Interesting and Intlligent Suggestion from John Giles on Red Cards.

Xenophile

"I'll tell you what I would like to do. If the player is going through like Messi the other night and he is taken down, the defender has stopped a goalscoring opportunity and it's a penalty. If the penalty is scored, the player stays on the pitch. If the penalty is missed, he goes off," said John.

theteal

what if he misses it but scores the rebound?

Omackeral

There's options there for the penalty taking team too. If it's in the first minute, you could intentionally miss and play 89mins against ten men.

Kidchameleon

Which is more valuable though? You would get teams missing penalty's on purpose so a player would get sent off.

gobo99

There would be situations where keeper would not try save penalty to keep teamate on pitch and avoid suspension

Xenophile

theteal wrote: »

what if he misses it but scores the rebound?

Suggest that the player stays on the field as the goal is scored as a result of the foul.

Dempsey

It would lead to more gamesmanship rather than making the game more fair

gobo99

Xenophile wrote: »

Suggest that the player stays on the field as the goal is scored as a result of the foul.

I have visions of a centre half burying the rebound in the back of his own net to keep himself on the pitch and celebrating the goal.

Xenophile

theteal wrote: »

what if he misses it but scores the rebound?

Suggest that the player stays on the field as the goal is scored as a result of the foul.

Panthro

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Which is more valuable though? You would get teams missing penalty's on purpose so a player would get sent off.

Sin bin the offending player for 10 minutes instead of sending him off.

alchemist33

It'd be better to give yellow if a penalty is awarded; red if the professional foul happens outside the box.

Xenophile

Maybe a goal and a yellow card?

ronjo

Panthro wrote: »

Sin bin the offending player for 10 minutes instead of sending him off.

Actually that might be a more interesting option.

The ref decides if it was a total hachet job then its red and penalty but if its a mistimed tackle then sinbin and penalty.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Intelligent spelled wrong, that's irony or some sh*t right?

CSF

The current rule is by far the fairest. Oh no, you get double the punishment for fouling someone who is clear through in the box, than you do someone who is clear through outside the box. The injustice of it all.

ronjo

ronjo wrote: »

Actually that might be a more interesting option.

The ref decides if it was a total hachet job then its red and penalty but if its a mistimed tackle then sinbin and penalty.

I guess though if you introduce sinbin then the clock must be "stoppable" as teams would be just wasting time so it opens another can of worms..

CSF

ronjo wrote: »

I guess though if you introduce sinbin then the clock must be "stoppable" as teams would be just wasting time so it opens another can of worms..

Or you could just stop trying to make the sport like rugby and not introduce a sinbin....

BloodBath

The current rule is fine.

It was a simple choice for the defender. Take him down outside the box, give a free kick and take a yellow (still a sending off for Demichelis) or take him down inside as the last man, give a penalty and get a straight red or let him through and hope he misses. Even if he scores you still have 11 men on the pitch.

Demichelis chose the worst out of the 3 options.

I think the sending off of Koscielny was far more unfair as he didn't even have the choice.

ronjo

CSF wrote: »

Or you could just stop trying to make the sport like rugby and not introduce a sinbin....

Well duh

CSF

Maybe we could introduce a scrum?

alchemist33

The current rule is wrong. It means a game can be effectively over after a few minutes, all because of one foul. Its also nonsensical -- the attacking team gets a penalty, which is a clear goal scoring opportunity and the thing that was meant to have been denied.

LeBash

ronjo wrote: »

Actually that might be a more interesting option.

The ref decides if it was a total hachet job then its red and penalty but if its a mistimed tackle then sinbin and penalty.

Sinbin would be interesting as the team would need to decide if they need to sub someone in or shuffle around players

LeBash

ronjo wrote: »

Actually that might be a more interesting option.

The ref decides if it was a total hachet job then its red and penalty but if its a mistimed tackle then sinbin and penalty.

Sinbin would be interesting as the team would need to decide if they need to sub someone in or shuffle around players

CSF

alchemist33 wrote: »

The current rule is wrong. It means a game can be effectively over after a few minutes, all because of one foul. Its also nonsensical -- the attacking team gets a penalty, which is a clear goal scoring opportunity and the thing that was meant to have been denied.

