Interesting and Intlligent Suggestion from John Giles on Red Cards.

Hyzepher

The issue i have with it all is that the rule was brought into effect to deal with fouls that deny a goal scoring opportunity. Surely a penalty reinstates this goal scoring opportunity - most of the time providing a better opportunity than what was denied.

Sure enough fouls outside the box need a tougher outcome than just a free kick and a yellow but penalties are hugely set up to provide goals.

If the player can't score from the penalty then maybe the initial foul wasn't denying such a goal scoring opportunity than was first thought.

Penalty and red card is just too harsh for one foul.

dfx-

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The ice cold fear of change is alive and well amongst football fans I see.

As alive as the ice cool resilience against pointless change.

Just say no..

GBXI

geeky wrote: »

FFS. The idea of the red card in these circumstances is to discourage cynical foul play, and you know what? It largely works.

Applying these needlessly complicated conditional consequences misses the point. The red card is a deterrent against the kind of carry-on that would otherwise ruin the game. What happens after the foul doesn't change the fact that a foul took place to deny a goalscoring opportunity.

Look at it this way - when Suarez pulled off his goal line save against Ghana, was their any justification for keeping him on the pitch? Not in my view. But under Giles' plan, he'd have stayed on if Ghana had scored the penalty. Would that have made his actions any less cynical, or worthy of a red card? Of course not.

Sure, Czesny probably didn't mean to clock Robben the other night, but he did - and if he can't learn how to claim the ball from an onrushing forward without fouling him, then he shouldn't be doing it. Czesny's tackle may not have been cynical, but it was bloody stupid and reckless.

You're missing the point, in my opinion.

The reason there is a debate here is because the current rules are overly harsh on the defending team. For the Messi incident, a penalty kick and yellow card is enough of a reward for the foul that was committed. Sending the defender off is ridiculous. It was a genuine attempt to get the ball, if it was cynical he would have fouled him outside the box, where it is very unlikely that a goal will be scored from the free - in this instance a red card is warranted.

The Arsenal incident is just plain bad referring (don't get me started on Champions League refs). It's debatable as to whether it is even a penalty - Robben takes such a dive from minimal contact. Even if we decide there was enough contact to warrant a penalty, it's still not a red card for the keeper. Again, a pen and yellow card to the keeper is perfect punishment.

What your doing by handing out the red cards is encouraging diving and attackers trying to get players sent off when they don't deserve it - like the Robben incident. It's simple enough, inside the box - pen and yellow. Outside the box - free and red (assuming it's a clear goal-scoring opportunity).

adox

Kirby wrote: »

Your point is a good one in theory, but think about it in practice. Think hard about it. How many times do you see a keeper absolutely clatter somebody to take them out? It's rare.

I'm not talking about a bouncing ball where they fly into each other. That's just a collision. I'm talking about a striker clean through and the keeper just takes him ala Demichelis did. It so rarely happens.

What actually happens the vast majority of the time is the keeper comes charging out, tries to catch the ball, the striker knocks it towards the corner flag and "makes sure" the keeper catches him. I'm being generous with the "makes sure" vernacular there by the way. We all know its a dive.

The keeper isn't trying to take him out. It's not a professional foul so in my view, it doesn't deserve a red. Keepers don't hatchet players to take one for the team like outfielders do most of the time.

Before the rule was brought in, I`d argue it was a common occurrence for a keeper to bring a player down if he could, when one on one.

I dont think its a huge leap to believe that they would revert back to it if the punishment was only yellow. In fact I`d argue that it would be both demanded and expected of them in the game.

The professional foul was a blight on the game years ago and I`d hate to see it returning to the way it was in any shape or form.

DoctorGonzo08

Kirby wrote: »

I'm not talking about a bouncing ball where they fly into each other. That's just a collision. I'm talking about a striker clean through and the keeper just takes him ala Demichelis did. It so rarely happens.

