk? I mean it is the same thing. If you are reasonably intelligent you should not get up and start running around at full speed on it until you are sure you are okay, or have someone look at it. IN any case maybe you just walk more slowly for the rest of the day to not push things. If the next day it is not swollen and stiff well it was nothing much. That cannot be decided in 10-20 seconds as you say.

All these so called "solutions" are so royally stupid and arm chair that it is amazing they even have to be answered. The only acceptable solution, since the ref is not a doctor and you don't risk a pro athlete by forcing him to play on a injury and make it worse cause if not his team will be a man down, is to add extra time.

In basketball a team under pressure and needing a break calls a time out. The team rests. But so does the other team. Sure, maybe their momentum is broken, maybe it helps the team having to defend more (because a team a goal down will not fake injury, though they may embellish to get a free kick or penalty to get them back in). I have always wondered why teams complaining about an opponent taking too long to be treated don't simply trust the ref to add extra time to make up for it, and take the break to talk a bit and benefit from the break tactically. Are footballers really so bonehead? You are worried about the guy wasting time, but you are incapable of taking the break to your advantage the way a coach in other sports with time outs would by rallying his players and providing a tactical insight or change to try to alter the course of things.

Any more genious solutions that have not been thought out more than 12 seconds out there?

By the way, if folks think that people would enjoy the game more if there were more goals, then the solution is to open it up a bit more. And if an inferior team is constantly fouling, and keying on the talented opponents all the time, you are looking at what is called anti-football. The formula for a scoreless draw. If rough play were more severely dealt with we would have more goals and more incentive to tackle cleanly, which needs a hell of a lot more talent and skill than tackling roughly.

There are all kinds of solutions that could be offered to make the game more open and favour the more technical, talented teams, in attack and defence. Some have been introduced (eliminate back passes to be picked up by the keeper, give the attacker more benefit of the doubt in offsides, eliminate positional offsides), and others could still be looked at (put the wall further away on free kicks, allow more subs as that would theoretically mean fresher players on the pitch, not the typical attrition that sets in when both sides are tiring).

Thanks brainiac... I know within 10-20 seconds that I'll either need a couple minutes to get back together, be subbed off or get back at it. It just puts the the onus on the player to make that decision or else he gets carded. On the flip side the ref can determine if it was a tough challenge. That's his job to do. If it's obvious that the key players are constantly being hacked, the ref should be smart enough to hand out cards. What's so difficult to comprehend? Instead of just hacking down people's ideas why don't you actually contribute something?

I'm just trying to legitimately separate the divers from the actual injured which should help the refs make the correct decision.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Danny Boy

Thanks brainiac... I know within 10-20 seconds that I'll either need a couple minutes to get back together, be subbed off or get back at it. It just puts the the onus on the player to make that decision or else he gets carded. On the flip side the ref can determine if it was a tough challenge. That's his job to do. If it's obvious that the key players are constantly being hacked, the ref should be smart enough to hand out cards. What's so difficult to comprehend? Instead of just hacking down people's ideas why don't you actually contribute something?

I'm just trying to legitimately separate the divers from the actual injured which should help the refs make the correct decision.

No, what you are doing is playing witch doctor. You want to "legitimately separate" without legitimately looking at the injury. Are you some kind of shaman that can see what happened without having looked at it? Do you read tea leaves?

If you really think things can be legitimately separated so easily I'll invite you over here all expenses paid, we'll have a blast, and you can tell me what my chronic problem is in my heel and how to solve it "legitimately". Or hell, I'll save myself the money, why don't you just tell me from where you are, it is the same principle at work.

These are the powers you want to give to referees to be applied in split second decisions, decisive diagnostic medical powers no less, for the good of the game?

Do you know how many players have seriously exacerbated a real injury by playing on it? Do you realize what that can do to a career, and how it affects the club that is paying him? Are you going to play god and attribute your powers to referees so that they can share in the divine spoils?

I understand that many will say, but hey, this is what the divers take advantage of, this benefit of the doubt stuff. Sure, but you are going to have to find a better way to counter it. Without just saying that brutal fouls should be occasionally waved off as a matter of an anti-diving principle.

In any case, I am not so sure there are more dives that are called penalties than really clear fouls that are ignored in the box. Some people argue that all that grabbing and elbowing in the box on free kicks should be called more often. Any idiot can grab or elbow; it takes talent to rise into the air and hammer home a header in the midst of a mass of defenders. But if they are fouling you it is impossible. Great, less goals, less entertainment, and you could even hire a couple of pro wrestlers for your team as they'll do the job.

