It seems to me that the part of the red card law that reduces a team's players on the pitch is unfair. The punishment for an individual offence should as far as possible be limited to that player. The game is mainly a form of entertainment and spectators pay a lot of money for the privilege of watching it. This puts a duty on the rule makers to ensure the spectacle is not spoiled by their rules. Also a player receives punishment in the form of a three match ban for a red card anyway, so why is additional punishment put on his team and club who took no part in his offence? The financial implications to a club are potentially massive when team numbers are reduced in a crucial game and football authorities should again appreciate they have a duty to protect their clubs. Obviously some sort of control is needed on the pitch, otherwise it would be mayhem with players kicking lumps out of each other (or even slightly damaging their socks). So why not replace the sending off rule with an enforced substitution for the culprit? This would still affect the team, but the manager would at least be able to limit the damage in the same way he would with an injured player coming off. If all three substitutions have been made before the red card offence is committed another solution would be necessary. There are many possibilities, but I think in that extreme situation alone the player should be sent off. Of course this is just one opinion and I know we all love a sending off when it goes our way, but that doesn't make it fair.....Does it?
The law reads...Hull City must have a player sent off every 6 matches regardless of the offence. Please take into account that in the ideal situation it would be against a big spending "big club" who need every advantage where possible..
Valid points, but your fix is over thinking it Imo. Football did just fine for a long time with minimal changes. The solution is far simpler. Rein back on what constitutes a red card. Reds should be for violent conduct and professional fouls. So that's cheats and dirty ****ers. A mistimed challenge, a coming together in a 50/50 and a bit of pushing and shoving should never be a red. It takes minimal use of common sense to know what's what.
A red card should be awarded for excessive force in the tackle. A wreckless challenge is a yellow. Where or how Madley came to the conclusion that Niasse's toe-waft represented excessive force is a mystery.
it's very nice of you to not consider that there are clubs out there who would deliberately set out to cripple opposition players if there were no come-back during a game. you mention that crowds pay a fortune, and i sympathise, and i don't rate the competence of match officials at all, but players like messi and ronaldo would be targetted for crippling in the first few minutes of every game and crowds would miss out on the biggest draws.
If the foul had happened at old Trafford the ref wouldn't have even given a yellow! It's easy giving them against little hull! FACT
Good point, but although there's no way of knowing or proving it I doubt most sending offs are a result of a 'contract' being put out on a player by a coach or manager. There's no doubt the tactic of roughing up a key player goes on all the time, but saying the sending off rule is the thing that prevents players being purposely crippled seems unlikely.
Time for sin bins for doubtful reds. If the refs unsure use a sin bin. Saying that he whipped his card out without thinking.
The rules don't need to change; the enforcement of the existing rules need to fall back in line with their true intent. Endless diddling with the rules is one of the many problems with the NFL.
i agree, but i think slackening off the laws could mean more of that kind of thing. under current laws it's not as bad as it used to be. i've no idea of your age; in the 1970s (and perhaps before and since), italian teams playing in european games were very much a jeckyll-and-hyde proposition; they'd play like brazil in the home leg and isis in the away leg. it always baffled me, because i always believed most of them were capable of playing like brazil in both legs, but for some reason they chose the violence route for away games.
that said, there are some ridiculous interpretations and fifa is always messing things up. for instance, my faith in referees to determine intent has always been approximately nil.
It happened at Turf moor yesterday, Fellini did exactly the same tackle as Niasse and it was just a free kick awarded, no card at all.
I've never been a fan of red cards, it does nothing for the game and tends to ruin it as a spectacle, replace yellow cards with sin bins, this will cut out any dangerous or cynical fouling and have ejections like in American sports for serious violent/dangerous conduct.
Sin buns are stupid. Red cards are needed. The problem is the slap dash nature they're given out at, as HHH pointed out. All it take is a working brain and a bit of common sense from a referee. Personally I think all the current crop should be laid off, they're not fit for purpose. Bobby Madley wanted to be talked about, he achieved that. Video technology is also a must. It doesn't need to be a super slow manager appeal, the whole stadium sits and watches it replayed over and over like the tedious bollocks they have in rugby. That would be awful. A couple of people sat in a box with a load of monitors to replay in slowmo from every angle all at once. The ref has a goal, pen, red card or something big to award then they send a signal to the refs James Bond gadget watch.
