Leeds United manager Marcelo Bielsa defended the club's course of action in assessing Robin Koch for a brain injury during Sunday's Premier League fixture against Manchester United.
The Argentine made reference to the 'Spygate' incident with Derby County some years ago as his reason for abiding by the rules, during his latest pre-match press conference.
Bielsa was speaking ahead of his team's trip to Anfield this weekend where Leeds will face a buoyant Liverpool outfit snapping at the heels of champions-elect Manchester City.
The Leeds boss discussed various topics including his conclusions on Koch's head injury, thoughts on punishment for Scott McTominay's part in injuring the Whites man and the task Leeds face on Merseyside.
Read every word the manager had to say below.
Robin Koch is out of the Liverpool game following the concussion protocol - how is he feeling now and what are your thoughts on the incident?
He's perfect. Can you be more precise in your question towards the end?
Your thoughts on the incident originally. You said he was subbed due to a cut. Is concussion now the reason he will be absent?
Koch clashes and he gets a cut which blood starts coming out from. He continues in the game after the evaluation the doctors had of the blood that was flowing from his head. He continued to play because the only problem he had was a cut to his head. That was not the case. Having been five minutes with the player, the medical staff would have substituted him. The consequences of the clash was something different than just the clash of heads and something that was produced, so the first conclusion after being five minutes with the player was that he could continue playing because he only had a cut and the issue was resolved. That's why he came off, they bandaged, he changed his shirt and shorts and he continued to play.
During the time he continued to play he acted perfectly. There was no indicator, I looked over the sequences and there was no reason to believe he had any limitations. In the given moment, the player sits down, the doctors come on and he indicates that he has symptoms that he didn't have when the clash happened. In that moment as it couldn't have been any other way if the symptoms appeared after, we decide to change. As you should know, the symptoms of a clash like this have 24 hours to appear so in the solution of the subject, we all did exactly what corresponded with nothing different to the protocol, all according to the protocol.
I was convinced that it was just the bleeding from the cut because that was the first conclusion after the evaluation the player had. After when he manifested different symptoms he was substituted. The control the player receives when they receive this type of knock, the protocol that is applied, is what generates whether he should be substituted or not. Not every knock generates a substitution.
The knock James received to his head when he clashed with Shaw would also have resulted in a substitution. As I didn't have it within reach what the reason was for the change, that's why I didn't want to make use of the fourth sub because I didn't have the certainty that the sub deserved or was contemplated in deserving that fourth sub. Initially it was the cut not the clash and after it was the clash. I stayed with my initial position, the silly idea or the absurd idea of not wanting to abuse the rules.
The prevention of the knocks on the heads of the players, is a situation that's very serious, very important that can generate real dramas but it's also true that you shouldn't dramatise situations that don't deserve to be interpreted in the way this situation has been interpreted because if there's something the medical staff at Leeds have done, and I as an extension of their decisions, is to abide strictly by the rules about COVID, knocks to the head or any other case. If there's any club that's acted impeccably with regards to health, it's been Leeds.
Do you believe the rules need looking at and the are the tests fit for purpose after looking at all of this?
I have no capacity to evaluate the rules. They tell me what the rules are and I abide by them. After what happened with Derby County I made myself completely strict make sure I abide by all the rules. There's been a lot of injustice that I've not mentioned. One of the consequences that generates the clash that Koch received, that I never read any commentary about that case in particular is the intention, not the gravity of the injury that is punished.
So of course considering that detail I value McTominay didn't receive a sending off. It was right that it was that way because he didn't have any intention to hit Koch and the clash with [James and] Shaw didn't even generate a foul because he didn't have any intentions to clash with James even if he did so. So a very important conclusion this episode leaves, that even as grave as the foul that a player can commit, if he doesn't have the intention of committing it, he shouldn't be severely punished like for example Pascal was punished with the tackle against [Harvey] Elliott.
Of course that's where the excessive use of force comes into play but it's also the intention behind it also. I think our conduct in the face of this action is the same that Elliott had in that moment. There was no bad intention, and that Pascal didn't deserve to be punished. Here it's exactly the same but the other way round. We celebrate that he wasn't cautioned because he had no intention of the action that happened and the same goes for Shaw.
Time for temporary concussion substitutes?
