Failure of football lawmakers amid Leeds United rule anger has left door open to cheating — Leeds Live 28/4/26
Leeds United manager Daniel Farke had already raised the matter earlier in the season
Isaac Johnson Leeds United reporter
It's a stain on the game, and it’s happening far too often.
Leeds United are not the only team to be victim of goalkeeping tactical
timeouts but they have had their fair share.
Games against Manchester City, Sunderland, Brentford and now
Chelsea have all seen the opposing shot-stopper seemingly feign injury to
instigate a touchline chat with the manager. Everyone knows what is happening,
yet nobody can stop it. Why?
This simple question has two meanings, the first of which is
legalistic. Referees currently have no powers to punish such acts as there are
no stipulations in the game regarding this precise scenario.
And so the officials therefore cannot risk playing on in
case the goalkeeper is genuinely injured. And there is the argument that
'keepers might start playing through the pain barrier when genuinely hurt and
therefore injure themselves further. This risk increases when it comes to head,
chest or spine issues.
Unlike outfield players, ‘keepers cannot go off the field
for treatment by nature of their role. Also, they do not need as much tactical
detail, so they thus become the classic fall guys to use.
The other aspect of the ‘why' question is a more abstract
but pressing one. IFAB - football’s lawmakers - met in January and February to
discuss potential punishments for such goalkeeper time-outs but, while trial
options have been put forward, the matter remains unresolved. Again - why?
Simply, members could not agree on a singular solution but
beyond that it perhaps points to their misjudgement of how much of a scourge it
is on the game, how ‘immoral' it is within a football context and the
increasing frequency with which it is being utilised.
As such, players will start taking matters into their own
hands before long - Leeds skipper Ethan Ampadu doing so in Sunday's FA Cup
semi-final when Robert Sanchez went down.
He went over to listen in to Chelsea interim coach Calum
McFarlane and his messaging to his players before being fronted up by Romeo
Lavia with a pushing match then ensuing.
“We’ve had it a couple of times when we’ve had momentum and
the keeper has gone down,” Ampadu explained afterwards.
“So I thought this time, go over and just stand next [to
hear] what they’re saying. If they are going to do something to create a little
bit more tactics then I’m going to go over and get a drink.”
Ironically, McFarlane later appeared to make a slip in his
post-match press conference: “I’m unsure about the ruckus. I used it as an
opportunity to speak to the players and pass on information”
This ruckus settled down quickly but it shows how things
could escalate and how it can further ruin a game, should someone lose their
cool and sent off.
Daniel Farke would not comment on the topic after the game,
given Leeds had lost. But he had his point clear earlier in the season.
"If we don't educate our players in football what to do
in terms of fair play and sportsmanship and if we just try to bend the rules
and even do a fake injury in order to do an additional team talk, it is not
what I like personally,” he said, after Gianligui Donnarumma’s blatant edition
in November’s trip to Manchester City.
But with the matter not resolved, it would not be surprising
to see such bending of the rules at this summer’s World Cup because -
infuriatingly - it does work in disrupting rhythm. Maybe the tournament will
prompt IFAB to reconsider. They must.
Though, the current reality is that it won’t change.
Alterations to laws are usually rubber-stamped at its AGM in February ahead of
implementation over the summer, normally from July 1.
The next time the body can broach the subject is, in theory,
at their board of directors meeting but that is no guarantee and a date for
their next gathering has yet to be set according to its official website.
Of course, the right solution also needs to be found. Many
have been put forward, the most popular being that players cannot go to the
dugout while a goalkeeper is down receiving treatment. If refreshment is
required, then a water boy can bring on some liquids.
There are possible loopholes there too, such as the coach
passing on information for the physio to relay but at the least, injunctions
can be put on communication with players. It could be argued that this is
getting a bit silly but silly is what the current players are making it.
Every team will look for a competitive edge over rivals,
that’s just the nature of sport. But when it brings the game into disrepute,
staining its image, then IFAB are duty-bound to act. Everyone knows it's wrong.
Can there be an emergency, late alteration to the laws? Does
this even constitute an emergency in their eyes?
Maybe some would say that is going too far. But already it
is looking like IFAB missed a crucial opportunity to deal with a growing
problem in the game.
Because this is not gamesmanship, it is cheating. And for
the foreseeable, it may only get worse.
