Adge
Well-Known Member
Not arguing in regards to that-but he was correct regarding the Binks/cut situation.
Not arguing in regards to that-but he was correct regarding the Binks/cut situation.Yes if the ref did his job properly it would have been a free kick to us, binks could have left the field and we wouldn't be under pressure. It would be completely different him going off with us having effectively a goal kick as opposed to a corner.
The ref was dog shit all game.
This is what I mean about refs. "Yeah but he got that right". Even though he missed what actually caused him to bleed. Ironically, as did you.Not arguing in regards to that-but he was correct regarding the Binks/cut situation.
just so I've got this clear the instruction to referees is that when players have a head injury they should not be allowed any assessment or treatment on the pitch and instead be rushed off the pitch as quickly as possible.I quoted the laws of the game on the basis that he was right to send Binks off the field as he had a cut/head injury and that IS correct.
That’s exactly right and the point I made earlierjust so I've got this clear the instruction to referees is that when players have a head injury they should not be allowed any assessment or treatment on the pitch and instead be rushed off the pitch as quickly as possible.
its all well and good quoting rules but the rules being quoted are basically never followed, they state players shouldn't receive treatment on the pitch unless it is a serious injury but we see that happening week in week out. bit of common sense needed to be applied by the ref rather than a sudden desire to get on with the game which he didn't seem to apply at any other point.
That’s exactly right and the point I made earlier
treatment is supposed to be done off the pitch after reviewing the situation on the pitch
Never happens
Adge is correct about Blood injuries
We really need to react quicker to these things
think for me thats the most frustrating part. even if you ignore the fact the ref missed a blatant foul and it should he been our free kick if he had done what every other ref does and allow treatment on the pitch, even briefly, it would have given the players time to think about defending a corner a player short. Also gives the coaching team time to get a message out to them.We really need to react quicker to these things
out of interest what are the rules about shoot outs? one of their coaches went round the pitch and behind the goal to pass messages to their keeper part way through the shoot out, surely that shouldn't be allowed?
he was literally stood there having a drink when the coach appeared with another water bottle so zero excuses for the officials to fall for it.Dovin should have lobbed his water bottle in the crowd.
Yep the coach clearly ran round and handed him a water bottle with the list on, I know teams do it but they usually hand it to them BEFORE the pen shootout rather than running around the whole pitch.
he was literally stood there having a drink when the coach appeared with another water bottle so zero excuses for the officials to fall for it.
And they all sing along like before.The needle returns to the start of the song
And we wouldn't have conceded at that point.Jeez! Tar us all with the same brush!
I quoted the laws of the game on the basis that he was right to send Binks off the field as he had a cut/head injury and that IS correct.
Were we disadvantaged on that basis-YES!
Was that the referees doing-NO, as he correctly applied the laws of the game.
Was the cut on Binks a result of a foul before that?, you are saying yes but I can’t comment as didn’t see it.
Just for clarification, if the foul was awarded in Binks favour, he still would have had to leave the pitch.
So the ref was right making Binks go off the field rather than let the trainers assess possible concussion before hand!!!Not arguing in regards to that-but he was correct regarding the Binks/cut situation.
Yes.So the ref was right making Binks go off the field rather than let the trainers assess possible concussion before hand!!!
Added time I think I meantAnd we wouldn't have conceded at that point.
Pete,you put it that this was in extra time elsewhere in this thread,it can't have been?Am I missing something?
Why? Head injury means possible concussion and / or neck injury and should be treated in situ on the pitch.Yes.
Well he clearly ran off the pitch so he wasn’t concussed or had a neck injuryWhy? Head injury means possible concussion and / or neck injury and should be treated in situ on the pitch.
All bollocks anyway as it should have been our free kick from Windass pushing Binks into Thomas!
I mean yea but it's not for the player or the ref to assess if he is/isn't concussed. Neither are medical professionals.Well he clearly ran off the pitch so he wasn’t concussed or had a neck injury
It was the glee for me. Just needed to slow things down and take time to make sure no uninteneded advantage had been given
I’m sure the ref is right to make him go off but chill a bit
If the rule is that players with head injuries should be forced off the pitch prior to medical assessment the PFA should be on the case as player safety is being endangered.Yes.
I would suggest that an injury which is both a head injury and someone bleeding from the head would meet any threshold for a medical assessment being required.After stopping play for a serious injury or when recognising the need for medical attention to a player the Referee authorises up to two medical representatives to enter the field of play to assess the injury only and arrange for the player’s safe and swift removal from the field of play
But he didn't did he, he started going off and stopped several times questioning what was happening. You could easily take that as a sign of confusion, now what is that a symptom of?Well he clearly ran off the pitch so he wasn’t concussed or had a neck injury
Being from Essex?If the rule is that players with head injuries should be forced off the pitch prior to medical assessment the PFA should be on the case as player safety is being endangered.
