LondonLax Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Loris is in his 30's and is more than capable of making his own decisions rightly or wrongly. Lloris is 26. And it shouldn't be his decision whether or not to keep playing after an injury, it should be the decision of his manager, based on the advice of the medical staff. Football tends not to work on the basis of players who don't want to be substituted don't need to be. 26 is old enough for him to responsible for himself. Yeah true, but for these muppets to come having a go at Tottenham saying they endangered his health. rubbish. Loris is old enough to make his own mind up, and not be molly coddled. Too many peopel these days blame companies, groups etc when people endanger themselves through their own actions. The Medical staff, manager and players told him to go, and he told them where to go, so the buck stops with him. Obviously the club may now discipline for lack of respect or something, but Tottenham aren't to blame like some muppets are sauggesting. Its like those people who have a go the railway network when someone jumps a level crossing. People know not to go around the gate when a train is coming, so it's there fault not the rail company. The guy was concussed and didn't know what day it was. He was not in a fit state to make that decision about his health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djamfisher Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Really? that's why he was able to make some of the saves he did afterwards. This nanny state nonsense is getting out of hand. He said he was fine, was able to communicate that to his colleagues therefore the blame lies with him more than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2013 Lloris shouldn't have been allowed to stay on the field is my opinion. He clearly took an enormous impact to his head and neck. You can't know the extent of head trauma straight away and you can't leave it up to the player themselves as their competitive nature will override their own safety. Like the jelly-legged boxer going back for another battering, people need to step in to protect the player from themselves. He could have collapsed 10 minutes later and Spurs would have looked more than a bit silly if he had. And it doesn't justify their actions the fact that he didn't do so.In the NFL where it's a far more serious and more regular problem, they've gotten extremely strict on concussions of late (owing to lawsuits from ex-players) to the point where an independent doctor on the sidelines, not even the club doctor, has to assess a player (for fear that the club doctor would allow a star player back on the pitch against best medical advice). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2013 Sascha Riether with a nasty stamp on Adnan Januzaj that went unseen at the time and therefore could be retrospectively punished. Might take a few watches to spot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 A bit ironic of Fellaini asking for retrospective action with the amount of headbutts and elbows he threw when he was at Everton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2013 Perhaps he's speaking as a bit of an authority on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2013 FIFPro are suggesting a rule whereby if a player gets a head trauma which results in the loss of consciousness then they must leave the field of play. I think you can't really argue with that and it removes the difficulty of writing a rule whereby the subjectiveness over whether it was a big enough trauma has to be taken into account. Unconscious = stop playing. Seemples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Lloris shouldn't have been allowed to come back. He got a knee at high speed right to the temple. He was in no mental state to declare himself fit to play even if he could perform the functions of being a keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heid3ster Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 People with head injuries are not necessarily fit to make decisions about how badly they are hurt. It has nothing to do with a nanny state. It's really not a lot different than a drunk guy saying he's OK to drive. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2013 Good to see the tramp (Riether) being charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Really? that's why he was able to make some of the saves he did afterwards. This nanny state nonsense is getting out of hand. He said he was fine, was able to communicate that to his colleagues therefore the blame lies with him more than anyone else. Nanny State? Nonsense. Common sense more like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heid3ster Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Good to see the tramp (Riether) being charged. Bad news for Fulham, though. Riether's one of their few good players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Fulham have got loads of good players. It's just that they are only good on their day. And that day appears to be February 29th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts