qs! wrote:

Minor offences shouldn't result in you being down to 10 men though. Thats insane.

Less insane to have 10 men for a couple of minutes for 2 minor offences than for the whole rest of the match. Losing a man for a couple of minutes isn't that big a deal.

otfgoon wrote:

It's not flawed at all, you give them as much responsibilty as they can handle. It's the same with any other job. Even now with the responsibility they already have many people think they need help of video technology so it makes no sense to make things even more complecated for them.

You can't get rid of cheating, that's just the way it is. Currently yellows and reds are the best way to curb it and if someone can thing of a way to improve the system I'm all for it, but not in a way that comes with a massive list of side effects. The negative consequences would far outweight the positives.

Exactly- Like penalty kicks and democracy it's the worst solution except for all the other ones.

And a yellow card isn't letting players off they walk a tightrope and it does effect the way their play especially if they're a defender.

If horse racing is the sport of kings football is the king of sports, and the reason it is is because of (aside from offside) the simplicity of its rules.
Ice hockey basketball cricket and rugby are forever doomed to be minor quirky sports because of this.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

qs! wrote:

Minor offences shouldn't result in you being down to 10 men though. Thats insane.

Less insane to have 10 men for a couple of minutes for 2 minor offences than for the whole rest of the match. Losing a man for a couple of minutes isn't that big a deal.

Thats even worse than what I thought we were talking about (first yellow sin bin, second yellow red). If you're stupid enough to get a second yellow tough shit.

And Biggus is right. All these convoluted rules are damaging to other sports rather than helpful. Look at ice hockey, box the heads off each other then go to the sin bin for a few minutes.

Football is king because of a) historically circumstance and b) the simplicity of its basic concept and the lack of need of any great deal of expensive specialist equipment. It's not because of its rules around officiating and discipline which are in the dark ages and probably the sport's biggest flaw. The officiating in rugby as you mention is vastly superior and one of the few advantages it has over football.

qs! wrote:

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Less insane to have 10 men for a couple of minutes for 2 minor offences than for the whole rest of the match. Losing a man for a couple of minutes isn't that big a deal.

Thats even worse than what I thought we were talking about (first yellow sin bin, second yellow red). If you're stupid enough to get a second yellow tough shit.

Aside from us knowing that players are often double yellowed completely unjustly, it makes no sense. Kicking the ball away and taking your shirt off should not be collectively treated the same as a two footed lunge tackle.

It's not. You get a three-game suspension for that two-footed lunge tackle.

Well as I said Pep, I'm not just a nay sayer there are things from rugger like micing up refs so they can verbally explain their decisions in real time that would be good, and also it would be fun hearing Rooney going fuck off! fuck off! fuck off! 3 inches from the refs face before being politely ushered away.

Klaus wrote:

It's not. You get a three-game suspension for that two-footed lunge tackle.

With respect to the match where it is committed, it is.

Klaus wrote:

qs! wrote:

As for the keeper with a red card and a penalty how often does that actually happen? And when it does you've removed not a goal scoring opportunity but and almost certain goal. This would give every keeper caught one on one licence to bring down the attacker and take their chances on a penalty.

That is spot on. I don't know why people don't see this. It's the same for outfield players who deny someone an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The red card punishment is in place to avoid a situation where the defending team makes that gamble.

Exactly. And, in fact, players "take" even a last man red fairly often. Saw it with Arteta vs Palace just weeks ago.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Klaus wrote:

It's not. You get a three-game suspension for that two-footed lunge tackle.

With respect to the match where it is committed, it is.

Yeah, but this is what all officiating is about. Just like in the real world, laws are objective for a reason. It's about justice, not about making it up to the other team.

Klaus wrote:

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

With respect to the match where it is committed, it is.

Yeah, but this is what all officiating is about. Just like in the real world, laws are objective for a reason. It's about justice, not about making it up to the other team.

In that case, shouldn't penalties be abolished then? Give a free kick to the opponent and suspend the offending player for a few games. Justice served.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Yeah, but this is what all officiating is about. Just like in the real world, laws are objective for a reason. It's about justice, not about making it up to the other team.

In that case, shouldn't penalties be abolished then? Give a free kick to the opponent and suspend the offending player for a few games. Justice served.

No, penalties are part of the sliding scale of punishment. The closer to goal you are the more likely it is that the offence that is being committed stops a goal. There are things like indirect freekicks which deal with other situations in the penalty area that might not call for a penalty being awarded.

Burnwinter wrote:

Klaus wrote:

That is spot on. I don't know why people don't see this. It's the same for outfield players who deny someone an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The red card punishment is in place to avoid a situation where the defending team makes that gamble.

Exactly. And, in fact, players "take" even a last man red fairly often. Saw it with Arteta vs Palace just weeks ago.

Aye, there will always be situations where it can be exploited. Imagine defending a 1-0 lead or a draw in the 85th minute, for instance. Any defensive player would make the foul to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity. This doesn't mean that we should scrap the rules. It just means that, in the end, punishment can't compensate for wrongdoing. Nor are they intended to.

Klaus wrote:

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

In that case, shouldn't penalties be abolished then? Give a free kick to the opponent and suspend the offending player for a few games. Justice served.

No, penalties are part of the sliding scale of punishment. The closer to goal you are the more likely it is that the offence that is being committed stops a goal. There are things like indirect freekicks which deal with other situations in the penalty area that might not call for a penalty being awarded.

A sliding scale of punishment eh, interesting idea...

Seems to be just making it up to the other team to me though, justice would still be done by giving the player a proportionally longer suspension than if he'd committed the same offence outside the box.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

A sliding scale of punishment eh, interesting idea...

Same way the punishment is different for robbery and murder in real life. Nothing strange about it really. You'd have a point if penalties were given arbitrary for fouls close to goal but the boundaries of the penalty box are well-defined.

Yep, you have to draw the line somewhere and everyone knows where that is.

Graham Poll eh?—I would've expected him to advocate the third yellow card.

Wenger Knows, eh...

This is, unfortunately, true:

Former World Cup official Graham Poll went as far as to say that it’s an introduction that every official wants, but will never get, back in January.
“Unfortunately, the International Football Association Board, the body that determines the Laws of the Game, are unlikely ever to afford referees sin-binning as a tool,”.

"Football doesn’t like change, and the time it’s taken to get so close to introducing video technology proves that."