I reiterate the club has a capacity to analyse specific situations that I can't. What I am in agreement with is we shouldn't dramatise knocks in the head. And I think it's inconvenient to dramatise situations that don't deserve it.
The defending needs to improve, you said on Sunday - does it need to be 100% perfect to get a result at Anfield?
I didn't say the defence needed to improve, I said the defensive system needed to improve. The consistency the players in the midfield offer allows us to strengthen the defensive system. The characteristics of the players who play in the midfield, make that so more defensive or offensive profile and I said all of this to explain because we've conceded 50 goals, we're the second team with most goals conceded and have to make accounts of this because I'm the one responsible for the team.
I wanted to explain that in the game against Manchester [United], that we weren't able to count on Phillips, Koch or Pascal who are the three players who take on that role of defensive mid to solidify the midfield. You don't resolve that with bringing signings in because if not we would have four players for that position. Imagine being able to count on Phillips, Koch and Pascal for that position, it's a privilege for a team to count on those options. But at the same time, occasionally situations like this are presented, so strangely the fourth player that occupies that position is the best player of the team in the second half which is the case of Forshaw.
Of course analysing the last game we created eight chances at goal and the opponent created eight chances at goal. They managed to score double the amount of goals; when I analysed the defensive behaviour, I'm referring to the structure I generate, has conceded 50 goals, and after you have to analyse why we've conceded 50 goals, what are the real reasons and how to prevent this from happening - that's my function. When you've played this amount of games and conceded this amount of goals, then the conclusions are clear.
What is then the solution to improve that defensive profile in the midfield that you spoke of on Sunday?
We need to see the reasons why we're conceding all these goals and try to prevent the reasons why this happens from happening.
Is Adam Forshaw the solution going into tomorrow's game?
He's the option that we're managing.
The fans' support on Sunday was very evident and vocal inside Elland Road - what did that mean to you and how big a factor will they be between now and the end of the season?
What has to do with me, I appreciate and the fans have more patience than they should. And what has to do with the situation of the team, I think it's a recognition of what the team tries to achieve but they don't manage to. It's a recognition of what they deserve to get and the effort that is witnessed. The attitude of the fans is an example for us because the ones who believe the most in our possibilities are our fans.
How do you look to disrupt Liverpool's current form and momentum?
Like in every game trying to prevent their attacks from damaging us and making our attacks damage them. I know that there's questions that I answer commonly and I give empty responses but there's questions that are impossible to ask synthetically. Apart from that I've been saying the same things for four years now - to ask to think that certain questions can be avoided because you already know the answers.
What are the main positive elements you are taking from your players' performance on Sunday?
The dominance was alternate, the situations at goal that we created were similar. The difference between the play in both teams you couldn't see a massive difference. The result that the game deserved wasn't our defeat, but I also feel uncomfortable having to say again that we didn't get what we deserved to get.
How impressed are you with the resilience Liverpool are showing at the moment?
It's one of the great teams in the league. And all their qualities have largely already been described.
Any new team news for Liverpool game - who will you be missing?
No. None in particular.
Do you enjoy the physical side of the English game as part of its spectacle?
I think the refereeing in England helps to make the league more attractive.
Raphinha out on the side on Sunday - did you see enough during his second half performance to warrant recalling him?
The fact he didn't start the last game doesn't mean his role or hierarchy in the team is not the same. The team is always made up of more than 11 starters.
What did you make of Junior Firpo's return to the side on Sunday - he seemed to show a physical edge and assimilate to the game, even if he did tire towards the end?
Just as you describe it, I didn't think it was at the start or at the end of the game, it was just a succession of runs he made that, within the same play.
When there's such a quick turnaorund between games, how concentrated do you have to be when addressing the defensive issues, do you have to be selective?
Yes, that's what it's all about.
Unsavoury scenes at Elland Road this season. Do you support the club's stance on issuing lifetime bans to those throwing objects?
It's not necessary my opinion to evaluate the actions of the club in this case. We're all in agreement that there was extra sporting stuff that damaged the game. With respect to the previous question I answered very briefly, that made a lot of sense over the subject I was interrogated because the sin of the coach is we try to intervene too much and I'm a big part of that and a lot of times the art of coaching is deciding what is indispensable.
