coldel Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 I have been reading with interest the saga around Hugo Lloris going back onto the field of play in the Spurs game at the weekend after being knocked unconscious. In the news AVB has just piped up that he is astonished that so many people have taken a negative view on it. Personally, I thought it was a really bad decision (and I like AVB as a manager), views? SMD!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fodder Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 i think it was a really bad decision regsrdless of the players wishes. He had a severe blow to the head and you cant take any chances, i think the player is extremely lucky as who knows what potential damage an injury like that can cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbster Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Boas' decision to let him play on was just about as good as his regular (and ridiculous) decision to keep Jermain Defoe on the bench for most of the time in Premiership games this season, when Spurs are totally unable to score goals in open play. Personally, I still bemoan the departure of Harry Redknapp and I don't think AVB's up to the job. Hope I'm proved wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 A foreign footballer who manned up........I dont know about criticise him I reckon we should have him stuffed and mounted! ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbster Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 It's not even like he had nobody to replace Lloris - Brad Friedel is an excellent goalie and he's built like a brick sh!thouse - I'd feel sorry for ANYONE who clattered Friedel, accidentally or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 By all accounts there is no rule that says he couldn't go back on...which is absurd. He has to pass a rigorous medical assessment before being allowed back on which consists of the doctor asking him five questions such as 'what venue are we at' - it really beggars belief. In any case, any sensible person who actually had concern for their staff would not have allowed him back on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 consists of the doctor asking him Was it really AVB's decision when hes got a whole medical team and an independent doctor there though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firemansim Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Boas' decision to let him play on was just about as good as his regular (and ridiculous) decision to keep Jermain Defoe on the bench for most of the time in Premiership games this season, when Spurs are totally unable to score goals in open play. Personally, I still bemoan the departure of Harry Redknapp and I don't think AVB's up to the job. Hope I'm proved wrong. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 Ultimately yes, he is the boss, and as there is no rule that says the doctor can order the player off if he passes these quite frankly bizarre tests that exist in the bubble that is professional football. Even the PFA are calling for laws that mean automatic substitution if knocked unconscious. If someone in the office fell over and was knocked unconscious would you as their manager dust them off, ask them if they are ok and sit them back down to work or would you send them home via the doctors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suits Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Flamini got a bang to the head in a match against Norwich, not unconscious, and was replaced. He was then unable to play regardless of what questions he is asked or what answers he gave for 5 days, that’s the medical rule. How a player can be out cold on the filed then allowed to play on beggars belief. AVB made a bad call IMO. Thankfully the player is OK. It should be left at that now as nothing better can come of any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 Yes the rule is 5 days between head injury and playing again - but there is no rule to stop them putting the person back out on the pitch during the match which is absurd. And to be honest thats where the manager should take some responsibility for the safety of his players - even when you complete the level 1 coaching badge, the absolute bottom one, head injuries are mentioned and the care to be taken around them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Shocking decision, no regard for the players welfare. :rant: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaz 350z Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Personally, I think he did nothing wrong. If a player is eager to get back on the pitch, and the doctor says he is ok to do so. What experience can AVB offer to that situation? Why should he be able to say sit down to Loris? Surely, Loris and the doctor know best. AVB should just have to worry about how to win games with his team. Put it this way, either we have these debates or we have debates about players being removed from play because of a little scuff, and how footballers are no longer men. For me, I think loris should be applauded (if the rules need changing, then they need changing, that isnt any at tottenhams fault) and players like Young, should be told to sit out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 I can appreciate that there was no law in the rule book that said take him off. Also the doctors on site went along with the rules laid out to them as a guideline. The Spurs doctor followed a rather flimsy guideline that is only applicable to football, I'm sure if that same doctor saw someone get knocked unconscious out on the street they wouldn't ask them 'what street are you on' and if they could answer then send them on their way, I would bet my last pound he would be sending the person to hospital. AVB, like Wenger, should have made a better call and replaced him and sent him to the hospital in my opinion. I think being knocked unconscious vs a scratch on the knee are two very different (and obvious) things for all the talk of 'manning up'. Ashley Young is now the English Jurgen Klinnsmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 What's the point of having experts if you don't listen to them? Loris said he was fine. The doctor said he was fine. Both of them know the situation far better than AVB or anyone else in the world ever. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 As a rugby player and ex boxer, I find the whole situation hilarious and still can't see why everyone is making such a fuss. Boxers get hit in the head all the time, even get knocked out momentarily, and they get back up and have done again. Rugby players take bigger knocks and shake it off and play on. Won't be long before football players have an obligatory tampon change at half time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Exactly. Well said, Rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 As a rugby player and ex boxer, I find the whole situation hilarious and still can't see why everyone is making such a fuss. Boxers get hit in the head all the time, even get knocked out momentarily, and they get back up and have done again. Rugby players take bigger knocks and shake it off and play on. Won't be long before football players have an obligatory tampon change at half time. I don't really follow rugby but on the few occasions I've watched it I've seen dislocations reset and players crack on, cruciates partially ruptured and they've played on and players take full scale leatherings from an 18 stone wall of muscle and I've never seen one fag out the way we expect footballers to do. I got smashed in the chops whilst in goal a few weeks back......I mean utterly whacked to the point where I couldn't close my jaw.....I didn't even get offered a wet sponge!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 7, 2013 Author Share Posted November 7, 2013 The difference is that in Rugby and Boxing you can defend yourself in some shape or form, with football your head is woefully exposed as you are 90% of the time not allowed to use your arms or hands in any shape or form or raise them. If you threw a ball up in the air between two boxers and told them to head it...not denying in any shape or form that footballers do not go to ground so easily (and they only do this to gain an advantage in the game not because they are physically weak) and roll around, but the nature of the game is so much different. Boxers train to be hit by people with padded gloves, when you get struck off balance by someone in the head with something like a knee at full force, its a different kettle of fish - funny that you raise Rugby as an example as its the Rugby unions that are mostly up in arms about the AVB decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 It's not the Unions themselves though, it's the namby-pamby do-gooders looking to justify their existence. Again, I ask them why they would know any better than Loris and the doctor on the scene at the time of the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 7, 2013 Author Share Posted November 7, 2013 As above, a doctor on the scene at a football match has to allow the player the chance to pass the test which is to ask them five questions. If they do, then 'the rules say' he can play on. It was based on this that AVB made the call. However any respected expert outside of football says this is nonsense. Its equally daft that the rules say now that Lloris is not allowed to play for 5 days, but he was allowed 'by the rules' to go back on the pitch and finish. My point is anyone with any common sense would have taken the guy off especially with a perfectly capable replacement there ready and waiting. It was ironic that Wenger had the same situation with Flamini just days before and made a different choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 I don't believe for one second that the doctor ran through the five questions and then said "Yup, he's good to go!". Years of medical training plus a healthy desire to keep his licence would've meant that he would've assessed the patient properly before making a decision. I think to assume he only did the five questions thing does the doctor a grave disservice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 7, 2013 Author Share Posted November 7, 2013 I know, was just making a point of how daft that process is. What it doesn't then explain is how comes every respected medical practitioner outside of football says that putting him back on the field is wrong? Also AVBs story didn't stay consistent, after the game he said that the player said he was ok and he made the call. Then a day later he said that the medical team advised him it was ok. As I say I think Wenger made a good call days before, then AVB made a bad one. The fact that he can't seem to understand why people are up in arms about it seems bizarre. As for commenting that its simply attention seeking, the fact that the PFA complained is hardly attention seeking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 The words mountain and mole hill spring to mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted November 7, 2013 Author Share Posted November 7, 2013 It will lead to a rule change I think though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.