It is the player commiting the offence that ensures this, not the rule. What exactly do you suggest as punishment for handball on the line? Because it leads to the exact same consequences, potentially after a few minutes.

Rules need to be made based on the gravity of the offence, not how they'll affect the offending team later on in the game.

CSF

LeBash wrote: »

Sinbin would be interesting as the team would need to decide if they need to sub someone in or shuffle around players

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

gosplan

Sinning would be silly in football. In rugby it works well because you can retain possession and force an overlap.

In football you just play 4-4-1 and focus on not conceding for 10 mins.


The spirit of Giles suggestion is good but the 'if ... then ...' implementation makes it a bit silly.

All in all the rule is fine. It seems harsh but it prevents more injustice than it allows.

It's one area they should absolutely absolutely have video refs though. The two two-legged ties were effectively decided this week by a penalty red card combo. Arguably the first wasn't a penalty and the second wasn't a red.

Now I really have no interest in arguing what they should/should not have been but for a single decision to end a massive 180 min tie so soon, they have to be sure. They just have to.

It's not like getting an offside wrong or anything. There's no coming back from the penalty red card combo and they really need to be sure.

geeky

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.

GavRedKing

If this had happened to Neuer or Pique would there be the same outcry or is this a sense of English club injustice coming out?

The current situation is the best as its the easiest to enforce unless you bring in replay reviews and challenges to see whats happening, wheres the player going has he control of the ball, will he score, did he dive, etc etc

GTR63

Both red cards midweek did effectively ruin the ties but i'm afraid both were clear reds too. Demichelis in particular was moronic but I guess instead of bitchin about getting "robbed" City should be thankful he won't be playing the return leg.

Xenophile

Goal scored, two yellow cards, one of them to be carried forward to the next game or applied to the same game if warranted by another offence later in the same game!

SantryRed

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.

Should just lock the thread after this. Explains it perfectly.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

It is the player commiting the offence that ensures this, not the rule. What exactly do you suggest as punishment for handball on the line? Because it leads to the exact same consequences, potentially after a few minutes.

Rules need to be made based on the gravity of the offence, not how they'll affect the offending team later on in the game.

The grey is how intentional the foul is. Demichelis had no interest in playing the ball. Chesney came for the ball and missed. Would rather not get into the Chesney incident specifically but there are times when a player makes an honest attempt to play the ball (and/or the attacking player chooses to go down) I think the red card + penalty is a bit harsh.

Essien

The rule is deliberately harsh to discourage cynical foul play. The ref or the rules didn't ruin the tie for City or Arsenal, the offending players did.

What if Messi being clean through happened in stoppage time of the second leg with Barca needing to score to go through? There'd be no outcry of a tie being ruined by the sending off. Demichelis would be off, rightly so, and there wouldn't be a word against it.

LuckyLloyd

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

Knex*

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

Not really, just that Giles method is largely ridiculous.

You'd be better served to actually scrap the penalty altogether, and ask the opposition manager whether he wants a goal or for the offending player to be sent off.

Personally, I don't see much wrong with the rule. Demichelis tackle the other night was a definite and deserved red, regardless of whether the foul was outside the box or in. (It was outside in my mind, but that's a different story).

Don't make the tackle if you can't deal with the consequence. The players know the rules long before the step onto the pitch.

ArmaniJeanss

I find the 'the game was over after 10 minutes because of the sending off' attitude to be strange. Its the nature of football that quite often the game can be over after 10 minutes (or quicker) - theres never been an entitlement to the viewing/paying fan that a game should be a close contest for 90 minutes or 45 minutes or whatever.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

Ironically the automatic sending off is itself a relatively new rule whose exponents would have said much the same as the above re its detractors when it was introduced.

Giles's idea is terrible by the way.

Essien

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

Personally I'm open to change on pretty much anything that could be improved in the game. This particular issue just isn't something that needs fixing IMO.

gosplan

gosplan wrote: »

Sinning would be silly in football. In rugby it works well because you can retain possession and force an overlap.

In football you just play 4-4-1 and focus on not conceding for 10 mins.


.

There is no reason why sinbinning wouldn't work in football. Your reasoning is quite poor here. Playing 4-4-1 is an immediate disadvantage. You can also create overlaps in football and the lasting effect it has on the stamina of the players is vitally important.