I must be missing something here. When did Demichelis tackle turn into a hatchet job? It was a silly tackle, and Messi had as much chance of staying on his feet as Robben did. Both were prevented a goalscoring oppurtunity, both were given a red card. I don't see any problem with that. If anything it is more of a chance when it is the keeper taking the foul, as a defender still leaves the keeper to beat, not an empty goal!

Kirby

adox wrote: »

Before the rule was brought in, I`d argue it was a common occurrence for a keeper to bring a player down if he could, when one on one.

I dont think its a huge leap to believe that they would revert back to it if the punishment was only yellow. In fact I`d argue that it would be both demanded and expected of them in the game.

The professional foul was a blight on the game years ago and I`d hate to see it returning to the way it was in any shape or form.

I'm all for a keeper being sent off for a professional foul. I agree. Absolutely. I'm not for giving Keepers Carte Blanche.Intending to bring a player down with no intent to play the ball.

To be frank though, that's rare. Chesney one Robben certainly wasn't that. He's trying to get the ball. It's clumsy, a foul and should be a penalty. But a straight red for that? No chance.

Kirby

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I must be missing something here. When did Demichelis tackle turn into a hatchet job?

Hatchet job might be the wrong phrase. What I meant by it was cynical, professional foul. He knew he wasn't getting the ball, it was an attempt to take the player down. It deserved a red. We need to rule there to stop that happening 20 times a game.

Feck, double post. meant to edit the one above.

GBXI

adox wrote: »

Before the rule was brought in, I`d argue it was a common occurrence for a keeper to bring a player down if he could, when one on one.

I dont think its a huge leap to believe that they would revert back to it if the punishment was only yellow. In fact I`d argue that it would be both demanded and expected of them in the game.

The professional foul was a blight on the game years ago and I`d hate to see it returning to the way it was in any shape or form.

This definitely, would not happen. A penalty (as someone above said, most of the time is an easier chance than the initial play) plus a yellow for the keeper would not encourage keepers to take out the striker.

DoctorGonzo08

GBXI wrote: »

This definitely, would not happen. A penalty (as someone above said, most of the time is an easier chance than the initial play) plus a yellow for the keeper would not encourage keepers to take out the striker.

I think there is equal argument for and against this happening. I personally think it would give the keeper a clear chance to stop a striker in a one on one without attempting to go for the ball. He doesn't have to assault him to do this. You only have to look at how Barca take advantage of cynical fouling but do not get punished. It is in their best interest to stop play when exposed to counter attacks to regroup. They will do this around the centre of the field as quickly as possible and not recieve any card. (I don't want to get into a Barca in particular argument, only citing one particular case).

The point being is that teams already exploit any rules set down, the most prevailent being taking a dive by strikers. If you allow keepers a 'second chance' they will opt to take it as often as possible.

adox

GBXI wrote: »

This definitely, would not happen. A penalty (as someone above said, most of the time is an easier chance than the initial play) plus a yellow for the keeper would not encourage keepers to take out the striker.

A penalty with a keeper in goal is an easier chance than if you have rounded the keeper and have an open goal to aim at?

GBXI

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I think there is equal argument for and against this happening. I personally think it would give the keeper a clear chance to stop a striker in a one on one without attempting to go for the ball. He doesn't have to assault him to do this. You only have to look at how Barca take advantage of cynical fouling but do not get punished. It is in their best interest to stop play when exposed to counter attacks to regroup. They will do this around the centre of the field as quickly as possible and not recieve any card. (I don't want to get into a Barca in particular argument, only citing one particular case).

The point being is that teams already exploit any rules set down, the most prevailent being taking a dive by strikers. If you allow keepers a 'second chance' they will opt to take it as often as possible.

Yeah but you can't really compare the the cynical foul in mid-field to the keeper taking down a striker. The keeper's punishment is a yellow and a penalty to the attacker - believe he won't want to give this away.

GBXI

adox wrote: »

A penalty with a keeper in goal is an easier chance than if you have rounded the keeper and have an open goal to aim at?

It's rarely that simple though is it? How man times have you ever seen an attacker go round the keeper and then get fouled cynically by the keeper?

