Red Cards

[THFC6061]

With rule changes the modern game has a lot more sendings off than used to be case. I can see the reasons, the modern game is much faster the equipment much lighter and therefore the potential for players injuring one another has probably increased.

My point is that these red cards change the game that is being played in a massive way. Often turning a close contest into a rout of the effected side. Should that be the case? Isn't the referee there to see fair play he is not there surely to change the outcome of the game.

I have an idea (which has not been thought right through) that if a red card is issued for a non malicious intent offence then the player should be punished not the club or the high fee paying customers who come to watch the game, not to mention the millions who subscribe to view on tv.

The idea is that the carded player is sent off but the club is allowed to replace him from the bench. Thus punishing the player without so drastically effecting the contest.

Would it work or would it just create new problems for the game?

Your views please.

Looking back on the last 21 years of the Premier League, the number of red cards issued has been generally fairly steady at around 61 per season...

All-Time Premier League Clubs Discipline Tables from 1992-93 to 2012-13

 

[PowerSpurs]

I know a lower league ref and they have a regular dialogue with their assessors and other refs. They meet up to go through stuff like this every so often, too.
He explained how they're supposed to evaluate these decisions to me in the past and there was a clear distinction between reckless and dangerous, but I can't remember exactly what it was. Sorry.
I think that the Laws of the Game are kept as brief as possible, so that it's easy for anyone to learn them all, but there probably should be a more detailed version available.

I can't imagine how a clear distinction between reckless and dangerous would involve deeming yesterday's foul to be dangerous. It was clearly reckless but given that the ball was bouncing and both players had their feet high it was very unlikely to injure Cazorla.

People also keep going on about it being 'late'. In a hypothetical situation where Ade was about 0.1s earlier in his challenge and got the ball away only to be kicked in the ankle by Cazorla, would Cazorla have had to be sent off for a high late tackle with studs showing? Obviously not.

What actually happened was that Ade tackled recklessly and mistimed it but it wasn't excessive force or dangerous so it was a yellow for me. But most people don't agree so they must be working on a different interpretation of what the words mean. If the refs have this it would be great for them to share it.

 

[BajanSpur]

Referees consistency or inconsistency is a major issue these days.

Consistant adjudication is sadly lacking,. to the detriment of the modern game. We have referees at premiership games that would have seen Ade tackle yesterday for what it was (a missed timed, clumsy tackle with no intent to maim or cause injury). Some referees would not have sent him off.

Consider Balotelli stamping on Parker,... if my memory serves,.. Balotelli got a 'yellow card' for an act that looked too violent to be shown on the best Kung-fu films, but was allowed to continue on the pitch.

There are grey areas included in the rule concerning tackling. These grey area are responsible in part for some of the inconsistencies we are currently experiencing in football and is one of the blights of the modern game.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Balotelli was already on a booking for a foul on Assou-Ekotto. He wasn't even booked for the stamp, which is why he could still receive a ban later on.
Lescott received neither a red, nor a ban, for some reason.

 

[Spurf]

I've edited it to add a bit extra but essentially if a player is commiting dangerous fouls he has to be taken off the pitch.

Put the shoe on the other foot though, when Liverpool had 2 players sent off against us did you think the rules were unfair?

Since posting my reply on the Liverpool point you made (in fact very soon after) I realise I probably missed the point you were making. Liverpool that day were very aggressive as a team and it would be difficult to justify my suggestion of letting a team in that vain bring on subs.

The value of debates on not606 is seen here for me because others points have clarified to me that my original suggestion is not viable in it;s present form.

I think Lukes point about the last man foul is worth looking at because a Goalkeeper is penalised for what he is there for ie stopping the ball. Mistiming it, which in such a situation is easy to do, should not be treated in such a game changing way. Mistimed tackles often depend on who gets hit as to who gets carded and that is often a lottery.

I don't know about my original idea now, to be honest but it's an area that needs further examination IMO because at the moment it has too much influence on the game.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

Balotelli was already on a booking for a foul on Assou-Ekotto. He wasn't even booked for the stamp, which is why he could still receive a ban later on.
Lescott received neither a red, nor a ban, for some reason.

The Lescott one was the most blatant and ridiculous decision but I believe Webb said in his match report that he saw it at the time and didn't think any further action was needed having seen replays. That's the level of competence we're dealing with when talking about Webb.

Balotelli's could at least be argued that you couldn't be certain he meant it but Lescott knew exactly where Kaboul was before he threw out an elbow for no reason. At best he was just guilty of not wanting to admit he made 2 huge errors in a big game, at worst he's a cheat making decisions designed to influence matches to get Lawro more points for his weekend predictions.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

Since posting my reply on the Liverpool point you made (in fact very soon after) I realise I probably missed the point you were making. Liverpool that day were very aggressive as a team and it would be difficult to justify my suggestion of letting a team in that vain bring on subs.

The value of debates on not606 is seen here for me because others points have clarified to me that my original suggestion is not viable in it;s present form.

I think Lukes point about the last man foul is worth looking at because a Goalkeeper is penalised for what he is there for ie stopping the ball. Mistiming it, which in such a situation is easy to do, should not be treated in such a game changing way. Mistimed tackles often depend on who gets hit as to who gets carded and that is often a lottery.

I don't know about my original idea now, to be honest but it's an area that needs further examination IMO because at the moment it has too much influence on the game.

It's difficult to accept early red cards, as I said but ultimately I don't think there's anyway around it.