Morzadec

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.

It took 27 posts for some sense!

Great post and response to this.

Ultimately I understand the frustration of a game being ruined, but the players know the rules and the rule is fair. You can not deny a goalscoring opportunity.

Whether that is on purpose or through recklessness, that is the rule, and avoiding that tyoe of recklessness is a skillset in itself.

The player needs to decide is it worth taking the potential risk.

Demichelis and Scezny made the decision and ultimately got punished for it.

The only thing I could envisage is a situation in which they allow the referee to make a judgement call on whether the foul was deliberate and/or reckless.

I certainly have more sympathy for Woj who obviously felt he had to come for the ball, than Demichelis who was always running a big risk once he went to ground

Fuzzy_Dunlop

GavRedKing wrote: »

If this had happened to Neuer or Pique would there be the same outcry or is this a sense of English club injustice coming out?

The current situation is the best as its the easiest to enforce unless you bring in replay reviews and challenges to see whats happening, wheres the player going has he control of the ball, will he score, did he dive, etc etc

For what it's worth, Neuer himself said he disagreed with it and that it was too harsh.

It is very harsh but I suppose as others have said, that should act as enough of a deterrent and any solutions are quite convoluted and arbitrary. The main issue is when the decision is made incorrectly of course.

CSF

Deleted User wrote: »

The grey is how intentional the foul is. Demichelis had no interest in playing the ball. Chesney came for the ball and missed. Would rather not get into the Chesney incident specifically but there are times when a player makes an honest attempt to play the ball (and/or the attacking player chooses to go down) I think the red card + penalty is a bit harsh.

Impossible to legislate, and even though Sczeszny's may not have been intentional, it was reckless (not in the legbreaking way, but in that he knew there was a pretty big risk he was taking the man and being sent off)

DoctorGonzo08

There are far more pressing issues to deal with in reffing decisions than creating an issue out of something that works. Taking the Messi incident into account, Demichelis tackle was stupid, and always going to be a red as it was last man, and fairly so. The fact that it was outside and resulted in a penalty is tough luck but he didn't give the ref any help when trying to figure out was it in or out based on about a foot in the difference. However in that game the other effing decisions on cynical fouling outside the box were ignored, and thus nearly encouraged. On the penalty/sending off issue there can be no way you can logically say it was anyones fault other than Demichelis. Similar to Schesney*, you can feel hard done by, but again it was a silly attempt to claim a ball which resulted in fouling Robben on a goalscoring oppurtunity.

Agree that the only thing that will result in changing this rule is give way to the most frustrating lack of sportsmanship that has been seen (as yet) in football.

Kirby

Keep the rule as is, but exempt Keepers from straight reds for giving away a penalty. Solves a lot of the issues of strikers choosing to dive instead of finish a chance....because they know they get a penalty and the keeper walks. It rewards cheating.

So......keepers exempt from "goal scoring opportunity = red card". Strikers would stay on their feet more and not choose to go down like Robben did. Red cards for keepers only for serious foul play like a cantona kick etc....not for accidentally knicking off an attackers boot.

Demichelis deserved to walk. "It ruined the game!" is not a coherent argument. You can't let defenders away with professional fouls.

DoctorGonzo08

Kirby wrote: »

Keep the rule as is, but exempt Keepers from straight reds for giving away a penalty. Solves a lot of the issues of strikers choosing to dive instead of finish a chance....because they know they get a penalty and the keeper walks. It rewards cheating.

So......keepers exempt from "goal scoring opportunity = red card". Strikers would stay on their feet more and not choose to go down like Robben did. Red cards for keepers only for serious foul play like a cantona kick etc....not for knicking of an attackers boot.

Players will go down in the box for a penalty, not to get the keeper sent off, that's just a bonus to them. So changing the type of card, if any, recieved by a keeper will have no impact on players taking a tumble in the box.

adox

Kirby wrote: »

Keep the rule as is, but exempt Keepers from straight reds for giving away a penalty. Solves a lot of the issues of strikers choosing to dive instead of finish a chance....because they know they get a penalty and the keeper walks. It rewards cheating.