It's usually ****e like Robben (good run and touch in fairness) knocking the ball away from goal where it's still a tough chance to get the ball before it goes too wide, and finish under pressure from the defender on the line.

Kirby

adox wrote: »

A penalty with a keeper in goal is an easier chance than if you have rounded the keeper and have an open goal to aim at?

If you have rounded the keeper and have an open goal.....why are you going down than? Because you usually get the goal and the red card. That's why.

adox

GBXI wrote: »

It's rarely that simple though is it? How man times have you ever seen an attacker go round the keeper and then get fouled cynically by the keeper?

It's usually ****e like Robben (good run and touch in fairness) knocking the ball away from goal where it's still a tough chance to get the ball before it goes too wide, and finish under pressure from the defender on the line.

My point is that is there is a one on one and the keeper knows he wont be sent off, he will make sure the player doesnt get past him one way or the other and that will be expected of him.

DoctorGonzo08

GBXI wrote: »

Yeah but you can't really compare the the cynical foul in mid-field to the keeper taking down a striker. The keeper's punishment is a yellow and a penalty to the attacker - believe he won't want to give this away.

True, the two can't be compared, but I was just highlighting cynical fouls should be punished anywhere on the pitch. There seems to be far too much focus on 'in the box'. When in reality if it's a foul on the pitch, it is regardless of whether it's inside or outside the box. The result inside is a penalty, but shouldn't have different types of acceptable punishment because it is inside.

Corholio

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

True, the two can't be compared, but I was just highlighting cynical fouls should be punished anywhere on the pitch. There seems to be far too much focus on 'in the box'. When in reality if it's a foul on the pitch, it is regardless of whether it's inside or outside the box. The result inside is a penalty, but shouldn't have different types of acceptable punishment because it is inside.

Well it should really. A cynical foul in a goal scoring opportunity is different to one in the middle of the pitch. The thing about cards is along with being punishment they are also supposed to act as a deterrent.

DoctorGonzo08

Corholio wrote: »

Well it should really. A cynical foul in a goal scoring opportunity is different to one in the middle of the pitch. The thing about cards is along with being punishment they are also supposed to act as a deterrent.

Hence the red card for goalscoring oppurtunities, which I was agreeing on. I was highlighting the issue that should be looked at before changing the one that works. A cynical foul in the centre of the field different to them same foul just inside the box (when it isn't a goalscoring oppurtunity)? Yet the focus seems to be what happens in the box, not creating uniformity of what a foul actually is, and what card, or measure should be taken against the foul.

Corholio

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Hence the red card for goalscoring oppurtunities, which I was agreeing on. I was highlighting the issue that should be looked at before changing the one that works. A cynical foul in the centre of the field different to them same foul just inside the box (when it isn't a goalscoring oppurtunity)? Yet the focus seems to be what happens in the box, not creating uniformity of what a foul actually is, and what card, or measure should be taken against the foul.

Well yes, I agree with you on that then.

LeBash

CSF wrote: »

How is that interesting? I've never sat at home enthralled wondering whether Man City were going to make a substitution.

Its interesting if you like the tactical side of the game and not just step overs.

loyatemu

the Suarez handball cited earlier is a great example of how cynical players can be given the opportunity. He had a choice between letting the goal go in and guaranteeing the end of his (and Uruguay's) World Cup, as it was effectively the last kick of the game; or fouling and giving himself a chance of maybe playing in the Final. No choice really. Relax the red-card rule and there would undoubtedly be more cynical goal-preventing fouls.

The answer is to improve the decision making - some form of video challenge system for contention decisions, like in tennis.

CSF

LeBash wrote: »

Its interesting if you like the tactical side of the game and not just step overs.

Haha what? You think a sinbin would make for an interesting evolution of tactics just because it would lead to enforced substitutions? Riiiiiiiight.

Love the stepovers, me.

PhlegmyMoses

Turtyturd wrote: »

Robben chose to go down?

The rule doesn't need changing. And excluding goalkeepers from a red stacks the odds in his favour as he can take the player out and still have a 2nd to stop them scoring at the peno.