 

[BringBackfootie]

With rule changes the modern game has a lot more sendings off than used to be case. I can see the reasons, the modern game is much faster the equipment much lighter and therefore the potential for players injuring one another has probably increased.

My point is that these red cards change the game that is being played in a massive way. Often turning a close contest into a rout of the effected side. Should that be the case? Isn't the referee there to see fair play he is not there surely to change the outcome of the game.

I have an idea (which has not been thought right through) that if a red card is issued for a non malicious intent offence then the player should be punished not the club or the high fee paying customers who come to watch the game, not to mention the millions who subscribe to view on tv.

The idea is that the carded player is sent off but the club is allowed to replace him from the bench. Thus punishing the player without so drastically effecting the contest.

Would it work or would it just create new problems for the game?

Your views please.

Time for the sin bin.


Risking injury needs a hefty penalty otherwise it will keep happening, the punishment needs to be consistent. Huth.. RvP.. Nothing. Wayne Rooney Nothing, both were intentional challenges to hurt an opponent.

Shelvey Kompany Cole Ade. All challenges for the ball, 2 of those got the ball and 1 just tried to block a clearance.

See what I mean, the ones with 0 intent got red, those that had intended to cause harm got nothing.

A reckless challenge enough to really hurt a player should always be red. The 2 yellow problem is more of an issue for me, time for the sin bin as in hockey.

I think Ade's could have come under that, Spurs down to 10 men for 10 minutes. There are far more fouls you can commit in the modern game so we need punishments to be a bit more granular.

Things that can get you sent off for a 2nd yellow that shouldn't be getting you sent off
Minor 2nd fouls
Kicking the ball away
Shirt over your head.
General time wasting
Cumulative fouls

All of these could be either another card or the sin bin, in the end us fans suffer when we play to see players, the rules should have that in mind, they changed the rules at the WC so we can see more stars come the final due to card wipes after certain stages.

 

[Spurf]

Warming to the idea of sin bins. They have the advantage of appealing to the media as well. It adds drama to the game when the player returns and hopefully teaches him a lesson on the spot.

 

[BajanSpur]

This could work:-

a) Sin-Bin for increments of 10 mins, for the second bookable offence, during the first half of games.

b) Send off for the second bookable offence during the second half.

c) If a player acquires a 1 yellow card during the first half., it is carried forward to the second half in the same way as the current rule.

d) If a player has 'done time' in the Sin-Bin and returns to foul again, he should be asked to leave the premises, with immediate effect and should be escorted to da nearest exit., where his belongings can be retrieved from the official stawards. Such player should not be invited back to play for three weeks and barred from watching the rest of the game in his local.

 

[BajanSpur]

That should do it..

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

The Lescott one was the most blatant and ridiculous decision but I believe Webb said in his match report that he saw it at the time and didn't think any further action was needed having seen replays. That's the level of competence we're dealing with when talking about Webb.

The whole idea of a referee reviewing his own mistakes is just ludicrous.
"Did you make a massive, result changing mistake or two in that game, Mr Webb?"
"Er... no?"

 

[No Kane No Gain]

This could work:-

a) Sin-Bin for increments of 10 mins, for the second bookable offence, during the first half of games.

b) Send off for the second bookable offence during the second half.

c) If a player acquires a 1 yellow card during the first half., it is carried forward to the second half in the same way as the current rule.

d) If a player has 'done time' in the Sin-Bin and returns to foul again, he should be asked to leave the premises, with immediate effect and should be escorted to da nearest exit., where his belongings can be retrieved from the official stawards. Such player should not be invited back to play for three weeks and barred from watching the rest of the game in his local.

It's a good idea, personally I'm against making such a major change in the rules even if I do agree they could improve some games. Tinkering with the interpretations of rules is one thing but this would be quite a huge change to the rules that have been established for a long time now.

The whole idea of a referee reviewing his own mistakes is just ludicrous.
"Did you make a massive, result changing mistake or two in that game, Mr Webb?"
"Er... no?"

It is but it's all that we can expect from the FA. They're afraid of looking like they're undermining the ref by overturning decisions even though they already do with appeals but instead they'd rather let the refs have to undermine themselves in their match report by either admitting mistakes or refusing to admit to big errors.

 

[BajanSpur]

Regarding rule chance(s) YV.,
Section (d) of my above post was not ment to be taken seriously ., I was trying to inject a bit of humour into the serious situation and to bring myself out of the disappointment and depression resulting from Saturdays game.. sorry,
I must try harder obviously.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

Regarding rule chance(s) YV.,
Section (d) of my above post was not ment to be taken seriously ., I was trying to inject a bit of humour into the serious situation and to bring myself out of the disappointment and depression resulting from Saturdays game.. sorry,
I must try harder obviously.

Oh I know, I just meant that the introduction of sinbins inplace of sending offs is a big change in the rules.

 

[Spurf]

Oh I know, I just meant that the introduction of sinbins inplace of sending offs is a big change in the rules.

They change the offside rule on a regular basis and many rule changes have been brought in during the last 30 years or so.

You know the ones that have increased diving and cheating.

 

[Spurs61]

Video referee should be brought in for penalties, goals and straight red cards. All are game and sometimes season changing and if we had to sit for an extra 5 minutes at each match but knew the decisions had been reviewed and were correct would that be so bad?

 

[Spurf]

Video referee should be brought in for penalties, goals and straight red cards. All are game and sometimes season changing and if we had to sit for an extra 5 minutes at each match but knew the decisions had been reviewed and were correct would that be so bad?

I would hate to see that 61. Goal line technology yes, but a no from me for the rest.