The A-League's controversial injury replacement policy has hit new farcical heights with news that Perth Glory's Damian Mori has extended his short-term contract as a replacement for the injured David Tarka.
Steve McMahon's has assessed Tarka's condition and come to the conclusion that "he is now only about 70 per cent fit".
Hang on a minute. If Tarka is merely unfit, doesn't that suggest he is no longer injured? We're told that Tarka even played in a recent scratch match against the Indonesian U-23s. According to Glory medical staff he's not ready to start a match for the team, but he's clearly not hobbling around on a Zimmer frame either.
So what are we to conclude from this? McMahon and Glory have bent the rules in the extreme, listing Tarka as injured when he's actually just unfit, in order to extend Mori's contract. This is not all that far removed from a coach telling one of his fringe players late in a match to get out there, take a dive and fake an injury in order to make some room on the roster for a replacement player.
Sure it's great to see Mori, but this kind of situation is unfair on the other clubs and their supporters. Questions need to be asked. Has the league administration verified Glory's medical report on Tarka? In any case, why is Tarka's lack of fitness considered equivalent to an injury? Does this mean Sydney, for instance, could put the obviously unfit David Zdrilic on the injured list in order to sign Kazuyoshi Miura? If Perth make it to the Grand Final, re-sign Mori for the third or fourth time as an 'injury replacement' for, say, Matt Horsley, and if Mori goes on to score a brace like last weekend and win the match for Glory ... if this quite possible scenario unfolds, won't the eager critics of football in this country crucify the A-League? Why foolishly supply them with ammunition?
Come on, let's respect the rulebook ... and if it's not worth respecting, then maybe we should write a better one.
No comments:
Post a Comment