I see the BBC have now altered their article to emphasise the offside part. I get that it could happen anytime, but it didn't need to be this time. It was a clear offside and the flag should go up. It also gets the ball back in play quicker than wasting 30 seconds on something that was never going to count.I mean it's the kind of injury that could have happened at more or less any time. I don't think the offside rules really have anything to do with it.
Hope he makes a quick and full recovery though, obviously.
But in this case, did the original 'thing' need to happen? All I'm arguing for is a flag going up immediately for a clear offside, not wasting everybody's time (and in this case risking injury) by waiting an extra 30 seconds to do so.Yeah, I mean the underlying logic is "but for the thing, the bad thing would not have happened", and when taken to abstraction you could probably use this sort of reasoning to change whatever rule you wanted.
Possibly, but the most intense part of a football pitch is around the goal, where players (as shown on Sunday) will risk injury more than anywhere else to score/defend. I just think that incident was the perfect example of unnecessary risk being imposed on players.Yeah I mean wanting the rule changed if you think it's no good is a perfectly valid position to hold. I just think the injury-related argument you've put forward in relation to it is a non-sequitur.
Yep, the Wolves keeper was stretchered off 2 years ago against Liverpool in similar circumstances after Salah scored and it was disallowed. Even Klopp at the time said it wasn't a good look.I realise it's a significantly more serious injury but this is not close to the first time this has happened. Last season Stones popped a hammy and was out for months (big shock) after a very similar delayed flag. I'm with MH on this one.