My view on the third goal

My apologies if this looks like I'm spamming, I'm not, just wondering what you guys thought of the third goal against Liverpool and if you think this injury rule should be reviewed:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/24/how-liverpool-exposed-a-rule-that-must-be-changed-against-cardiff-city-4676795/

I was discussing this witb a mate a few weeks ago. It always seems like punishing the innocent party this rule. Someone gets injured by an opponent and has to go off, whilst the person making the foul stays on.

Our conclusion was ...... why not send both to the touchline and bring them back on together. That way the transgressor and the victims teams remain equal while refs determin the appropriate time has been served.

I was discussing this witb a mate a few weeks ago. It always seems like punishing the innocent party this rule. Someone gets injured by an opponent and has to go off, whilst the person making the foul stays on.

Our conclusion was ...... why not send both to the touchline and bring them back on together. That way the transgressor and the victims teams remain equal while refs determin the appropriate time has been served.

That is actually a decent idea, but then you could be seen to be punishing someone for no reason. For example with what happened on Saturday, why should Suarez be punished (except for the fact he's Suarez) for striking a ball and someone getting in the way.

On the flip side (and I didn't have enough room to write this in the article) if Suarez had taken out 4 men say with the one shot. I know it's stupid and unlikely but it could happen. Under the rules, all 4 men would have to go off. It's stupid.

was it the Liverpool trainer who came on to treat Mutch ?
was he asked to assist ? he was very fast coming on ?

he didn't actually treat Jordan Mutch, who got up held his nuts and staggered around unaided.

So Mutch got removed from the pitch from an important set piece, because of the action of the Liverpool camp ?

More teams should try this tactic !

was it the Liverpool trainer who came on to treat Mutch ?
was he asked to assist ? he was very fast coming on ?

he didn't actually treat Jordan Mutch, who got up held his nuts and staggered around unaided.

So Mutch got removed from the pitch from an important set piece, because of the action of the Liverpool camp ?

More teams should try this tactic !

Spot on and you could argue he assisted Skrtel in the same way as Mutch, so why wasn't he removed?

I was discussing this witb a mate a few weeks ago. It always seems like punishing the innocent party this rule. Someone gets injured by an opponent and has to go off, whilst the person making the foul stays on.

Our conclusion was ...... why not send both to the touchline and bring them back on together. That way the transgressor and the victims teams remain equal while refs determin the appropriate time has been served.

That is actually a decent idea, but then you could be seen to be punishing someone for no reason. For example with what happened on Saturday, why should Suarez be punished (except for the fact he's Suarez) for striking a ball and someone getting in the way.

On the flip side (and I didn't have enough room to write this in the article) if Suarez had taken out 4 men say with the one shot. I know it's stupid and unlikely but it could happen. Under the rules, all 4 men would have to go off. It's stupid.

I did wonder whether sending Suarez to the line when all he did was have a shot was fair! But at least it would have left the numbers the same and so not given either team an unfair advantage. I still think it would be a much fairer option than what we get now. Some refs call players straight back on but some make injured players wait ages, so I sometimes think they get mixed up and try to give the side causing the foul the advantage.

Sending players to the line because they injured a player whilst shooting???

Get a f*cking grip

f*cking hell how about looking at our own players and how they defended the corner

If medal was'nt more concerned about kicking suraez rather than defending the corner then they would have never had scored

Look the best solution is that play goes on if a player is injured,it happens in rugby.

Surely the just as big question is why the player on the back post (Gary Medel if I'm right though was sitting wrong side of pitch to see clearly?) has moved? If he stays there ball is cleared and no goal.

It was a gutter as everyone around us was saying they are gonna score here. They are the rules as shit as they are but even with the 8 outfield players back we still defended awfully like we did all game the amount of schoolboy errors on Saturday from a defensive point of view were unbelievable.

wasn't a free kick to create injuries and a corner to begin with! The moron stumbled in his own feet and took a dive

The rule was brought into prevent time wasting but why would we waste time before defending a corner. The referees should use their brains for once and simply over the look the rule as it simply punishing teams for having injured players`

f*cking hell how about looking at our own players and how they defended the corner

If medal was'nt more concerned about kicking suraez rather than defending the corner then they would have never had scored

f*cking hell how about looking at our own players and how they defended the corner

If medal was'nt more concerned about kicking suraez rather than defending the corner then they would have never had scored

You wanna go to bed yer tired tw*t, you've got school in the morning