[Danny Boy]

Do you know how to read?

I said take 10-20 seconds to figure out if you need more time or need to be subbed off. I'm not telling them to continue after rolling their ankle. If you feel you need to take a couple minutes stand at the side of the pitch and have the trainer look at you. When you feel ready to get back in, wait your alloted time and get back in. Most players, when they know they've hurt something, get off the pitch right away because they know they are a detriment. No trainer is gonna run on to the pitch with their magic can of spray and automatically know wtf is wrong either.

Thanks again for offering your suggestions.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I have always wondered why teams complaining about an opponent taking too long to be treated don't simply trust the ref to add extra time to make up for it,

Because the refs often don't add the extra time fully.

QED.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

Because the refs often don't add the extra time fully.

QED.

Ahh, a problem with extra time. Anything more to worry about then?

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Ahh, a problem with extra time. Anything more to worry about then?

I'm not worrying about it. You said you were "always wondering" about it.

[Grizzly]

A foul in the penalty area is given a red card because it is deemed to be trying to prevent a goal. By the same token an obvious dive in the penalty area should be punished by a red card as it is trying to gain a goal illegally. Even the occasional showing of a red card for diving in the box would greatly limit the willingness of strikers to dive as the risk would be much higher.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

A foul in the penalty area is given a red card because it is deemed to be trying to prevent a goal. By the same token an obvious dive in the penalty area should be punished by a red card as it is trying to gain a goal illegally. Even the occasional showing of a red card for diving in the box would greatly limit the willingness of strikers to dive as the risk would be much higher.

A foul in the penalty area is most certainly not given a red card.

A red card goes to the last player defending fouling an attacker, the last defender or the keeper, but only when the attacker is in alone. Also to a player stopping a ball going into the net with his hands. A foul that is a yellow elsewhere could be a yellow in the box too. Any foul in the box is a penalty, but the vast majority are not even carded.

Since your "if" is erroneous, the "then" is equally poorly argued.

A red card for a dive in the box is ridiculous in any case. Some of these "solutions" are pure delirium. A yellow sounds fine by me. But the ref better be sure that the player falls without their being contact, because he could judge that slight contact or a good tackle with contact does not constitute a foul thus penalty, but would mitigate carding for diving.

All you have to do is watch one single game and look at the cases as they come, imagine what applying a rule change would mean, then you would be forced to eliminate all these crazy solutions that are being offered here.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

A foul in the penalty area is most certainly not given a red card.

A red card goes to the last player defending fouling an attacker, the last defender or the keeper, but only when the attacker is in alone. Also to a player stopping a ball going into the net with his hands. A foul that is a yellow elsewhere could be a yellow in the box too. Any foul in the box is a penalty, but the vast majority are not even carded.

Since your "if" is erroneous, the "then" is equally poorly argued.

A red card for a dive in the box is ridiculous in any case. Some of these "solutions" are pure delirium. A yellow sounds fine by me. But the ref better be sure that the player falls without their being contact, because he could judge that slight contact or a good tackle with contact does not constitute a foul thus penalty, but would mitigate carding for diving.

All you have to do is watch one single game and look at the cases as they come, imagine what applying a rule change would mean, then you would be forced to eliminate all these crazy solutions that are being offered here.

We've seen leagues using video evidence after a games to sanction a player after a particular incident (usually violent conduct). Maybe they could extend this to diving and have some penalty for the one who clearly dove.

I agree with you when you're saying that the ref has to make sure their is no contact, and it's a tough job for a single man due to the speed of the game and his angle. So, if you start giving penalty to notorious divers based on video evidences it might help diminish the problem.

This could also be used for a player who received a yellow card for diving to appeal the yellow if the video shows that their was contact.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

A foul in the penalty area is most certainly not given a red card.

A red card goes to the last player defending fouling an attacker, the last defender or the keeper, but only when the attacker is in alone. Also to a player stopping a ball going into the net with his hands. A foul that is a yellow elsewhere could be a yellow in the box too. Any foul in the box is a penalty, but the vast majority are not even carded.

Since your "if" is erroneous, the "then" is equally poorly argued.

A red card for a dive in the box is ridiculous in any case. Some of these "solutions" are pure delirium. A yellow sounds fine by me. But the ref better be sure that the player falls without their being contact, because he could judge that slight contact or a good tackle with contact does not constitute a foul thus penalty, but would mitigate carding for diving.

All you have to do is watch one single game and look at the cases as they come, imagine what applying a rule change would mean, then you would be forced to eliminate all these crazy solutions that are being offered here.

