A rule or recommendation?
Other EPL games WK3 30/08-31/08
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
They aren't "folks", they're other professional premier league referees who next week, will be on a premier league football pitch.
P.s. you're an idiot.
A protocol. It describes itself as a "guideline" so you could argue there's some leeway, but that still means Newcastle basically saying he wasn't concussed, because if he was, no doctor is going to sign him off to play again so soon.
So they gamed the system on Monday night because they'd used all their subs, and I think they should be punished for that. Because it's a cynical manipulation of a rule that is there to protect players.
Newcastle are saying there was a miscommunication and that he wasn't taken off for concussion but to prevent a yellow.
By the way, didn't both teams only make 5 subs that day?
Newcastle 2-3 Liverpool: Rio Ngumoha, 16, scores 100th-minute winner for Liverpool in Newcastle thriller
Sixteen-year-old Rio Ngumoha scores a 100th-minute winner as Liverpool win 3-2 at Newcastle in thriller.
www.bbc.com
just checked, they only made 5 subs.
In his press conference for this game, Howe said "Fabian Schär is available. We followed concussion protocols, he will be fine to play."
That is a lie. If he had a concussion, he's out for 7 days minimum, they didn't follow protocols. And why would he say they followed concussion protocols if there were no concussion? They are retro-fitting their explanations.
Sky said in commentary that it was a concussion sub, but they may have made a mistake because they did only make 5 subs (across three sub breaks).
But for Howe to say today that Schar wasn't a concussion on Monday, that feels like a lie to me, one that was dreamed up to wriggle out of the comments he made in the earlier presser.
EDIT - it wasn't a press conference comment, it was a formal statement from the Club that they had followed concussion protocols (for a concussion that they now say didn't happen) - not buying that for a minute.
That is a lie. If he had a concussion, he's out for 7 days minimum, they didn't follow protocols. And why would he say they followed concussion protocols if there were no concussion? They are retro-fitting their explanations.
Sky said in commentary that it was a concussion sub, but they may have made a mistake because they did only make 5 subs (across three sub breaks).
But for Howe to say today that Schar wasn't a concussion on Monday, that feels like a lie to me, one that was dreamed up to wriggle out of the comments he made in the earlier presser.
EDIT - it wasn't a press conference comment, it was a formal statement from the Club that they had followed concussion protocols (for a concussion that they now say didn't happen) - not buying that for a minute.
And look, if the truth is that Schar wasn't concussed and they could have subbed him anyway on Monday then that's fine.
But if he was concussed, and I'm pretty sure he was, then they shouldn't be fucking about playing him tonight. The protocol is there to protect the players and the doctors should know better than to break it.
But if he was concussed, and I'm pretty sure he was, then they shouldn't be fucking about playing him tonight. The protocol is there to protect the players and the doctors should know better than to break it.
Learned that trick from Guardiola, I presume?
They are folks. You are incorrect. They are also unseen and un-shown during the games so that public cannot see them. And what other directions they receive and from whom is also unknown.
Good of you to point that out. Only one of them is a big club that has a realistic chance of winning the Premier League this season.
I assumed he meant they followed protocol when assessing him at the time and concluded he was not concussed
That's definitely the line they'll take if queried, but why wouldn't you just say that? It was a written statement so they had time to get it right.
It sounded like they conveniently said it was a "concussion" at that point of time, so they could potentially make another sub if one of their player got injured later on. Maybe one of them was feeling it due to the 45 mins running with 10 men.Newcastle are saying there was a miscommunication and that he wasn't taken off for concussion but to prevent a yellow.
By the way, didn't both teams only make 5 subs that day?
Newcastle 2-3 Liverpool: Rio Ngumoha, 16, scores 100th-minute winner for Liverpool in Newcastle thriller
Sixteen-year-old Rio Ngumoha scores a 100th-minute winner as Liverpool win 3-2 at Newcastle in thriller.
So in the end they didn't need the sub, but they needed Schar to play in the next game so they back-tracked and said there was a miscommunication. It doesn't work like that, this is top tier football with plenty of staff on their books to do such reporting correctly.
The FA should make them an example for such attempts to cheat.
I am correct. You're peddling made up bollocks.
You capitalised LONDON to add emphasis that they play in London. Not that one had a better chance than the other of winning the Premier League.
P.s. You're welcome.
Yes. It is a big team from LONDON that got favourably treated. That was my point. And that still is my point. But you ARE correct that Fulham is from London too. I didn't think about that. I wanted to make a point that a big club from LONDON was on the receiving end of a very favourably referee and VAR treatment.
And a team from LONDON didn't.....
You're trying to break the bot, aren't you?
Maybe
Kelleher proving the club right so far, never good enough to be #1 at a top club and that was shown before he moved to Brentford.
It's one thing being reliable when you're asked to step in for 10-15 games a season and another when you're asked to perform every week.
It's one thing being reliable when you're asked to step in for 10-15 games a season and another when you're asked to perform every week.
Sounds like it's already broken to me.
Still cramped from midweek, apparently. Also why he was last in line for pens
Similar threads
