are touchline bans the most pointless punishments in football? from the bbc live feed just now - "Newcastle boss Alan Pardew celebrates his side's win with a fist pump before disappearing into the stands... that is where he has been watching from as he serves his touchline ban, racking up one heck of a phone bill while he made constant calls to his assistant Steve Stone in the dug-out." now this is in no way a pop at partridge, or our friends up the road, and i don't want to get into debating pardew's vicious assault on an official, but what is the point of these bans? the manager is in the stands, but he can pass information to his assistant, and get information back, arguably he has a better seat than normal! the rules around this seem vague, i recall mourinho almost getting in trouble a few years ago for passing information to his dugout, but enforcing a ban on this would be impossible, as well as a complete farce... are you technically allowed to pass information to your team? also, presumably the banned manager can go into the dressing room before kick off and at half time? i don't know what other sanction you would impose on a manager for any misdemeanour, but these seem utterly pointless...
I've just watched it live over here and every time the camera went to pardew in the stand, he was on the phone then it would go to stone in the dugout on the phone so the ban IS pointless IMO.
Fat Sam used to sit in the stands deliberately to get a better vantage point. Touch line bans are pointless unless communication is banned also.
It deserved and should have been a points deduction..That is the only way to stop people who are supposed to be setting an example from committing acts of violence against match officials.
Fat Sam had a point IMO. After all, Arsene Wenger never sees anything from the dugout. It's communication that's important, not where you sit.
