The mancityfans.net football forum

UEFA has proposed a new rule where a player could be temporarily removed from the pitch if a foul they committed injures another player.

Referees chief Pierluigi Collina, speaking at a UEFA meeting in Turin, said the change would be put forward to the International Football Association Board (IFAB) at the start of next year.

"We're going to propose this new rule to IFAB, whereby the player who causes the injury temporarily leaves the pitch as long as the injured player is being treated off the park," said Collina.

"Maybe in the future we could tell the player (who committed the foul) to leave the field as well, and (they both) enter the field together, when the other player is ready.

"The current system isn't fair. The player who commits the foul is only cautioned and stays on the pitch while the team with the injured player is left a man down.

"It effectively gives an advantage to the other team."

Collina said the proposal only concerned fouls deemed "dangerous" and worthy of a yellow card.

UEFA plans to submit the proposal to the IFAB at their next meeting which is set to be held between February and March 2015.

twosips wrote:Totally flawed bullshit which would be manipulated frequently and with ease. You could have a crap full back 'sacrifice' himself for ten minutes taking someone like Silva out of the game for a faked injury. It would make players even more reluctant to make strong challenges too. Utter bollocks.

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:Have to go against the grain and say with a slight tweak it could be ok. Let's say if there is no blood to be cleaned up and it's a matter of taking the players word for it we cap it at 2 mins?

Surely this negates all prior arguments quite easily?

twosips wrote: There's more or less no point to it then. Blood shed is a pretty minor thing on a football pitch and it doesn't necessarily mean someone's been dangerous. Most injuries are muscular too... It's a very grey area. Just keep it as it is. None of this sinbin bollocks. That's for Rugby.

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

twosips wrote: There's more or less no point to it then. Blood shed is a pretty minor thing on a football pitch and it doesn't necessarily mean someone's been dangerous. Most injuries are muscular too... It's a very grey area. Just keep it as it is. None of this sinbin bollocks. That's for Rugby.

There is it would stop you putting your foot through the danger man if you risked being sat watching.

I'm not saying I want it necessarily, but a team like west ham say that park the bus would love. Few mins without silva, but is one cog in our attack worth shagging their back 4 over? Think twice perhaps.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

twosips wrote: There's more or less no point to it then. Blood shed is a pretty minor thing on a football pitch and it doesn't necessarily mean someone's been dangerous. Most injuries are muscular too... It's a very grey area. Just keep it as it is. None of this sinbin bollocks. That's for Rugby.

There is it would stop you putting your foot through the danger man if you risked being sat watching.

I'm not saying I want it necessarily, but a team like west ham say that park the bus would love. Few mins without silva, but is one cog in our attack worth shagging their back 4 over? Think twice perhaps.

In the case of a defending team, it would be a striker who does it.

Imagine two mins to go at Anfield, Liverpool 2-1 up, Suarez just tracks back, dives, & removes one of our attackers. If they are two one down, Skrtel gets Kompany binned for two mins.

Which teams will benefit ? The same fucking teams which benefit from ffp.