agrippa_x
member
Reged: 05/05/2008
Posts: 2
|
|
i was just reading paul gardner's article in the may issue when i had an idea; punish the player with a suspension for violent and/or deliberate fouls that result in injury that coincides with the duration of the injury. in other words, if the referee judges a foul to have been deliberate or at the very least reckless, and a player limps off for three weeks or three months, what have you, the player committing the foul spends that much time out of action as well. obviously, these judgments would be subject to some appeal and career-ending injuries might necessitate a "statute of limitations," but otherwise i think there's some merit to this idea. at the very least players might have more interest in the health and welfare of their colleagues. just thought i'd throw that out there.
|
badgerboy
member
Reged: 26/03/2007
Posts: 727
Loc: Bucks, England
|
|
They already do that in Croatia although I'm not sure how much this punishment was a knee-jerk reaction after the Croatian media made such a massive storm following the injury to Eduardo.
I'm not really sure about it. There might be certain cases where "intent" is obvious - for example a player reacting "in a rage" in the heat of the moment and where this leads to serious injury to an opponent there might be some merit in the idea.
But a lot of the time 99 tackles/fouls of a certain type might lead to nothing but a free kick. And I'm not convinced that the player committing the 100th - that happens to lead to injury - should be punished more.
Perhaps if clearer guidelines were issued regarding certain types of tackles that should be oulawed as dangerous - with a "zero tolerance" attitude to offenders & this were applied universally.
So then players know: "don't tackle like that or the consequences could be severe" rather than "don't tackle like that unless you are sure you will get the ballor the consequences could be severe".
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
