Total Comments 16 | Start A New Comment

Post Info

Comment

Posted By: iain Posted On: Aug 16, 2007 Views: 1043	YES! It's what we've done in the past. Do we have to abandon a game every time someone gets injured? It's a contact sport so man up, Nancy!
Posted By: Neil Posted On: Aug 16, 2007 Views: 1044	vote Dont think anyone stopped playing after Stuart went away, did they? And there was no real interruption to the play was there? I think it should stand.
Posted By: Foxy Posted On: Aug 16, 2007 Views: 1041	Result should stand but I have a suggestion The fact that there was only 5-10 mins to go and there was 5/6 goals in it, then the result should stand as we've done before. I suggest the following: If someone gets injured, resulting in them having to leave the field, with 15 mins to play, then result should either be deemed as a draw or the result is null and void.
Posted By: Iain Posted On: Aug 16, 2007 Views: 1030	Not sure foxy What if one team is up by 10 goals and a member of the opposition leaves the field through injury, the team that was in an uncatchable position loses the points? Not sure about that one mate.
Posted By: Marty Posted On: Aug 16, 2007 Views: 1024	Never!!!! The fact of the matter is that Stu got crocked after about 10 mins (not with that amount left) when we were the team up by a couple. He then retired to the net for the rest of his game leaving us running about with no break while you lot happily switched in and out of goals having breathers at your leisure. AND our keeper was a cripple for the majority of the game until he made one save too many with his mangled toe. So basically, no respite, half a keeper for over 30 mins, then 4 for the last 10!! Not on your lives should that result stand!!!
Posted By: stuart Posted On: Aug 16, 2007 Views: 1019	ditto very eloquently put mr penman. we were indeed a few up when the incident happened, and when i was between the sticks i could only save anything that came directly at the left-hand-side of my crippled body. this happened early on and i only played on to make a half game of it (what a guy!). eeky - you certainly can't compare when you turned up 95% fit to me losing a limb!
Posted By: scott Posted On: Aug 17, 2007 Views: 1005	Yes Result should stand. I think it was incredible bad luck about stu's toe. His valiuant efforts in goal were in truth not much more than that. However, I seem to remember play stopping for about 6 or 7 mins when Craig hurt his shin not so long ago. He opted to play on in goal, and a few goals went past him as his leg was too sore to stop powerful shots. He was inm goals for a substantial amount of time without swapping out for rest breaks with his team. Can't remember if his team won or lost but the similarities are obvious gentlemen, no? Or is it just because there was a loss.... :-)
Posted By: Marty Posted On: Aug 17, 2007 Views: 993	A solution. It would appear rather predictably that all those who won want the result to stand and vice versa, and so the argument/discussion rumbles on with no end in sight. Until that is in a moment of realisation that would make Moses or Ghandi proud I have come up with the answer...... .....another rematch, double or quits. Once Stu is back with a game or 2 under his belt we replay this epic once more. My lot win and the last 1 doesn't count and the result gets scrubbed, but if the forces of darkness (you know who you are) win then the result stands. Genius or what??
Posted By: Foxy Posted On: Aug 20, 2007 Views: 986	martie' s almost right Martie - buy me a pint in The Vale and I'll reverse my decision.. btw..forces of darkness = eeky
Posted By: Kyle Posted On: Aug 20, 2007 Views: 981	Tossers! As previously said it would appear the winners want it to stand and us losers dont. Scots argument is a valid point however it doesnt count because when he thinks hes going to lose he doesnt bother turning up! ;-) I dont think it should stand as we were winning when he wasnt injured and lost when he was. Maybe foxy is right about rules in place! however on this occasion (if it gets to 5 each) we should toss a coin. best out of three. simple as that!
Posted By: Alan Posted On: Aug 21, 2007 Views: 968	No Something a bit strange going on here - I voted no, but the current standing remained stubbornly at 5-3. Has the no button been disabled by those forces of darkness? Anyway - after reading all the arguments and cogitating all week, I've gone with my original impulse. At the end of the game my immediate assumption was that the game would be null and void. I was quite surprised when Iain said it would stand. Surely a broken bone early in the game is good enough reason, especially when it was a rematch of a very close match the week before. However I'm happy to go with the vote. By the way, on a lighter note, can I hijack this forum to ask if anyone knows where I can buy a Jamaica strip (or top) for a 6-7 year old? Thanks to Play Station, my son has decided Jamaica are the best team in the world and wants a strip.
Posted By: iain Posted On: Aug 21, 2007 Views: 959	bones I don't the type of injury should have any bearing. If the person can play on and they do then what difference does it make whether it's a bruised shin (see Scott's comment) or a broken toe? Stuart played bravely on and the game remained close all the way through. Yes, you might have won had Stuart been completely uninjured, but that's life! Man up, Nancy! We've had injuries during the games before and the injured party has played on and the result has stood. Why should this be any different? Anyway, I love Martie's suggestion for a rematch - winner takes all! Great idea big man!
Posted By: Karl Posted On: Aug 22, 2007 Views: 953	No Way!! This is definitely an interesting debate, I can see there are arguments for and against! My opinion at the time was that we were 10 minutes in and 3 or 4 goals up, stuart hurt his toe, and then for 30 minutes the opposition grabbed more and more goals til they were a few up and Stuart had to quit through pain, so I felt defeat was unjust!! I have a few points to raise though: 1. Anybody starting a game injured has hopefully been put in a stronger team to compensate, so any final score should stand 2. Anybody getting badly injured in the first 30 minutes is obviously going to affect the game, the teams are deliberately picked evenly, so an injured player is unable to do as much, and his team mates have to do more for the majority of the match, making the result for the uninjured team less satisfying anyway? 3. An injury in the second half (unless severe) isn't so much to cover for the rest of the team? 10 v 11 games on the telly are often more exciting, and a lot of the time teams do manage to hold the score in this situation? Stats on this would be interesting! 3.2 An injury in the second half deemed bad enough that the player has to quit, must be backed up by a medical note. 4. The mistake we made was not declaring Stu's injury for everyone to hear clearly. Stu took it like a man and stayed quiet which in hindsight was a mistake. There should have been a pause in play so everyone knew what the situation was. 5. There definitely has to be a rematch of the rematch! Although I might fold under the pressure...
Posted By: iain Posted On: Aug 22, 2007 Views: 946	unsuprising Not really any huge shock that the winners want the game to stand and the losers want it struck off. The only fair way is another replay and a set of established rules for what we do in this situation in the future, though I worry about people using them as an excuse to just wimp out games.
Posted By: Alan Posted On: Aug 22, 2007 Views: 943	Wimps Yes that thought occurred to me. You can imagine the scenario - 15 minutes into the game, you're already 5 goals down, and your ankle/knee/groin/whatever, which was a bit sore to start with, gets a kick. You can stop the pain immediately and ensure you don't drop in the rankings by just saying you can't play on. Of course in reality we don't have to worry about this because we don't let wimps into the hard core, and we don't let wimps play with the hard core!

Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page ->