Award a goal. Leave the keeper on the pitch. It removes the problems with cynical play as there'd be no benefit for the keeper. Stops a game from being turned on its head because a striker is miliseconds quicker to the ball and the keeper is making a genuine challenge.

I don't have a problem with the current rule, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.

GBXI

Turtyturd wrote: »

Robben chose to go down?

The rule doesn't need changing. And excluding goalkeepers from a red stacks the odds in his favour as he can take the player out and still have a 2nd to stop them scoring at the peno.

The rule does need changing, that's the whole point. A penalty and a red card is too harsh of a decision. A penalty is often easier than the original opportunity (like in the Robben incident). The problem is most of these opportunities are not clear goal-scoring opportunities, but refs are so poor these days that they can't make any sort of a judgement call.

osarusan

I am one of those who thinks that a red card can be too harsh, and the rule could be changed.

Giles' suggestions could never work - as somebody suggested, we'd have situations where the keeper would not want to save penalties, or takers didn't want to score.

I don't really agree with arguments that the player's intention is relevant, as that doesn't mean much to the team denied a chance. The chance is gone either way, whether it was a mistimed tackle or a cynical foul.

Imo, the issue is whether the punishment fits the crime. It's not about what a player intended to do, it is a question of whether or not the opportunity denied the attacking team merits a certain punishment.

For me, any obvious goal-scoring opportunity denied by a foul outside the area should be punished by a red card, as the resulting free-kick isn't as a good a chance as the chance the foul denied them. But for fouls where penalties are given, I think that there are situations where the double-whammy of a red card also is too harsh.

The only thing I can think of is to come up with terminology to change (or add to) 'clear goal-scoring opportunity' or whatever the wording is. Perhaps something like 'denying an inevitable goal' being deemed a red-card offense, to cater for the Suarez handball situations or similar.

The argument that 'the players know the rules' is pretty empty by itself too. Players are always aware of the rules, but rules are changed if it is believed a change will improve the game. Offside rules, backpass rule, are examples of this.

DoctorGonzo08

Based on the variety of comments it looks like the alternate solutions are in line with that of Basketball or Rugby. Either use the Goaltending rule in basketball in which you just award the goal and award no card, or use a sinbin rule and award a penalty. Also mention of video reffing as well.

There is a valid argument for all 3 I suppose, but you are fundamentalily changing the style of the game. Video reffing for every decision, like in rugby would really make games boring imo as it would turn the game into a very stop/start event. Sinbin likewise wouldn't really discourage cynical play either as in both Arsenal and City's case they had to play an hour with 10 men, rather than both preventing goalscoring oppurtunities and only have to defend for 10mins instead only rewards the cynical foul. Goaltending might be a resonable alternative but I still think there should be a punishment based on the foul.

loyatemu

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Video reffing for every decision, like in rugby would really make games boring imo as it would turn the game into a very stop/start event.

give the managers 3 challenges like in tennis - if they're not happy with a decision they can appeal and the 4th official can have a look at it again (and you could restrict it to just penalties and cards, as they've already brought in technology to deal with "did the ball cross the line" incidents). Would take 30 seconds max.

SantryRed

loyatemu wrote: »

give the managers 3 challenges like in tennis - if they're not happy with a decision they can appeal and the 4th official can have a look at it again (and you could restrict it to just penalties and cards, as they've already brought in technology to deal with "did the ball cross the line" incidents). Would take 30 seconds max.

3 challenges is way too much.

jmayo

Panthro wrote: »

So, can the keeper not just run out and punch in the face whoever is bearing down on their goal, because he's exempt from a red then?!:D

Ahh the good old days ala schumacker.

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

... Video reffing for every decision, like in rugby would really make games boring imo as it would turn the game into a very stop/start event.

What rugby matches do you watch ?
There isn't video reffing for every decision just ones involving in goal area action or incidents leading up to a try where the ref asks for video ref/TMO, because they do not have clear view of it.

