I don't know about anybody else but the rule that makes a player leave the field after treatment seems a bit bizarre to me.
However if that rule remains would it not be fairer to also require a player making a tackle , causing the need for treatment , to leave the field at the same time.

I've been saying this for years.

Thank god someone agrees with me!

No.

Because if the player is faking the injury, you'd be punishing the opposition player for f**k all.

I agree. A player commits a foul, injuring the opposition player, he stands up and plays on, but the guy that was fouled has to go of. So it makes no sense, as players could deliberately injure a player slightly to put the other team at a slight disadvantage. I think the rule should just be scrapped.

What if its a fair tackle but the other player pussys it and gets hurt?

What if its a keeper that causes the injury? Nominate a player or something? Noooooooo.

Precisely. Then all sorts of gamesmanship would come into play!? For example, a tackle comes in from the oppositions best headerer of the ball (e.g. centre-half), free kick awarded and the attacker 'needs' treatment. Both players removed from the park and an attacking free kick to be taken when the defensive lynchpin is off for making a challenge that hurt no-one...

The rule was introduced to discourage players from feigning injury, and if they still do they are penalized for it, unfortunately it means player who are injured are penalized too, but a lot do need treatment of the park anyway.

Forcing the player who made the tackle to go off would mean you penalize a lot of players who have A - put in a tackle and the player has dived or B - put in a good challenge and unfortunately caught the man as well.

If the player gets booked then he should leave the field like a sin bin but it might just mean more cheating.

Rule only applies to outfield players not keepers.

Treatment of a keeper is allowed to take place on the park. Unless it is deemed that he is unable to continue play then as he is considered different ie allowed to use his hands he is allowed to be substituted straight away as there is at that point a convenient break in play as play has been stopped for his treatment.

However, it wasn't that long ago before the current rule came in that a player went over as if the world was a bout to end. Treatment was allowed on the park but was waved away by the player who had miraculously recovered. Then there was the period of stretchering hte players off, when they jumped off the stretcher but also wasted time. The rule was then changed to if you require treatment you have to go off the park and are only allowed back on at a time of the officials discretion. Not perfect but avoids some of the time wasting tactics of little over a decade ago.

I do actually know this. I was asking what if the keeper run or something and causes the foul on a player who then needs treatment. Would the keeper have to go off since he caused the foul? There would be consistency in the rule if they dont need to go off as well. Its a really fallible rule. People do complain that keepers can waste time by getting treatment and dont need to go off the park but i dont see why they should need to, they have the most unique role in the team so need certain rules specifically for them.

No, can't agree with that at all. The rule was brought about partly to discourage feigning injury which was seen as a problem in the past and partly to cut down incessant time wasting by teams. When players could go down, get minior treatment, and then play on it broke up play, wasted time and generally helped bring the match to a conclusion quicker. Great news if your team is winning, not so if it isn't.

Personally, like banning keepers picking up back passes, I think it's been one of the rules they've changed for the better. The last thing I want to see it going back to how it used to be.

IIRC the rule was introduced for World Cup 1994, when the players were (where possible) carted off on the buggys and treated off the pitch.

Unfortunately due to lack of buggys it seems like things quickly evolved into players being treated on the pitch, then having to leave it, only to be immediately waved back on - which is a complete nonsense.

I reckon the rule was well intentioned - if the facilites were in place it would have led to shorter breaks in games and reduced the potential for time wasting but in it's present form it's a bit of a farce.

Is the rule not supposed to be that the player leaves the field to receive treatment? Rather than being treated on the field and then having to stand on the sidelines waiting for a break in play?

edited to add - just seen theoceanfloors post, which is exactly what I was thinking of. Totally agree that the current use of the law is ridiculous

Can they not use stretchers or would the poor wee lambs get hurt even more?
Generally you can tell the difference between serious and non-serious njuries within a couple of seconds.
Sweep the con artists off to the side I say.

Can really take that chance though in modern day football. Metatarsal this, third binary vertabrae that. It could look soft but put players out for months.

I still think that it is total nonsense for a player injured by foul play to have to leave the field while the player committing the foul continues to play.
The rule might be well intentioned but it is inherently unfair.
I would also have to point out that players are still free to break up the game and time waste by feigning injury but telling the ref he doesn't need treatment - 'just give me a minute ref , I'll be okay'.
Happens all the time.

Your reasoning for the rules introduction seems fair enough, although I was too young in '94 to confirm or deny your point.

It is the bit I have highlighted which I think caused the original post, and irritates the hell out of me as well. We have enough breaks in play caused by whistle-happy referees, without every knock requiring the, often out-of-shape, physio to jog to the opposite side of the pitch to give a three second blast of deep heat and a bottle of water to the player, before accompanying him off the pitch at limping-speed. In the SFL where no 4th Official is present I don't really see why the player has to make his way to the dugouts before then being reintroduced. I don't know how often I have seen a player go down injured by the bye-line and thought to myself, I wish the Rocksteady guy/ballboy would drag him that extra foot to get him off the pitch and receive treatment.

I certainly don't agree with "sin-binning" of players, this isn't bloody Ice Hockey! The resulting free-kick and any further action (a booking) is the punishment for the foul. If the referee considers the foul bad enough for the perpetrator to have to leave the field then he will send him off.

do what they do in rugby. physio comes on and the game continues... if its serious then play stops

Not really an option though. What if play is still in the area? What if instead of a couple of plaers harmlessly tussling when the games stopped, a player commits a viscious tackle to get the offending player back? Might liven it up a bit but it just wouldnt work.

It's definitely unfair on the injured player. All the players should leave the field at this point, and the crowd should leave the stadium - and then wait for the referee to signal them on ( or in - in the case of the crowd , with a hooter).

Would the crowd actually come back at NDP or would you have a season of very short matches,
There is currently a proposal being considered which will allow jakeys and the like to attend matches there as part of their community service.
The possible stumbling block is that the European Court may regard it as cruel and inhuman punishment.

Queens fans certainly wouldn't come back as in fairness our artificial surface is totally unsuitable for their team - it encourages good football.

How can an Accies fan comment on good football , unless they're well read of course.