Failing A Medical

This is a genuine question as I have no clue how this works in real life. I tried to sign Wickham off Ipswich and he failed his medical due to a sprained ankle, would this happen in real life? Surely the medical staff would say he has a sprained ankle but that will heal in time there are no long term issues. Seems a bit strange to me.

Completely agree with this, medicals are to ascertain if there are any long term/standing injury problems.

I think the medical should just be advisory and ultimately the decision to sign or not should rest with the manager. Then it could come into the press conference, you could get asked about the risk you are taking signing an injured player.

Yeah I had the same thing with Wickham which is a bit annoying, but just waited until he was back in light training and pounced before chelski had the chance. Not sure that it's entirely down to the manager IRL. The board could definitely block a transfer is a player failed a medical, so I've no problems if there's a long standing injury problem (for example Ledley King...) but for a sprained ankle it seems a bit daft.

This is not right, i had this problem in the last game. In real life the player still get transferred, there are many examples, e.g. Stephen Hunt to Wolves, he was out until their last game when he made his debut, they signed him in the summer.

I also think this is a bit odd though I'm not sure how it works in real life to be honest.

I would think that if there was an injury worth worrying over (i.e. major knee injury or a spinal/head injury) that could have long-term effects on a player's career than it would be logical for the board to block the transfer but surely if a guy has a sprained ankle out for 2 weeks this wouldn't prevent a transfer from going through?

Totally agree with the entire sentiment expressed here. A medical should not rule out a short-term injury and merely highlight possible problems that a player may develop long-term. Also it should be the manager's decision whether to proceed with the purchase or abandon it altogether, especially for a short-term injury.

Yeah i think even for long term injuries the manager IRL makes the ultimate decision. Think Aquilani.

Slightly off topic but do you think with Aquilani, the medical team actually encouraged the signing not to happen? Really surprised that since Benitez left they simply washed their hands of him, especially since he had been at the club while injured.

The medical team at Liverpool has changed vastly from when Aquilani signed. It's possible that the new people have a different opinion of what he is capable of to the people that assessed him before he joined.

This is infuriating, especially as you have limited windows to sign/sell players, so you have to wait. I reported it ages ago: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/189385-10.2-Work-permit-then-medical

It's probably a coding issue where they couldn't get round it, so they left it as it is, silly though, should be addressed though in patch.

Didn't Downing sign for Villa whilst out injured at Boro......

Irl only players will fail medicals if they have conditions which may be either career threatening or issues which are likely to come back.

Things the medicals look at especially: Knees, heart, back.

Light injuries are not likely to make a player fail a medical, but an injury with 2 or 3 months left may indeed make a club decide that the player can still be signed 6 months later. One may call that failing a medical, but it's more common sense than the result of a medical examination.

oh and btw players can fail medicals also if their current condition is match fit as long as they have a very strong predisposition to aquire somethign serious, especially knee-wise.

Agree, it's one of those areas in FM that needs a little clarification.

Ankle ligament damage would be cause for failure but a sprained ankle would surely not.

You often hear of players signing for clubs IRL but cannot play straight away as they are recovering from injury.

That situation doesn't sound right to me. If the medical team will fail a player on an existing injury meaning the board pulls out of the deal, youu shouldn't be allowed to make a bid in the first place.

For me, medical should be used to reveal injuries or conditions that are not already known. Unless the sprained ankle is going to cause the player significant problems in the future then it shouldn't be a reason for the board to pull out of the deal. Perhaps it would be better if the medical team just advised you against going through with the deal, leaving you to make the decision and possibly face the consequences?

Anyway, if Jonathan Woodgate was able to pass a medical at Real Madrid, what do you need to do to fail one?

That situation doesn't sound right to me. If the medical team will fail a player on an existing injury meaning the board pulls out of the deal, youu shouldn't be allowed to make a bid in the first place.

For me, medical should be used to reveal injuries or conditions that are not already known. Unless the sprained ankle is going to cause the player significant problems in the future then it shouldn't be a reason for the board to pull out of the deal. Perhaps it would be better if the medical team just advised you against going through with the deal, leaving you to make the decision and possibly face the consequences?

Anyway, if Jonathan Woodgate was able to pass a medical at Real Madrid, what do you need to do to fail one?

Hehe, I very much agree with this. I think medicals should reveal things like previous injuries that are likely to reoccur, and that you as the manager should have the final say no matter what.

It really doesn't feel right that I can't sign a player that I'm getting for a really good deal because of something like a broken wrist

I've posted this in the Bugs forum:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/231821-Failed-Medical?p=6026495#post6026495