It is widely believed that football players will fake an injury to stop the clock or the momentum of the other team. Any “injured” player has to leave the field for one play. They are then free to re-enter the game. While no one wants a player to not receive medical attention that they need, the “penalty” of only sitting out one play is insufficient to prevent a fake injury.
I propose that any player leaving the game due to injury must sit out until the next change of possession. Discuss.
Soccer or American football?
If you mean American football, don’t teams already get charged an injury timeout?
Although, of course, there’s still nothing to stop a team from trying that tactic if they are all out of timeouts and it is a dire situation - i.e., last two minutes of the fourth quarter.
American football. I don’t know that “one play” has any meaning in soccer.
Injury timeouts are not charged to a team.
IIRC, in the CFL players are required to sit out 3 snaps if they stop the game due to injury.
But faking injury seems to be more soccer than Am. football. At least I hear more about it.
It happens, especially on defense to slow a no-huddle offense in order to make substitutions. My Giants got caught with two players feigning injury at the same time in this situation. Embarrassing.
I like a 3-snap penalty versus change of possession.
In the NFL, in the last two minutes of the half, a team is charged one of its three timeouts if the clock is stopped due to an injured player.
Apparently, there is also a phantom “fourth timeout” that the officials can charge a team – if a team’s player is injured during the last 2 minutes, after they have used all three timeouts, then that “injury timeout” (effectively, their fourth for the half) occurs without penalty.
However, after that, additional injuries lead to a 5-yard penalty, and potentially a 10-second runoff on the game clock.
Source: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/timingfinal
All of this is to prevent a team from trying to abuse the injury timeout rules when time is running out in the half / game.
An example of how this came up in a game, several years ago: NFL rules explanation of the fourth timeout for injuries - The Phinsider
Or you could go even further and have one of your players bite down on a fake blood pill, get the team doctor to cut their mouth on the sideline and then get your best kicker back on to potentially win the game.
Yes, but that leaves 56 minutes of gameplay that are susceptible to abuse.
While fake injuries clearly occur in American football, it’s more common for real injuries to be concealed by players and teams and the NFL can fine you for doing so.
Not really. Clock management is not as important until ~5 minutes remain in the half and in the game. Sure, they may occasionally slow down a full-time no-huddle offense, but I haven’t really seen it as an issue.
It’s a solution looking for a problem.
Agreed. It’s a corner-case thing at the most, and I think that the OP’s statement of “It is widely believed that football players will fake an injury to stop the clock or the momentum of the other team” overstates just how often this actually happens.
And, TBH, if the officials sense that a team is repeatedly faking injuries to sap the other team’s momentum, the referee can hit that team’s bench with an Unsportmanlike Conduct penalty.
Possibly, but the rule book is full to the brim with “corner-case things”.
I watched exactly 2 games this weekend and IMHO, a good case could be made that it happened in both of them. They specifically mentioned it in one of the games. The announcer wouldn’t definitively say that that was what was going on but that that was the way he’d vote.
They could but I have never seen this happen. No one wants to be the official that penalized the bench when it turned out that someone was actually injured. My proposed rule would give them a way around that.
Can you provide a little more detail, please? Which games? At what point in the games?
Except that we’re probably not talking about one injury (or “injury”). What you seem to be describing is a situation in which a team’s players are repeatedly being “injured,” in rapid succession – and, sufficiently “impaired” that they need help getting off the field, only to pop back onto the field a play or two later. I remember seeing just that in the early '90s, when the Bills used a no-huddle offense, and some other team was clearly faking injuries to slow them down.
In that case, it’s going to be pretty clear to the officials (and everyone else watching the game) exactly what’s happening.
Packers/Falcons last night. GB was down 34-16 with about 8 minutes left in the 4th. They have a good drive going and are going hurry up. After a long completion, GB rushes to the line but a Falcon DB takes a knee and the clock is stopped. He eventually trots off. They show him on the sidelines getting a drink and nodding his head as if to say that he’s ok but that last part is pure conjecture on my part. Rodgers were clearly upset about it. The announcers danced around it but it seemed pretty clear to me that they thought it was fishy.
The other game was college with a similar storyline but I don’t remember the particulars. .
I’m not necessarily talking about an epidemic of players faking injuries. ISTM that if a player is really injured, missing a few plays is a good thing. If he’s one of the fakers, they should incur more of a penalty than sitting out one play. This is particularly true on defense where players rotate in and out on an regular basis.
Every year, I propose IMO a very easy and effective way to reduce injuries in the NFL, and every year, the guys on the boards mostly ignore it, although nobody says what’s wrong with it.
It’s simply this: the Thursday night game is played by the teams who had a bye the previous Sunday. If there’s no bye on a given Sunday, then there’s no game the following Thursday.
That would give teams a week and a half between games when they play Thursday, instead of just three days off, which is not nearly enough to recover from the pounding you take in the NFL.
I don’t have any problem with the idea, though I wonder how much more difficult making the schedule would become with this additional rule. Then again, I kinda feel like each division should have the same bye week, among other scheduling changes.
I’d also wager that, while Thursday games on short weeks suck, they’re still a drop in the bucket for total injuries.
What’s wrong with it is $$$. Currently there are no byes in weeks 1-4 and 12-17, so if you could not play a game on Thursday if you had a game the previous Sunday you would lose 9 (only 9 because you still could have a first week Thursday game). That means the Thursday night package would only have only 7 instead of 16 games. The revenue would be more than halved I assume.
You could push some byes into later weeks, but I assume no one wants a bye that’s too early or too late in the season as it doesn’t help as much.