Red Cards and Penalties

[Handsome Man]

Or they could just not get sent off in the area.

This.

The rule as it stands is terrible. You get punished 3 times for 1 mistake its totally out of proportion to the offence. I seem to remember Coppell describing the rule as "an ass"

Would like to see the rule amended to only a yellow card being given, unless you deny a clear goal (eg handling the ball on the line). A penalty is still better than any 1 on 1 situation for the attacking team.

I don't see where three punishments come from. The cheating player and side get punished for cheating by the red card. The penalty just replaces one goal-scoring opportunity with another.

I think what Coppell meant was that Sonko was an ass.

[cmonurz]

I'm not sure it quite was, but that just serves to illustrate how many variables there are. If it was in the keeper's hands, then it was an off the ball foul, and worthy of more than a yellow.

[Silver Fox]

fvcking hell TBM, has Mark Halsey nicked your log in? The ball was at the Wolves player's feet!

It was in the goalie's hands so it wasn't a red card.

Halsey's moving between usernames!

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Or they could just not get sent off in the area.

This.

The rule as it stands is terrible. You get punished 3 times for 1 mistake its totally out of proportion to the offence. I seem to remember Coppell describing the rule as "an ass"

Would like to see the rule amended to only a yellow card being given, unless you deny a clear goal (eg handling the ball on the line). A penalty is still better than any 1 on 1 situation for the attacking team.

I don't see where three punishments come from. The cheating player and side get punished for cheating by the red card. The penalty just replaces one goal-scoring opportunity with another.

I think what Coppell meant was that Sonko was an ass.

Penalty, down to 10 men, player suspended. 3 punishments for 1 foul, yet by simply awarding a penalty it an advantage to the attacking team. Pens are much easier to score from than 95% of "goal scoring opportunities"

[6ft Kerplunk]

Or defenders could stop hacking down players in stupid situations and not get punished three times.

[Elmer Park]

Someone wrote on the BBC live text today that if a player illegally prevents an obvious goalscoring opportunity resulting in a penalty, they should only be sent off if the penalty isn't scored. Seems like a decent idea to me, particularly as everybody seems to go on about how a red card and going a goal down is too much of a punishment. So how do we go about getting this idea implemented? Anyone got Blatter's email?

Interesting idea but the problem would be that under certain circumstances it may lead to a team deliberately missing a penalty, which undermines the integrity of the game.

Just as an example imagine Arsenal are three up against Manchester United in stoppage time and deliberately miss a penalty to get, say Ferdinand, suspended for the next match. Thinking about it that would be funny but not really in the spirit of the game.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

The only problem I have is that there's no distinction between a genuine professional foul (which was what the rule was introduced to punish) and one where a player goes to ground after brushing past a defender because there was "contact".


When "intent" was taken out of the rules, with regards to it being a foul, it means you have the situation where a player is sent off after accidental contact, and I can't see how accidental contact can ever be a professional foul.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Or defenders could stop hacking down players in stupid situations and not get punished three times.

I would say about half of red cards in these cases are for goalkeepers making a genuine attempt to win the ball.

and as per the post above, most cases overall are genuine attempts to win the ball, rather than deliberate fouls.

[handbags_harris]

A penalty kick is merely a variation on a free kick, just awarded to teams offended against who manage to get close to goal, so with that in mind, regardless of whether a player is inside or outside of the penalty area and is fouled, the law states red card for the denial of any clear goalscoring opportunity and my feeling is that is perfectly fair. It is not for a referee to decide which rules to implement and which not to, but it IS the job of a defending player whether to make a challenge or not. If said player makes a challenge taht denies a clear goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area, he knows what is coming to him. Penalty, red card, subsequent 1 match suspension. Simple. Nothing wrong with that.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

A penalty kick is merely a variation on a free kick, just awarded to teams offended against who manage to get close to goal, so with that in mind, regardless of whether a player is inside or outside of the penalty area and is fouled, the law states red card for the denial of any clear goalscoring opportunity and my feeling is that is perfectly fair. It is not for a referee to decide which rules to implement and which not to, but it IS the job of a defending player whether to make a challenge or not. If said player makes a challenge taht denies a clear goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area, he knows what is coming to him. Penalty, red card, subsequent 1 match suspension. Simple. Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for that Mr Logic, but i think there is alot wrong with it. The punishment is way out of line with the crime. Players cheat game after game and are not punished. Dissent is hardly ever punished, its perfectly acceptable for whole teams to hound officials who have often made the correct call. tackles that end players careers are worthy of a paultry 3 match ban. But make an honest attempt to stop a goal being scored and you get a triple punishment that might cost your team up to 6 points. Just dont see the logic myself.

[TheMaraudingDog]

So you make a foul, give away a pen that hits the post, ball gets cleared then the fouler scores up the other end before ball goes out of play then gets his red card.

Good one to the div who suggested that rule.

[handbags_harris]

A penalty kick is merely a variation on a free kick, just awarded to teams offended against who manage to get close to goal, so with that in mind, regardless of whether a player is inside or outside of the penalty area and is fouled, the law states red card for the denial of any clear goalscoring opportunity and my feeling is that is perfectly fair. It is not for a referee to decide which rules to implement and which not to, but it IS the job of a defending player whether to make a challenge or not. If said player makes a challenge taht denies a clear goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area, he knows what is coming to him. Penalty, red card, subsequent 1 match suspension. Simple. Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for that Mr Logic, but i think there is alot wrong with it. The punishment is way out of line with the crime. Players cheat game after game and are not punished. Dissent is hardly ever punished, its perfectly acceptable for whole teams to hound officials who have often made the correct call. tackles that end players careers are worthy of a paultry 3 match ban. But make an honest attempt to stop a goal being scored and you get a triple punishment that might cost your team up to 6 points. Just dont see the logic myself.

