SHOULD INJURED PLAYERS BE FORCED TO TAKE THEIR KICKS?

Remove this Banner Ad

Slatts

Rookie
Apr 23, 2000
43
3
Boort, Vic, Aus
As an Essendon supporter, I couldn't help but feel outraged at the umpire who wouldn't let any other player except Blumfield take the kick.

That was my first reaction.
On closer inspection, you can clearly see Lloyd hovering around just in case. That does seem suspicious doesn't it?
It brings up the issue about whether players are feigning injury just to get the team's best kicker to go for goal.
Despite the fact that Blumfield had to go off the field for the rest of the game, the umpire has to make a decision on the spot. In hindsight it is easy to say Blumfield was badly injured hence shouldn't have taken the kick. It would be very easy to say that footy players are multiskilled and therefore should be able to use opposite foot when kicking. After all we do pay them lots of $$$
WHAT DO U THINK?

Another issue, if a player is cleary injured in front of goal and can't kick, should the teams best goal kicker take possession?


------------------
Essendon 2000
Who will stop them?
 
I don't think many football supporters would want genuinely injured players to be forced to take kicks. The question is how do we tell if it's genuine?

Is the answer to use a timing rule as was introduced to stop teams from unnecessarily calling for the stretcher? Say compulsory five minutes off?
 
Lloyd was not just 'hovering' he was hanging around like the proverbial 'bad smell'. Even from the other end of the 'Gabba you could see Lloyd almost standing on Blumfield's toes to get to the ball. Every move the umpire or Blumfield made, Lloyd mimicked, just to make sure he didn't get too far away from the ball. It did look REALLY suspicious, and I don't blame the umpire for making the decision he did.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Let me elaborate further..

Perhaps if Lloyd was not so obviously trying to 'get' the kick, Blumfield may have been allowed to hand the kick over.

Noone wants players creating further problems by kicking with an injury, but let the umpire make the decision without the pressure of the reknown best kicker at goal getting up the umpire's nose.
 
Here's a suggestion from left field.
Let the team needing to substitute the player pick the best kick who is on the bench at that time. With four players there is usually one or more who are not injured
 
The rule works fine as it is - if a player is injured, he can give the kick to the *nearest* player providing he goes off - in this case Lloyd WAS the nearest player (watch the tape, he is right next to blumfield when he takes the mark) and therefore there is no reason, other than incompetancy, why Lloyd was not given the kick.
 
The problem apparently stemmed from Blumfield telling the umpire he didn't have to go off (according to the HUN). In this case I'd say the ump made the right call. If JB had said he did have to go off he (the ump) may well have allowed Lloyd to take the kick. Silly bugger (JB).
 
I was at the Gabba and i thought that the umpire shouldn't have made Blumfield take the kick as it could further his injury. Matty Lloyd was the nearest player and therefore should have been allowed to take the kick. If Blumfield hadn't have been injured there was a good chance of him kicking the goal.
 
James Hird voiced his grievances in his article in the Herald-Sun.

However, he did acknowledge how players such as Bewick have taken advantage of this rule for many years and therefore could see where the umpire was coming from.
 
I think Pessimistic is on the right track. If a player can't take his kick then he has to leave the field and the guy who replaces him comes on and he takes the kick - it is then the coaches call as to who he sends on as the kicker.

The only problem arises when you have a bench full of injured players - maybe the coach comes down and takes the kick!!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

SHOULD INJURED PLAYERS BE FORCED TO TAKE THEIR KICKS?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top