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.
Good post Luke and plenty to consider. Just on your first point it means 10% of games are changed by refs. decisions. I think that's too high, bearing in mind my contention that refs are there to see FAIR play and not to change the nature of the game. I'll come back on some of your other points later, they need more thought/
Red cards in the first half usually ruin games, particularly as early as it came for us. I don't think it's wrong though so the only obvious answer to me is leave as is. My problem is that when refs get it so badly wrong becuase they think anything where they see two feet go in or legs off the ground at any part of the challenge is dangerous and a straight red. Look at Huddlestone's that got rescinded because that had two feet in it although he had every right to go for the ball and Dawson had both legs off the floor at the start of that excellent challenge on Walcott yesterday. I think that it should be remembered when refs are issuing reds that it's easy for them to admit they missed a red card after the game and the player still gets punished being awarded a ban but rescinding a wrongful red card doesn't unpunish the side that's chance in a game the refs ruined. I guess that's where you could change the rules, the ref forces the player who should be sent off to be subbed(thereby can't commit anymore dangerous challenges) and the FA decide his punishment after the game. That way the effect on the team if they're wrong is lessened and even if they're right the players still get their punishment. I still say it's fine as it is though, these things happen and we move on.
I don't agree that the red carded player should be replaced. Otherwise there's no punishment for the offence, it's akin to a substitution. I do think that early red cards can change the course of a game, but then that's the responsibility of the players to ensure that they don't disadvantage their team by being sent off. Adebayor had only himself to blame for getting sent off yesterday.
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?
Yes I did especially in that game from a Spurs point of view because it looked as though we only won because of the sendings off which wasn't IMO the case. It spoils the game YV, any game, it spoils the contest which is what spectators come to see.
The player who committed the offence is still punished PISKIE AND at the moment the club and the public.
Adebayor was going for the ball not the player so his offence cannot be considered serious foul play and therefore is unsporting behaviour Unfortunately Webb is a pathetic ref If that decision had gone against Arsenal Wenger and their fans would quite rightly be protesting
Adebayor deserved a red...it was a bad tackle...not deliberate but was dangerous. I liked that AVB didn't do a Wenger and pretend not to see it or pretend it was ok. If arsenal fans/players/managers complained after a player of theirs was sent off in the same circumstances I'd laugh at them.
Wake up. Criteria. Foot off the ground, studs showing, out of control lunge. All met. No he didn't cripple the player. BUT.. If the player was quick enough to put himself in harms way when that tackle was made. The required injury you seem to require would be serious indeed. Ade made a tackle knowing full well that he may get red if it was not a successful tackle or worse, if he caught the player. Also. AVB would make it his business to make the players understand Webb does not need much to send a player off re nasty looking tackles To Webb, he saw Ade launch himself studs showing off the ground and caught the player. It looked terrible at first, replays don't count. A little irony, he allows karate kicks in WC finals
I'm not entirely convinced that Webb made that decision himself, but I can't argue with it being a red. Gary Neville had it spot on when he said that the player was too worked up and lost his head. A momentary balls up, but a very costly one. Europa League for him for a while, unfortunately. The problem with reducing the punishment for red card offences is that it would encourage players to commit more of them. That would be more detrimental to the game overall, in my opinion.
Totally agree. Mahmoud - Adebayor's tackle was a red. It was late, he jumped into it with studs up, it was high, dangerous and reckless [video]http://www.youtube.com/v/CCP_0wI4yuM&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1[/video]
So a player gets sent off and he has to be replaced by a sub, then massively fined and banned? I like it.
I think the idea of a sin bin could be good. Two yellows and you have to spend twenty minutes in the sin bin. I still think refs need the authority to send players off for reckless and dangerous tackles though.
The problem is that this isn't what the Laws of the Game say: '“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. • A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. • A player who uses excessive force must be sent off' Personally I think that the difference between the two offences as defined above is unclear so very open to interpretation which is why there is so much inconsistency. Since an early red card often decides the result of a game, this is at best an unsatisfactory state of affairs. If an Arsenal player had committed the same offence in the 85th minute the red card would have had little impact. There seem to be two issues to me: defining the rules better so that there is more consistency and making sure the punishment is independent of the time when the offence took place. The second one is very difficult: perhaps 10 minutes off the field for a yellow and ten minutes off the field plus a goal for a red?
Refs have the difference defined to them in more detail PS, but the Laws probably could do with a little bit more of an explanation. The sin bin idea could be useful, but I'd bring it in for other things. They could wipe out things like the indiscipline that we see towards match official almost instantly if it resulted in a sin binning. The same could apply for dives in the box, if it was implemented correctly. A yellow card just isn't enough of a punishment at the moment, for me. It's worth the risk, in purely logical terms.
Unfortunately it would lead to another problem in the event that the fouled player was badly injured and all substitutes had been used. This would then give the offending team an advantage.
Really - where? The bit I quoted was from the interpretation section of the laws. Clearly most fans and journalists/pundits don't know the difference since I've seen at least five quotes along the lines that the tackle was reckless and so it was a clear red card.
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.