You look at it from a completely different angle than I do obviously. You think the problem is with the laws, I think the problem is with the law-upholders. To use your examples:

* Dissent - rarely punished, correct, but the more than adequate sanctions are there to be used at a referees discretion, thus it is a refereeing problem, not a lawmaker's problem.

* Serious foul play - punished when seen. Triple whammy: free kick, red card, three-match ban. The bans can be extended for particularly serious instances (precedent already there - see Ben Thatcher/Pedro Mendes) although I would like to see extended bans for a whole host of serious challenges.

As I said, I see no issue with the punishment of the offence - denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity (whether intentional or not) punished with another clear goalscoring opportunity, the red card and subsequent one-match ban. And you could look at it this way: if the defender had been better prepared to defend then he wouldn't be in a position to make a challenge where he risks the penalty and red card. If he gets the challenge wrong he knows the outcome. Every argument written here is an argument favouring a punishment change, yet nothing is argued against the players who should know the outcome of their actions.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

As I said, I see no issue with the punishment of the offence - denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity (whether intentional or not) punished with another clear goalscoring opportunity, the red card and subsequent one-match ban. .

Taking the Sonko one v Villa as an example. There you had a case of two players running side by side, but one throws himself to the ground to get a penalty.

He wasn't tripped. There was nothing clumsy about Sonko's challenge, and the challenge itself didn't make the attacker fall. He just dived and got a free kick that he wouldn't have got if he wasn't running towards goal. I'd say that shouldn't even be a foul.

My point was that the denail of a goalscoring opportunity is about punishing professional fouls - cheating in other words. Sending off a player (and banning him) is too harsh a punishment when a foul is "drawn"

You wouldn't send a player off for violent conduct after an accidental clash of heads, so why punish a player for a "professional foul" that was an accident?

[cmonurz]

He wasn't tripped. There was nothing clumsy about Sonko's challenge, and the challenge itself didn't make the attacker fall. He just dived and got a free kick that he wouldn't have got if he wasn't running towards goal. I'd say that shouldn't even be a foul.

But that's not a problem with the laws, it's a problem with the way the laws were applied (if you take your version of events). The referee decided that Sonko had fouled the player, and as such had denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.

And fwiw it's worth I disagree that the red card for a 'professional foul' need necessarily cover only 'cheating'. A defender has to be careful if he is the last man, and factor that into any decision he makes when he tackles. If he clumsily, but accidentally, takes out the player, it remains a professional foul, intent or not.

Have to say, the point made above about the penalty simply replacing the original goalscoring opportunity is a good one, in simple terms, and not a way I'd thought about it before.

[Boyle the Royal]

If a player denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity and gets sent off for a foul outside of the area, should a penalty be awarded rather than a free kick? If not, why not? Not saying I think this is what should happen, just posing the question.

[Mr Angry]

fvcking hell TBM, has Mark Halsey nicked your log in? The ball was at the Wolves player's feet!

No it wasn't - the initial shot was deflected into his path and he was stretching to get to the ball, he didn't once have the ball under control at his feet

Wasn't he stretching because Hutton was pulling him back??

There are 2 problems with this Law. The first is the wording; "goal-scoring opportunity" - its simply too subjective. The second is that people constantly make the mistake of saying that a foul by the last defender is an automatic red card; er...no, it isn't.

Take 2 scenarios: In the first, the defence is playing the half-way line; a ball is punted over the top by the attacking team and the teams speedy winger gets the ball 5 yards inside the defending teams half, when he is pulled back by the last defender. Red card or not?

In the second, a forward has gone round the keeper outside the box and is about to shoot; there is a defender on the line, but just as the player pulls his foot back, the keeper cleans him out - still outside the area. Red card or not?

In my opinion, the first isn't - but I bet a red would be given 99 times out of 100, and in the second imo it is - but because there is a defender on the line the keeper will only get a yellow.

Its the same when you, at the end of the game, a keeper comes up for a corner hoping to grab a point; corner comes in, defending keeper catches it and as he is about to tonk it downfield to an unmarked player, he gets fouled. Yellow card rather than red, AND YET how is that not stopping a goal scoring opportunity when the defending keeper is 80 yards off his goal-line??

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

He wasn't tripped. There was nothing clumsy about Sonko's challenge, and the challenge itself didn't make the attacker fall. He just dived and got a free kick that he wouldn't have got if he wasn't running towards goal. I'd say that shouldn't even be a foul.

But that's not a problem with the laws, it's a problem with the way the laws were applied (if you take your version of events). The referee decided that Sonko had fouled the player, and as such had denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.

I agree. I don't think it should be a foul. It probably wouldn't be anywhere else on the pitch, and I'm certain it wouldn't be if the defender went down.

And fwiw it's worth I disagree that the red card for a 'professional foul' need necessarily cover only 'cheating'. A defender has to be careful if he is the last man, and factor that into any decision he makes when he tackles. If he clumsily, but accidentally, takes out the player, it remains a professional foul, intent or not.

How can it be a professional foul without intent? That's what a professional foul is - when a foul is committed deliberately to prevent a player from scoring.

It can also be committed further up the field to stop a break. Seeing a player "take a yellow" for the team is fairly common.