Referees

[handbags_harris]

The difference is that in the 70's and 80's some defenders used to deliberately bring down a man in the clear and get away with only giving a free kick away, with a yellow card in some cases. Nowadays a man doesn't have to deliberately bring down that man, instead he can merely make an honest attempt at a tackle in that scenario. In some cases the man doesn't even have to make a challenge at all (see Sonko at Villa 06).

[Hoop Blah]

The difference is that in the 70's and 80's some defenders used to deliberately bring down a man in the clear and get away with only giving a free kick away, with a yellow card in some cases. Nowadays a man doesn't have to deliberately bring down that man, instead he can merely make an honest attempt at a tackle in that scenario. In some cases the man doesn't even have to make a challenge at all (see Sonko at Villa 06).

I know all that thanks. Have a read of my earlier posts....

The red card for a 'professional foul' was introduced here in the late 80's and our man Lawrie Sanchez was the first to get a sent off because of it.

Royalee was blaming Blatter for it ruining the game, but the point is it came in before he was in charge, so for once I don't think he's to blame.

Royalee says he changed the rule...I can't see how.

[Broxroyal]

As Handbags Harris says, back in the 70s (and earlier) players would commit a deliberate foul or handball to prevent an opponent breaking clear and only concede a free kick.

So the red card was introduced for this kind of deliberate or "professional" foul. A good development.

In recent years we have seen the introduction of a red card for "denying a goalscoring opportunity" i.e. a foul whether intentional or not. This is a piss poor development. I vividly recall a 12 year old boy in tears in a kids match after being red carded for a genuine challenge that was slightly mis-timed. The 18 year old ref felt he had no option.

I am afraid I just can't remember what Blatter was personally responsible for but he has shown himself to be a clown on occasions over the years.

[Broxroyal]

I've always maintained that all youth players attached to professional clubs should go through a refs course. It would:
- help them understand the rules more
- help them understand the refs point of view more
- give something back to the local community as they'd also be made to ref kids and park football
- give them another route to stay in the game if they don't make it, they might just get a taste for ref'ing

Spot on. I've always maintained this too. Instead of cleaning boots for senior pros the youths should be doing the refs course. It should be compulsory and would actually make them better players.

[Sun Tzu]

A few comments

- have to laugh at Royalee's comments that referees are trained by people with no knowledge of the game. The guys who ran the course I sat had something like 150 years of football experience between them as players, referees, coaches, adminstrators. They had been involved in football in a number of different countries and taken part in thousands of games. They had also attended or run hundreds of hours of coaching. They were also all football fans and most had some involvement with running local clubs or leagues. I doubt you could get 4 guys with more knowledge or love of the game and all of it done on a voluntary basis.

- it is utterly wrong to state that referees are not allowed to use common sense. Time and time again on the training course we were told what action the trainers would recommend according to the letter of the law and then we discussed what you would ACTUALLY do. You absolutley take into account players ages for a start. It is almost unheard of for players aged 12 to be sent off (although it can happen). I am involved with one of the biggest youth clubs in the area. We run 25+ teams and have never had a player sent off at any level below u14 and I can;t recall any opposing player ever being sent off at those ages. That is hundreds of games a season. I have seen situations where technically a red card could have been shown but referees use their discretion and explain to players what they did, what could have happened etc

- The issue of players being 'punished twice' is a red herring IMHO. If you award a pen and no red card then you risk players not being punished at all for serious offences. The punishments are also for different things. The card punishes the player personally (withh the inevitable knock on that his team is one short) and the pen punishes the team (with the inevitable knock on that the player sees his team go a goal down). Which one do you not punish ?

[ZacNaloen]

Sorry but I disagree with that last point, the penalty punishes the player and the team.

The player has to live with his team being a goal down and possibly losing the game and points as a result of the tackle.

Now if the offense is serious enough that it would have been a red card anywhere else on the pitch then it's a different matter.

At the moment there's a situation where you can have a red card for what amounts to a fairly innocuous challenge i.e a push. Which isn't even a card anywhere else on the pitch in most games.

[1960]

I think there were two highly-publicised fouls that have a place here. What about last-man offences outside the area? There's got to be some legislation here, as defenders used to get away with it. Willie Young pulling down a rampant Paul Allen outside the area in the 1980 Cup Final. From his point of view no reason not to, as there was no specific punishment in place. Then bastard Koeman in 1993 pulling Platt back, staying on and going on to score the first goal later. The red card was now available, but the ref bottled it and only gave him yellow.

I don't know what you do about the double-whammy penalty area scenario, but there has to be something in place or the Youngs and Koemans will carry on pulling people down outside the area with inpunity..

