Funny how the increase in this kind of incident has a direct correlation with the systematic removal of tackling from the game. Is frustration being vented spitefully instead of in committed tackles?
Good point!
Funny how the increase in this kind of incident has a direct correlation with the systematic removal of tackling from the game. Is frustration being vented spitefully instead of in committed tackles?
Funny how the increase in this kind of incident has a direct correlation with the systematic removal of tackling from the game. Is frustration being vented spitefully instead of in committed tackles?
Presumably you are referring to the fact that a proper robust tackle that gets the ball often ends up in a card? Totally agree. I do not want to return to the old days of Chopper Harris and Norman 'bites yer legs' Hunter, but great tackling a la Booby Moore at his best was one of the great skills of the game.
Funny how the increase in this kind of incident has a direct correlation with the systematic removal of tackling from the game. Is frustration being vented spitefully instead of in committed tackles?
I think that the biggest problem regarding effective sanctions is the process defined by the FA for imposing them. It is hideously outdated and frequently made an absolute mockery of. For example, if a referee "sees" something, no further sanction can be applied at a later date. So, last year (I think) Wayne Rooney clearly and maliciously elbows McCarthy from Wigan in the face. This would have constituted at least a four match ban for violent conduct with intent. However, because the referee "saw" it and thought that it was a coming together due to his poor viewing angle, nothing is done to Rooney despite a worldwide audience of millions seeing it clearly. There is absolutely no shame whatsoever for a referee to miss something in a match yet the FA's process is aimed more at protecting the absolute authority of a referee than for improving the game. This is wrong and simply adds to unnecessary criticism of referees who, if they were allowed to just come out say what they saw straight away, would add to the experience of a match. How many sports actually have the referees miked up these days? It's a farce that process gets in the way of progress in the world's biggest sport but that's what happens when dinosaurs run something.
This could easily be remedied by using the system used in Rugby Union of citing, where players can be disciplined retrospectively on the strength of video evidence. That would have taken care of the Rooney issue, and it would make sense if the blanket "3 match ban for a straight red unless it's intentionional, in which case it's 4 matches" rule was dumped completely in favour of sentencing after the event. An FA panel could review footage of every sending-off (for straight red cards) from each round of matches and decide on the length of the ban. In some cases players might even be reprieved if the evidence showed they weren't guilty, without the need for an appeal panel to be set up.
Never heard of this 4 match ban if it's intentional before, surely by it's very nature a red card offence has to be intentional?
Agree with you regarding citing though, works well in rugby and it's the fairest way to do it.
There is no such thing as a four game ban if it's intentional, but you can get extra game bans for aggravating factors/further misconduct (more than one strike, failing to leave the field of play etc). If Balotelli got sent off it would have been his second red card of the season, which means an additional one game ban = four games (Kompany got this as well).