Also why does the FA's treatment of injuries guidance directly contradict this stating:
I would suggest that an injury which is both a head injury and someone bleeding from the head would meet any threshold for a medical assessment being required.
And of course there is then the issue that this rule is never enforced. Players get treatment on the pitch game after game which is not in line with the rules now being quoted to 'prove' the ref was in the right on Saturday.
But he didn't did he, he started going off and stopped several times questioning what was happening. You could easily take that as a sign of confusion, now what is that a symptom of?
That’s a really good point well madeIf the rule is that players with head injuries should be forced off the pitch prior to medical assessment the PFA should be on the case as player safety is being endangered.
Also why does the FA's treatment of injuries guidance directly contradict this stating:
I would suggest that an injury which is both a head injury and someone bleeding from the head would meet any threshold for a medical assessment being required.
And of course there is then the issue that this rule is never enforced. Players get treatment on the pitch game after game which is not in line with the rules now being quoted to 'prove' the ref was in the right on Saturday.
But he didn't did he, he started going off and stopped several times questioning what was happening. You could easily take that as a sign of confusion, now what is that a symptom of?
you can stand out and run off a pitch if you are concussed, you shouldn't but you canWell he clearly ran off the pitch so he wasn’t concussed or had a neck injury
It was the glee for me. Just needed to slow things down and take time to make sure no uninteneded advantage had been given
I’m sure the ref is right to make him go off but chill a bit
All fair points. What we don’t know which is standard practice as an official, is if the referee asked the player (in this case Binks) before treatment is administered and physio’s enter the pitch, if he (Binks) wants the physio to come on for treatment. On many occasions a player will say no and the physio will not enter the field of play. Binks may have refused treatment when asked by the referee but the referee followed protocol when he spotted the cut/head injury and correctly made Binks leave the field of play which ultimately disadvantaged us to a degree at that point.If the rule is that players with head injuries should be forced off the pitch prior to medical assessment the PFA should be on the case as player safety is being endangered.
Also why does the FA's treatment of injuries guidance directly contradict this stating:
I would suggest that an injury which is both a head injury and someone bleeding from the head would meet any threshold for a medical assessment being required.
And of course there is then the issue that this rule is never enforced. Players get treatment on the pitch game after game which is not in line with the rules now being quoted to 'prove' the ref was in the right on Saturday.
But he didn't did he, he started going off and stopped several times questioning what was happening. You could easily take that as a sign of confusion, now what is that a symptom of?
Explain our disallowed goal in that case!All fair points. What we don’t know which is standard practice as an official, is if the referee asked the player (in this case Binks) before treatment is administered and physio’s enter the pitch, if he (Binks) wants the physio to come on for treatment. On many occasions a player will say no and the physio will not enter the field of play. Binks may have refused treatment when asked by the referee but the referee followed protocol when he spotted the cut/head injury and correctly made Binks leave the field of play which ultimately disadvantaged us to a degree at that point.
People can agree/disagree as they may, but all I try and do is let you all know why referees give decisions sometimes and why certain things happen from their perspective in regards to the overall control of the football match.
he'll give it a goExplain our disallowed goal in that case!
Hmmmm, not sure what that has got to do with the Binks situation.Explain our disallowed goal in that case!
The only point missing there is it should have been our freekick, for the push on Binks by Windass!!All fair points. What we don’t know which is standard practice as an official, is if the referee asked the player (in this case Binks) before treatment is administered and physio’s enter the pitch, if he (Binks) wants the physio to come on for treatment. On many occasions a player will say no and the physio will not enter the field of play. Binks may have refused treatment when asked by the referee but the referee followed protocol when he spotted the cut/head injury and correctly made Binks leave the field of play which ultimately disadvantaged us to a degree at that point.
People can agree/disagree as they may, but all I try and do is let you all know why referees give decisions sometimes and why certain things happen from their perspective in regards to the overall control of the football match.
It’s to do with how you ended the post ‘offer a ref’s insight’Hmmmm, not sure what that has got to do with the Binks situation.
Just for the record I didn’t see anything wrong with the goal and am as puzzled as everyone else why it was disallowed.
I read somewhere that it was suggested their keeper was impeded but I just can't see it... Coventry v Sheffield Wednesday controversy: Ex-PGMOL chief on 'rare' incidentExplain our disallowed goal in that case!
he's got to be the only person in the country who thinks goalkeepers aren't protected enough!I read somewhere that it was suggested their keeper was impeded but I just can't see it... Coventry v Sheffield Wednesday controversy: Ex-PGMOL chief on 'rare' incident
he's got to be the only person in the country who thinks goalkeepers aren't protected enough!
Yeah by his own playerI read somewhere that it was suggested their keeper was impeded but I just can't see it... Coventry v Sheffield Wednesday controversy: Ex-PGMOL chief on 'rare' incident
Yeah by his own player
Keith Hackett isn't even taken seriously in refereeing circles.he's got to be the only person in the country who thinks goalkeepers aren't protected enough!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?