So......keepers exempt from "goal scoring opportunity = red card". Strikers would stay on their feet more and not choose to go down like Robben did. Red cards for keepers only for serious foul play like a cantona kick etc....not for accidentally knicking off an attackers boot.

Demichelis deserved to walk. "It ruined the game!" is not a coherent argument. You can't let defenders away with professional fouls.

Dont agree. The rule was brought in in the first place as the professional foul was the norm in the game. If a player was through on goal bring him down. Sure its only a yellow and stops the player having a shot a goal.

Making the keepers exempt from the rule would surely make them follow this course. Dive at the feet of the attacking player and try and get the ball but, make sue whatever happens, he doesnt get by you or get a shot off. Worst will be a peno and a yellow. Dust yourself down and take your chances with a peno save after cynically denying a certain goal.

The rule, along with the back pass rule, are two of the best things that have changed in the game in recent years. There is so much else wrong with the game that needs addressing, I`d hate to see the powers that be looking at changing one of the few things that they have got right.

roanoke

I think the rule is fine as it is. If you're the last man and you take down an attacker then it's a red card. If you commit a foul in the box then it's a penalty. If you do both in one action then you should be punished twice. If you don't want to lose a man and give away a penalty then don't commit the foul. So forgetting what the double-whammy 'does to the game' the punishment is fair and shouldn't be changed.

Also consider this, who actually 'ruined the games' on Tue/Wed? Was it the laws of the game or was it Arsenal (and to a lesser extent) ManCity who due to their inability to correctly deal with particular defensive situations committed fouls in attempts to prevent goalscoring opportunities. My opinion is it was Arsenal (and to a lesser extent) ManCity who ruined the games, not the laws of the game. So now Giles is suggesting the rules should be changed to benefit Arsenal/ManCity for such actions?

Turtyturd

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.

Panthro

Kirby wrote: »

Keep the rule as is, but exempt Keepers from straight reds for giving away a penalty. Solves a lot of the issues of strikers choosing to dive instead of finish a chance....because they know they get a penalty and the keeper walks. It rewards cheating.

So......keepers exempt from "goal scoring opportunity = red card". Strikers would stay on their feet more and not choose to go down like Robben did. Red cards for keepers only for serious foul play like a cantona kick etc....not for accidentally knicking off an attackers boot.

Demichelis deserved to walk. "It ruined the game!" is not a coherent argument. You can't let defenders away with professional fouls.

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

Kirby

adox wrote: »

Dont agree. The rule was brought in in the first place as the professional foul was the norm in the game. If a player was through on goal bring him down. Sure its only a yellow and stops the player having a shot a goal.

Making the keepers exempt from the rule would surely make them follow this course. Dive at the feet of the attacking player and try and get the ball but, make sue whatever happens, he doesnt get by you or get a shot off. Worst will be a peno and a yellow. Dust yourself down and take your chances with a peno save after cynically denying a certain goal.

The rule, along with the back pass rule, are two of the best things that have changed in the game in recent years. There is so much else wrong with the game that needs addressing, I`d hate to see the powers that be looking at changing one of the few things that they have got right.

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.

And yes, Robben chose to go down. He can stay on his feet and knock that one in but he got his peno and his red card so he took it. The rules being what they are, you can't blame him. Everyone does it.

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

"Red cards for keepers only for serious foul play like a cantona kick etc"

I answered that point in the post you quoted. It's obvious as hell the difference between a cynical foul and a mistimed tackle is.

Blatter

There is only one rule in theory that you could introduce that would be an improvement on the current rule, but in practice it would probably be too difficult to implement as there'd be too many grey areas.

The rule would be that if the player makes an honest attempt to win the ball, and had a good chance of winning it at the moment he decided to make the tackle, but ends up fouling the man and denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, he gets a yellow.

If the player goes it to a challenge that he has realistically no chance of winning and denies a goalscoring opportunity, he gets a straight red.

As I said though, it would be difficult to implement and the refs would have to be specifically trained in order to improve their judgement on the matter, but if it was done right, it would improve the integrity of the game.

Pepe LeFrits

Could give the ref the option of a yellow/red depending on whether he feels the keeper has fouled the player deliberately. Refs already have that discretion in other situations