Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Red cards and penalties

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.
«1

Comments

  • I disagree. A suspension for a red card is fair.
    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.
  • edited February 2014
    I think the card colour should be determined by the outcome of the penalty. Unless of course, the tackle is worthy of a sending off in its own right. I think this is the fairest option, although it could cause some strange developments - teams letting in the penalty or missing the penalty on purpose. But hey ho - the outcome overall would be fairer.

    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 think the ruling is flawed especially re keepers. A lot of the time they just miss the ball by a fingertip.
    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.
  • @chizz a problem with your argument it's you say a penalty is a goalscoring opportunity so the attacking team doesn't lose out due to the foul but then you include the penalty in your triple punishment. If a goalscoring opportunity existed pre foul and a penalty is the same as a goal scoring opportunity then the penalty isn't a punishment, it's just restoring the equilibrium. I think that makes sense

    Personally I think the use of sin bins could be the answer if it's done properly
  • I disagree. A suspension for a red card is fair.
    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.

    I think the Arsenal keeper was going for the ball. Its not always as black and white as that. Should be a case by case basis instead of everyone gets a red regardless.
  • Chizz said:

    I don't think players should be shown straight red cards for precenting 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.

    I agre with this. It's double punishment in my opinion.

    Yellow inside, red outside. Simples.
  • edited February 2014
    Chizz said:

    I don't think players should be shown straight red cards for precenting 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.

    They can already deal with this under the existing law: an obvious goalscoring opportunity hasn't been prevented if a penalty - which is the very epitome of one - is awarded.

    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.
  • When the Arsenal goalkeeper was sent off yesterday, my wife pointed out that Charlton would be at a huge disadvantage playing without a goalkeeper. I am waiting for her to ask me to explain the Offside Law. Bless her!
  • I agree with OP, if a penalty is given and the player who conceded it was going for the ball it should not be a double punishment, spoils the games.

    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 disagree. A suspension for a red card is fair.
    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.

    I don't think it would lead to more deliberate fouling in the area. Do you really think teams will give away penalty after penalty on the chance that the opposition will miss it, just because they are less likely to get a red card for it?
  • Sponsored links:


  • I think it was much more fun before substitute keepers when out-fielders had to go in goal.
  • I think it was much more fun before substitute keepers when out-fielders had to go in goal.

    OK, now this is one of my real bugbears. Why, oh why, oh why do they take all the fun out of it by allowing a "proper" goalie to go in goal to replace a sent-off one? They need to introduce a new law that says the only player for that a goalkeeper can replace is the original goalkeeper.

  • I would like it left to the referees discretion. In principle a penalty and a yellow card should surfice, but if the attacking player is going round the keeper and would have put the ball into an empty net, a penalty is not as easy to convert as a tap into an undefended goal and a red card should result.
  • I have been advocating, ever since the 'law' came to pass that a red card for the described offence is far too harsh .. I don't care about the morals, justice, fairness etc etc of the situation, professional football is played for the enjoyment of SPECTATORS, either in the stadia or the millions more watching on TV ... for the vast majority of the spectators, those who pay the money, games are ruined through the over enthusiastic brandishing of red cards/dismissal of players ... Equally more leniency should apply right through from Hackney Marsh leagues to Europa League games.
    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.
  • I think it's done to prevent defenders deliberately hauling down players who are through on goal, on the basis that they turn an almost certain goal into a penalty, which puts a lot of the pressure back on the attacker and they may miss. I think without the DOGSO rule we would see a lot more of this. Slightly different situation, but think back to Suarez with his deliberate handball in the World Cup - he knew he would get sent off but the stakes were higher than your average match and ultimately it paid off. I think if the default punishment was a yellow, we would see a lot more deliberate contact/handballs to prevent goals.

    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.
  • I don't understand why football doesn't learn from rugby.

    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.
  • I don't understand why football doesn't learn from rugby.

    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.

    1. This is a bad idea. Fans want to see goals, not just see another one notched up on the scoreboard. It works as the ultimate team punishment in rugby, but often the fans can't see whether a try's been scored anyway.

    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'm not a fan of the card system as it stands and I imagine if football was to be invented in this day & age, we wouldn't have the card system as it stands. In rugby and other similar sports, yellows and reds are only given for dangerous play, bad behaviour and repeated infringement of the laws of the game. I'd like to see a system where fouls only result in cards if the tackle wasn't safe, for example, boot above shin height or studs up, or where there the intention was to stop the player rather than win the ball (for example when an attacker is one-on-one or is skinning a defender to go one-on-one). Of course without video replays it would be hard for refs to decide what is dangerous and what isn't in the heat of the moment, but that is an issue we already have.

    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.
  • edited February 2014
    Chizz said:



    1. This is a bad idea. Fans want to see goals, not just see another one notched up on the scoreboard. It works as the ultimate team punishment in rugby, but often the fans can't see whether a try's been scored anyway.

