I don't think players should be shown straight red cards for preventing a clear goalscoring opportunity when they concede penalties.
If a defender or goalkeeper fouls an attacker in the penalty area, he's likely to be sent off, if the referee determines that the foul prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity. But surely a penalty is a clear goalscoring opportunity!
In my view, a penalty and a yellow card is enough; or a red card and direct free kick if it's outside the area.
The triple punishment (penalty, red card, suspension) is too severe.
3
Comments
Then what if someone is just about to score, a defender hacks him down and gets a yellow, then the penalty is missed. The defending team take the advantage. It would then lead to more deliberate fouling in the area, not too dissimilar to cheating.
The big problem yesterday was that the keeper has to rush out and Robben's skill more than the keeper's intent caused him to go into him rather than the ball IMO. So whilst it was a penalty every day and a sending off by thecurrent rules, it was definitely harsh. There was another incident yesterday when Arsenal's young striker was booked going for a ball that he would be dropped if he didn't go for. Refs really need to undertsand the game.
I would like the referees to be allowed to use their discretion. If they think the foul is deliberate the red card is an option, if undone by a great piece of skill they can keep the red card in the pocket and use the yellow.
Personally I think the use of sin bins could be the answer if it's done properly
Yellow inside, red outside. Simples.
The law is there to stop situations such as Willie Young on Paul Allen in the 1980 FA Cup final, where Allen was clean through and Young, with no chance of catching him, tripped him just outside the area. An injustice that the law rights by sending the player in question off. Although it might also be righted by awarding a penalty, of course.
Szczesny was making a fair attempt at a ball he was entitled to go for (and I think it's up for question as to whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity as well). I don't think the two things are comparable at all.
It's not a triple-whammy really though, because a suspension always follows a red card and no-one would think that was a double-whammy normally.
I don't agree that it is unfair if the opposing team then misses the penalty as they may have missed the goal scoring chance anyway.
I regularly see examples of serious foul play which either go unpunished (the officials can't be expected to see everything) or by the penalty of a yellow card.
Second yellow card offences are all too often ignored by referees presumably in an attempt not to spoil the game by reducing one team to 10 men. The same objectivity should apply to 'denying goal scoring opportunity' offences.
In theory, it sounds good to differentiate between such deliberate fouls and players being 'outskilled', but in reality it's very difficult for a referee to judge intent, so it's easier all round to have one clear rule that everyone can understand.
Similarly, whilst waiting for the outcome of the penalty sounds tempting, it again puts defenders into a position where arguably they are better off making the foul than allowing the goal.
1) Penalty goals rather than red cards (unless it is seriously foul play)
2) Move a free kick forward 10 yards if players argue
3) Use of video technology where it is borderline
If Bayern had been given a penalty goal, it would have been fair. I don't think the 'keeper had any malicious intent, he was just doing his best to stop a goal in a fair way. Had he got there 0.25 seconds quicker, Robben may have got sent off for kicking him in the chest with his high foot.
2. This is a very, very good idea. In fact it was introduced a few years ago, in football. I am not sure what happened to that law/rule/policy - did it lapse?
3. This makes no sense whatever. Here's an example: the forward is heading towards goal and collides with a defender, inside the penalty area. They both hit the floor. The ball dribbles forward to the goalkeeper, who picks it up and boots it upfield, where the same happens. The opposing 'keeper boots it forward, and so on... The ball has been in play all the time. No break in play. At what stage does the ref say "let's stop the game for a bit and review one of those borderline decisions". And which one does he choose? Or do they review them all? And, if on review the "TV Ref" decides that no fouls have been committed, how do they resume play? And where?
The reason video technology (specifically, a human reviewing the slow-mo pictures) works in rugby (and cricket and elsewhere) is that it only takes place where there is already a break in play.
I do not want to see video refs brought in unless it is to adjudicate whether a player was reckless in a tackle where play has already stopped for a fouled player to receive treatment. This would have the dual-advantage of identifying divers and theatrics as well as confirming whether a foul was committed and if it deserves a card. Video refs would be bad in most other circumstances because the football would suffer if play is delayed for too long.
However, I would accept video refs as a compromise if reffing gets any worse than it is now. Far too many errors are being made at every level of the game and there needs to be a major improvement in the standard of reffing.
The reality is that a red card for a goalkeeper in the first minutes of a game is deemed 90 times more serious (if you follow my arithmetic) than the same offence in the last second. This doesn't make sense when the goalkeeper concerned was just doing his job and had no malicious intent.
And I think you'll agree that it backs up my point. (Even though I have actually and conveniently forgotten what my point was in the first place).
If the player handballs it, the ref gives a penalty goal and the player gets a yellow card, stays on the pitch, but gets a three match ban. And if the ref doesn't see it, play continues, but the ref gets a three match ban.