Actually you are right I wrote it too quickly and the red card is given if it is the last man back. However, the reasoning behind this red card is that the foul is stopping a close to sure goal. A clear dive in the box is trying to win a close to sure goal so I think the reasoning should be the same. Again the awarding of a penalty for a foul in the box is because a close to sure goal is prevented and again I think a red card would be a fair and equal punishment for trying to gain a close to sure goal. Certainly to warrant a red card a dive would have to be very obvious and I wouldn't expect refs to use this very often. If there was some doubt a yellow would be more warranted. However, I think it would be useful if refs had a red card for diving in their arsenal of possible punishments and I think just the possibility of getting a red card for diving would greatly diminish the willingness of strikers to try and get a cheap goal using this tactic.

[Cheeta]

You really want to cut out diving?

Set up a review committee like you see for ref'ing calls and fine the players who've been a-judged guilty of bringing the game into disrapute by their actions.

Say a weeks wages per offense. Maybe more for repeat offenders?

Players aren't retroactively carded, match results aren't altered but cheating players are punished.

Could really refine the review process to. Limit it to incidents where players have gone to ground and protested the lack of a call, verbally or otherwise. Hell, even if there is a call. That sort of thing.

Embelishment could really be cut down to if you simply forced any player who's received treatment to exit the field at the closest point (which they do now already) but force them to rejoin the field only at the midfield mark, under the escort of the 4th official. Just like a sub.

Wanna bet you wouldn't see too many rolling-around-like-they've-been-shot antics anywhere near that "far touch line"?

Yes, it amounts to a time penalty for any player receiving treatment (at worse, forcing them to do a half lap) but so what? If they need treatment a wee trot is probably the best thing. If they were faking it then here's a wee time penalty.

This isn't trivial. FIFA has taken some rather dramatic step over the last generation to improve the "flow" of the game.

They've eliminated the 'keepers ability to play an intentional back pass with his hands. A reaction to time waisting.

They've introduced multiple game balls. Also a reaction to time waisting. (Anyone remember when there was only 1 game ball? Seems crazy now doesn't it?).

They've outlawed the treatment of players on the field of play. A direct reaction by FIFA to embellishment AND time waisting.

If further directives are necessary to improve the game, and I think many agree that they are, they should be addressed.

Thuggery isn't what's wrong with soccer these days. Diving and embellishment are. I think most eveyone would agree with that and FIFA has to take action to address it. Much as has they've done in the past.

[Soju]

"They've outlawed the treatment of players on the field of play. A direct reaction by FIFA to embellishment AND time waisting."

Have they? I've seen the trainers running on the pitch during Asia Cup with the magic sponge/spray. Or do you mean real treatment?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Good post Cheeta, this is more or less where I could agree, except on the question of forcing injured to come in after a period of time, as I don't think it is fair as I have stated.

There is a problem though, which is that the ref's decisions are definitive, but any later review has to be done by a governing body or a review board or a disciplinary committee. And usually those vary totally depending on the league or competition. There is even less consistency there than with reffing, it is total chaos. Even in the same country there are huge discrepancies, little aggressions that get reviewed on video and land the player multi-game suspensions, others where they get off scott free. Same with stadium closures, fines, etc. This is made even more chaotic as any disciplinary committee decision can be appealed, and sometimes appeals can take ages, you end up with a legal mire at times (this is what Barça did to avoid the stadium closure after the famous incidents upon Figo's return with RM, including the pig head, whisky bottle and cell phones).

So I agree that later fines and suspensions are good, but think that it is even harder to control with consistency than reffing itself.

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Soju

"They've outlawed the treatment of players on the field of play. A direct reaction by FIFA to embellishment AND time waisting."

Have they? I've seen the trainers running on the pitch during Asia Cup with the magic sponge/spray. Or do you mean real treatment?

"Real" treatment would be better phrase. Got to be fair, after running about for a bit it's easy to pick up a stinger or cramp and it's only right that you should give a fellow a chance to get it seen to and rejoin the game. Sometimes a little cooling spray and rub is enough, sometimes not, but the ref's don't put up with the delaying of the game for treatment anything like they used to. Limp off or be stretchered off either way there's the touchline, get moving.

Don't know what they're doing for the Asia Cup but if a trainer touches the pitch the "injured" player is required to leave the field. Doesn't matter if he actually received treatment or not. Thankfully it's been that way for years. Guess the ref has some discretion, but I don't like it. For anybody who's watched football for more than 10 years this simple protocal has been one of the most positive influences on the game.