Idbatterim

why not allow teams a max of 2 appeals per match. Say 30 appeals per season max. If you wrongly appeal you lose .5 of an appeal. Teams are only going to appeal if you know that you are in the right or highly likely to be in the right, you would only use it for big decisions, i.e a potential game changer, a penalty or sending off etc. all this bull**** talk of it would interrupt the game, a few things! Firstly how long does it take to calm everything down when their is a contentious issue and often it will be the wrong decision anyway. Secondly it would be far more fair, isnt that what FIFA stand for FAIR PLAY?! It probably suits agendas though not having video technology play a part in the game :rolleyes:

Morzadec

A different solution (and I'm not really advocating it as I feel that it's probably fine as it is) would be something similar to the penalty try in rugby. Award a goal if the referee feels the attacker was denied an almost certain goal (i.e. he has an open goal), but just yellow the keeper if deemed not deliberate.

This would solve of the problem of goalkeepers/defenders reverting to professional fouls (subtle ones that don't appear deliberate) and taking their chances to save the spot kick.

For example, in my proposed theory, what would happen with the Szcenzy foul?

A goal would be awarded to Bayern, with no penalty taken. Szcezny would be awarded a yellow as just a normal foul where he was deemed neither reckless nor deliberately professional.

The Dimichelis one would be a bit different - the referee would have to make a judgement call about whether he deemed it deliberate/reckless or whether he thought he had a genuine chance of taking the ball.

This is maybe where these scenarios don't work (as outlined by Blatter in a previous post) - perhaps too many grey areas, too many subjective calls by a ref on players intentions.

It could however make the game more fair an outlaw 'unsporting' behaviour that a lot of pros who see winning by any means necessary as the name of the game will engage in without a seconds thought - for example under this system, Suarez's handball against Ghana would have been awarded as a goal.

No one would do that again as there would be nothing to gain.

And if anyone felt uncomfortable with a goal being awarded without a ball actually crossing the line, they could just do something similar to rugby, and take a penalty with no goalkeeper.

loyatemu

Morzadec wrote: »

A different solution (and I'm not really advocating it as I feel that it's probably fine as it is) would be something similar to the penalty try in rugby. Award a goal if the referee feels the attacker was denied an almost certain goal (i.e. he has an open goal), but just yellow the keeper if deemed not deliberate.

what, like when Ronny Rosenthal was through on goal? The only incident I can recall where a goal was 100% nailed-on and prevented by a foul is the Suarez/Ghana incident discussed above. Anything else is still just a goalscoring opportunity, players miss open goals all the time...

CSF

If people love rugby so much, I don't understand why they don't just watch more of it instead of trying to turn football into rugby. Only a matter of time before we're seeing threads advocating bringing the scrum into football.

jmayo

CSF wrote: »

If people love rugby so much, I don't understand why they don't just watch more of it instead of trying to turn football into rugby. Only a matter of time before we're seeing threads advocating bringing the scrum into football.

Hyperbole much.

There is nothing wrong with liking different sports and there is nothing wrong with learning somethings from other sports and taking some of the ideas from other sports to make the game better.
Where do you think rugby got the idea for yellow/red cards ?

If we were to adopt your attitude then goal line technology would never have been introduced since it would always belong in tennis.

BTW I don't think penalty goals would be a runner, just liek I don't think it is fair that a penalty is given when a player is brought down a few inches one side of a line whereas if they are brought down outside there is only a free kick.
There may be only matter of inches and the player through on goal ala Messi would probably have missed the exact same opportunity to score by being fouled.

CSF

jmayo wrote: »

Hyperbole much.

There is nothing wrong with liking different sports and there is nothing wrong with learning somethings from other sports and taking some of the ideas from other sports to make the game better.
Where do you think rugby got the idea for yellow/red cards ?

If we were to adopt your attitude then goal line technology would never have been introduced since it would always belong in tennis.

BTW I don't think penalty goals would be a runner, just liek I don't think it is fair that a penalty is given when a player is brought down a few inches one side of a line whereas if they are brought down outside there is only a free kick.
There may be only matter of inches and the player through on goal ala Messi would probably have missed the exact same opportunity to score by being fouled.