    I agree that fans want to see goals, Chizz, but as a neutral I really enjoyed the first 35 minutes of the Arsenal game last night. After that, it was uninteresting. It would been much better for the fans, in my view, if a penalty goal had been awarded and we could have got on with the game.

    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.
  • Chizz said:



    1. This is a bad idea. Fans want to see goals, not just see another one notched up on the scoreboard. It works as the ultimate team punishment in rugby, but often the fans can't see whether a try's been scored anyway.

    I agree that fans want to see goals, Chizz, but as a neutral I really enjoyed the first 35 minutes of the Arsenal game last night. After that, it was uninteresting. It would been much better for the fans, in my view, if a penalty goal had been awarded and we could have got on with the game.

    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.
    This is a very good point.

    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).
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited February 2014
    I am gradually coming to the conclusion that for the 'preventing goal scoring' offence, there should be no red card but instead, a ban on the offender for (say) the following three or even four games in the same competition after the offence. This prevents games being ruined and punishes both the miscreant and the club.
  • edited February 2014
    Did we not used to see a lot more players deliberately handball on the goal line before it became a red card offence? If you only concede a penalty and the player receives a yellow card I'm not sure in that instance the punishment fits the crime.
  • I am gradually coming to the conclusion that for the 'preventing goal scoring' offence, there should be no red card but instead, a ban on the offender for (say) the following three or even four games in the same competition after the offence. This prevents games being ruined and punishes both the miscreant and the club.

    What's to stop a retiring player spending the the entirety of their last game hacking down strikers?

  • rina said:

    I am gradually coming to the conclusion that for the 'preventing goal scoring' offence, there should be no red card but instead, a ban on the offender for (say) the following three or even four games in the same competition after the offence. This prevents games being ruined and punishes both the miscreant and the club.

    What's to stop a retiring player spending the the entirety of their last game hacking down strikers?

    that's a good point. Because we need to stamp down on that sort of thing. Too many people have tried it in the past. Zinedene, for one. And, er... Zidane. And, er...
  • edited February 2014

    Did we not used to see a lot more players deliberately handball on the goal line before it became a red card offence? If you only concede a penalty and the player receives a yellow card I'm not sure in that instance the punishment fits the crime.

    That's why I advocate a penalty goal. Handling would be a waste of time unless the player thought he could do it without the ref seeing.
  • rina said:

    I am gradually coming to the conclusion that for the 'preventing goal scoring' offence, there should be no red card but instead, a ban on the offender for (say) the following three or even four games in the same competition after the offence. This prevents games being ruined and punishes both the miscreant and the club.

    What's to stop a retiring player spending the the entirety of their last game hacking down strikers?

    2 yellow cards and a sending off .. a future ban does not mean that the player has carte blanche (white card .. get it) to do what he likes for the rest of the game .. I should have mentioned, no RED but a YELLOW for the preventing etc etc offence
  • Did we not used to see a lot more players deliberately handball on the goal line before it became a red card offence? If you only concede a penalty and the player receives a yellow card I'm not sure in that instance the punishment fits the crime.

    That's why I advocate a penalty goal. Handling would be a waste of time unless the player thought he could do it without the ref seeing.
    So, how about this...

    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.
  • edited February 2014
    Chizz said:

    Did we not used to see a lot more players deliberately handball on the goal line before it became a red card offence? If you only concede a penalty and the player receives a yellow card I'm not sure in that instance the punishment fits the crime.

    That's why I advocate a penalty goal. Handling would be a waste of time unless the player thought he could do it without the ref seeing.
    So, how about this...

    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.
    A very tidy solution, Chizz. What about if the manager decides to play his joker though? ;-)
  • Chizz said:

    Did we not used to see a lot more players deliberately handball on the goal line before it became a red card offence? If you only concede a penalty and the player receives a yellow card I'm not sure in that instance the punishment fits the crime.

    That's why I advocate a penalty goal. Handling would be a waste of time unless the player thought he could do it without the ref seeing.
    So, how about this...

    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.
    A very tidy solution, Chizz. What about if the manager decides to play his joker though? ;-)
    Away goals count double in the event of a no-score draw. Think that just about covers everything.
  • rina said:

    I am gradually coming to the conclusion that for the 'preventing goal scoring' offence, there should be no red card but instead, a ban on the offender for (say) the following three or even four games in the same competition after the offence. This prevents games being ruined and punishes both the miscreant and the club.

    What's to stop a retiring player spending the the entirety of their last game hacking down strikers?

    2 yellow cards and a sending off .. a future ban does not mean that the player has carte blanche (white card .. get it) to do what he likes for the rest of the game .. I should have mentioned, no RED but a YELLOW for the preventing etc etc offence
    Ah, ok. I thought you were advocating no cards at all, just future bans
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!