Comments on: 58% of Players Treated on Pitch during World Cup were not actually injured

By: b.p.

b.p. — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:36:12 +0000

i agree with mike about temporary pain, been there myself. fifa does need to take the problem of taking falls head-on. i believe the majority of these falls were attempts to get a chance at some set plays

By: Pedro P

Pedro P — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:53:07 +0000

58% of the injuries weren’t really injuries, for the past decades… Some goals weren’t really scored with the feet and some penalties weren’t really penalties… This is what I’d call part fo the game…

The refs were better in 2006 than in 2002. What’s that suposed to mean…? Has any WC given us good and fair refereeing…? 2002 was probably the lowest of the lowest, in the sense that it couldn’t have been more obvious – nobody even bothered to try and disguise it… 2006 also showed us some nice tricks (I remember, e.g., the penalty awarded to Italy on the 91st minute) and was crowned by the Zidane award… I mean, FIFA absolutelly hates Maradona, cos he’s a bad example to the kids, etc, etc, etc and stings Argentina on any possible occasion. And then they go and give the award to Zidane, AFTER the headblow incident… It’s all about coherence and a bit of that old hypocrisy…

By: mike

mike — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:33:25 +0000

This statistic is not shocking. Most injuries on the pitch are just slight knocks to the knee, ankle or whatever. These types of injuries sting like hell for about 5 minutes but you can usually just walk them off. I think in most cases they use the stretchers to get the player off the pitch quicker rather than have him limp off and waste time.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:43:27 +0000

Can you get us a list of the 58% who were not injured?

I’m curious.