But like nearly every thread to do with anything like this, I wouldn't reference it if it was just this one thing, any time any football related discussion comes up, it is like rugby this, rugby that. If rugby is so much better, why not just watch rugby? Football seems to be doing pretty well and is very enjoyable to all but this small minority.

Do they spend so much time on the rugby forum calling for corner kicks and 2 legged KO matches?

DoctorGonzo08

What rugby matches do you watch ?
There isn't video reffing for every decision just ones involving in goal area action or incidents leading up to a try where the ref asks for video ref/TMO, because they do not have clear view of it.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't refering to every decision, just does in the penalty area. Which from any game I've seen in Rugby, the vast majority of decisions go to the video ref. While this works in Rugby, as it is a start/stop game, it would only take away from football where the emphasis on the ref is to keep the game fluid. In an ideal situation the idea of video ref may have it's place, but you can't liken two very different games.

Cienciano

CSF wrote: »

If people love rugby so much, I don't understand why they don't just watch more of it instead of trying to turn football into rugby. Only a matter of time before we're seeing threads advocating bringing the scrum into football.

Nothing wrong with looking at ways to improve football from looking at other sports.
I'd like to see the sin bin in soccer. And a ref mic too, with yellow cards (and sin bin) for abuse towards the ref. Yellow for diving being enforced too, too often the ref just doesn't give it.
The unwritten rule of kicking the ball out of play when an opposition player is injured is another that should be done away with. Just open to abuse from the opposition, players stay down injured to break up attacking play. If a player is injured, the ref can stop play. What was originally a form of good will has turned into another way of cheating the opposition.

DoctorGonzo08

Cienciano wrote: »

The unwritten rule of kicking the ball out of play when an opposition player is injured is another that should be done away with. Just open to abuse from the opposition, players stay down injured to break up attacking play. If a player is injured, the ref can stop play. What was originally a form of good will has turned into another way of cheating the opposition.

This rule has become very infrequent as of this year, due to some outrageous abuse of the rule. The ref will seldom indicate to stop play unless he believes it is a serious incident that needs attention.

Pepe LeFrits

Football's a stop-start game too. Count the amount of time the ball is actually in play next match, it'll be nowhere near 90 minutes.

DoctorGonzo08

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Football's a stop-start game too. Count the amount of time the ball is actually in play next match, it'll be nowhere near 90 minutes.

Technically correct, but there is no way you can say football and rugby are played with the same fluidity.

Pepe LeFrits

True, but that's got very little to do with video refereeing. Rugby has been steadily becoming a more 'fluid' game for years despite the introduction of video refereeing.

AdamD

Video refereeing has probably gone too far in Rugby and will be cut down a bit over the coming months. CSF's argument however is void of any logic and absolutely pathetic.

CSF

AdamD wrote: »

Video refereeing has probably gone too far in Rugby and will be cut down a bit over the coming months. CSF's argument however is void of any logic and absolutely pathetic.

Do elaborate.

CSF

Cienciano wrote: »

Nothing wrong with looking at ways to improve football from looking at other sports.
I'd like to see the sin bin in soccer. And a ref mic too, with yellow cards (and sin bin) for abuse towards the ref. Yellow for diving being enforced too, too often the ref just doesn't give it.
The unwritten rule of kicking the ball out of play when an opposition player is injured is another that should be done away with. Just open to abuse from the opposition, players stay down injured to break up attacking play. If a player is injured, the ref can stop play. What was originally a form of good will has turned into another way of cheating the opposition.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that football shouldn't look to improve. I'm just confused by whenever there is any sort of discussion on any issues, you tend to have the usual suspects going on about what makes rugby so great and football so inferior.

One of footballs most attractive attributes is the flow of the game. I always suspect that the people who propose ideas that would lead to delays in the game, are the same people who typically have the benefit of a commentator and a warm house to fill those gaps in play. I don't mean that as an attack on anyone and there will always be exceptions to every rule, but from my experience, matchgoing fans are usually less into ideas that make the game more stop-start like American football and rugby.