[Hoop Blah]

In recent years we have seen the introduction of a red card for "denying a goalscoring opportunity" i.e. a foul whether intentional or not.

Same difference. It still has to be a foul, which is just the same as it always has been since the league introduced it as a local rule in '88.

When Paul Allen went through he was brought down to deny a goalscoring opportunity. It was exactly the kind of offence the league wanted to stamp out and is still covered in the re-worded FIFA law.

Show me the difference...

[handbags_harris]

The difference is the intention. If the intention is to deliberately deny the goalscoring opportunity by foul play, then that is a "professional foul". If the intention is to attempt to make a clean tackle yet slightly mistime it, that is different altogether. You're one of the better posters on this board HB, and I agree with a lot that you say, what's gone wrong this time? It surely isn't that difficult a concept to comprehend?

[Broxroyal]

In recent years we have seen the introduction of a red card for "denying a goalscoring opportunity" i.e. a foul whether intentional or not.

Same difference. It still has to be a foul, which is just the same as it always has been since the league introduced it as a local rule in '88.

When Paul Allen went through he was brought down to deny a goalscoring opportunity. It was exactly the kind of offence the league wanted to stamp out and is still covered in the re-worded FIFA law.

Show me the difference...

Wrong. Not the same difference. As I said in my post, in the 70s and earlier players would often commit deliberate fouls to prevent opponents going clear, as they only conceded a free kick. Players would even jump up, catch the ball and put it down for the opponents' free kick when it was only punishable by a fee kick.This became laughingly known as a "professional foul". The problem became so serious that referees started brandishing red cards for this deliberate cheating, fouls and handballs (rightly so).
Later than this (might have been '88) refereees were directed to issue red cards for "denying a goalscoring opportunity" whether intentional or not. This was done to try to provide some level of consistency rather than have the referee try to interpret intent. In my view this is a bad development, although of course it is always open to debate.

I really hope you can see the difference between the two things.

[Ian Royal]

Sorry but I disagree with that last point, the penalty punishes the player and the team.

The player has to live with his team being a goal down and possibly losing the game and points as a result of the tackle.

Now if the offense is serious enough that it would have been a red card anywhere else on the pitch then it's a different matter.

At the moment there's a situation where you can have a red card for what amounts to a fairly innocuous challenge i.e a push. Which isn't even a card anywhere else on the pitch in most games.

What if the offence occurs an inch outside the box? Very difficult to score from a freekick there. No red card, unlikely to be a goal. Defender gets away with foul with few consequences, no matter what the intention, when the attacker was away with a clear chance to score.

Better to have a little overkill on a punishment in some cases, than have massive underkill in others.

[Hoop Blah]

Fair enough Brox & HH.

The tidying up of the rule I'm referring to is between the point we introduced it over here (leading to the Sanchez red card) and that of Blatter et al rewriting the law to, as Brox correctly says, provide some consistency in the way it was being applied.

I still don't remember any difference in the way it was really applied though, but I do get your distinction of the two HH. The way I recall it you'd still get sent off for a foul if it was preventing that scoring opportunity because in order to be a foul there had to be intent. The obvious example in my mind is Moran being sent off in the cup final ('85?).

[Sun Tzu]

Sorry but I disagree with that last point, the penalty punishes the player and the team.

The player has to live with his team being a goal down and possibly losing the game and points as a result of the tackle.

Now if the offense is serious enough that it would have been a red card anywhere else on the pitch then it's a different matter.

At the moment there's a situation where you can have a red card for what amounts to a fairly innocuous challenge i.e a push. Which isn't even a card anywhere else on the pitch in most games.

I'd disagree. The penalty isn;t recorded against the player, there is no follow up punishment. Yes it may make him feel a bit sad (but of course less so if it is missed!). The red card means he has to answer personally for what he did and is punished personally.

I'm also amazed you don;t see that there is a fundamental difference between a foul committed in the centre circle and one committed within sight of goal. Football is a low scoring game. One goal is often enough to win a game. A foul which denies a team the chance to score is a factor of 10 more serious than one which doesn't. A foul which denies a goal scoring opportunity is NOT innocuous.

[Sun Tzu]

Later than this (might have been '88) refereees were directed to issue red cards for "denying a goalscoring opportunity" whether intentional or not. This was done to try to provide some level of consistency rather than have the referee try to interpret intent. In my view this is a bad development, although of course it is always open to debate.

I really hope you can see the difference between the two things.

The only offences which intent is a factor in is handball though.

Other offences require the action to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.

Intent is largely irrelevant when deciding to award a fee kick, caution or sending off.