The 'Last Man' rule

Offside

Euro 2016 sweepstake winner
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
27,697
Location
London
I just think needs to drastically be changed.

I've just seen the incident in the Derby-Watford game where the player was sent off for denying a goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area.

I don't get the sense in this? Surely the punishment is already the penalty? It just completely ruins important matches as we have seen time and time again, players are ultimately trying their best to defend and getting sent off because they miss out, often by fine margins. Another time that springs to mind is the Arsenal-Bayern game last season where having 10 men and giving away a penalty totally fecked them for the whole tie. It is a huge disadvantage they had to carry for another 50 minutes of the tie when they had already been punished for the foul by giving away a penalty.

The rule should be if it is outside the penalty area a red card should be given, so there is then a punishment for denying a goalscoring opportunity. I just think the current rule ruins matches far too often.

Not sure where people stand on this, but I think it needs to be changed....
 
Last edited:
It's supposed to be a huge disadvantage. The last man rule has nothing to do with the penalty, even outside the box it's still a red card. Difference is then it would be a free kick, but whether it's in or outside of the box doesn't change the severity of the foul, a red card foul.

A normal or minor foul in the penalty box is a penalty too, a last man taking away a scoring opportunity in the box is and should be worse.

If you change this rule then suddenly it becomes an acceptable risk to foul a player in a good scoring opportunity in the box.
 
Last edited:
Rado_N said:
Red card = punishment
Penalty = restoring goal scoring opportunity
Click to expand...
Well, the problem often is it's not really restoring the goal scoring opportunity. In the Watford game the player was just the furthest man back making the tackle, a penalty is a 10x better chance to get a goal most of the time.
 
A penalty isn't restoring a goal scoring opportunity. A penalty is merely the consequence of a foul in the penalty box, there doesn't need to be a goal scoring opportunity or a last man doing it.

The severity of the foul, in this case the last man taking away the goal scoring opportunity, only influences the colour of the card.
 
With the card issue I think they should introduce the orange card. So denying a clear goalscoring opportunity should lead the player being sent off and later having a one match ban however the team ought to be able to sub him for another player leaving it 11 v 11 (unless they have already used up there subs like it happens when a player is injured but the team has no subs left). It would be an adequate punishment, since presumably that defender is better than the one on the bench, without destroying the spectacle.

Further, two yellows in a match ought to lead to an orange not a red. It would allow refs to be more consistent with dishing out yellows but again keep a good spectacle. Reds (the player can't be replace at all) should only be dished out for violent conduct/ spitting at an opponent etc
 
Offside said:
Well, the problem often is it's not really restoring the goal scoring opportunity. In the Watford game the player was just the furthest man back making the tackle, a penalty is a 10x better chance to get a goal most of the time.
Click to expand...
Nobody forced the defender to make the foul.
 
I'm fine with this rule really, just enforce it better. Have a ref watching a tv, minimise mistakes. I'm fine with players being send off, as long it's not wrongfully.
 
Bloedrood said:
I'm fine with this rule really, just enforce it better. Have a ref watching a tv, minimise mistakes. I'm fine with players being send off, as long it's not wrongfully.
Click to expand...
Yep that's true I suppose.
 
Is there actually a rule that a foul committed by the last-man must be a red card? I always thought there was nothing that actually stated that, it was just the case that the last-man is in all likelihood going to be denying a clear goalscoring opportunity when he commits a foul, hence the red card. Anyway, as has been said, simply giving a penalty does not do justice to the aggrieved team. There has to be a personal punishment for the person committing the foul otherwise there would be no deterrent.
 
BobbyManc said:
Is there actually a rule that a foul committed by the last-man must be a red card? I always thought there was nothing that actually stated that, it was just the case that the last-man is in all likelihood going to be denying a clear goalscoring opportunity when he commits a foul, hence the red card. Anyway, as has been said, simply giving a penalty does not do justice to the aggrieved team. There has to be a personal punishment for the person committing the foul otherwise there would be no deterrent.
Click to expand...

Yeah this. I'm almost certain there isn't actually such an explicit rule - otherwise a feckload of people would be sent off in silly situations near the corner flag after sudden breaks and such.
 
I'm happy with the rule as it is. More goals are a good thing and the last defender having to be careful with their tackle is likely to lead to more goals.
 
BobbyManc said:
Is there actually a rule that a foul committed by the last-man must be a red card? I always thought there was nothing that actually stated that, it was just the case that the last-man is in all likelihood going to be denying a clear goalscoring opportunity when he commits a foul, hence the red card. Anyway, as has been said, simply giving a penalty does not do justice to the aggrieved team. There has to be a personal punishment for the person committing the foul otherwise there would be no deterrent.
Click to expand...

No, the red card is for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity cynically. The last man rule doesn't exist.

Edit: Temporary expulsions should be implemented in football.
 
Yeah, I'm happy with it. It is usually a cynical challenge, or at least a wild lunge by this point. The unofficial 'rule' stops defenders taking the piss.
 
The only change to the rule I could perhaps justify - is one where the referees should decide whether or not it was to some degree intentional. But with the current state of refereeing I am not sure they should be given more possibilities to determine what is right or wrong.

Or maybe change the rule so that it doesn't apply to goalkeepers unless he is deliberately trying to foul an attacker. The one time I am opposed to the current rule is when a goalkeeper makes a fair attempt to save the ball - alone with a striker and brings him down. That should not be a red card in my book (unless he pulls him down from behind or something)
 
lysglimt said:
The only change to the rule I could perhaps justify - is one where the referees should decide whether or not it was to some degree intentional. But with the current state of refereeing I am not sure they should be given more possibilities to determine what is right or wrong.

Or maybe change the rule so that it doesn't apply to goalkeepers unless he is deliberately trying to foul an attacker. The one time I am opposed to the current rule is when a goalkeeper makes a fair attempt to save the ball - alone with a striker and brings him down. That should not be a red card in my book (unless he pulls him down from behind or something)
Click to expand...
No keeper would ever get sent off then as no keeper in their right mind would intentionally foul someone. A fraction of fouls are intentional, it being an accident doesn't change anything.
 
The penalty is simply restoring the goalscoring opportunity. There has to be some further punishment otherwise players would simply foul every time they thought the opponent was about to score, since there is a chance they would miss the resulting FK/penalty.

However, the red card (and ban) seems particularly harsh. In my opinion, a yellow card (or 'orange card' should it be introduced) should suffice as punishment, along with restoring the goalscoring opportunity via a FK/penalty.
 
Seems okay to me but if a player dives to try and get a penalty and man sent off he should get a red card. The punishment for diving is too lenient.
 
There's no rule that a 'last man' challenge demands a red card, just like there is no rule that contact means a foul or no contact means no foul, it's just some strange evolution of the game which is now accepted.
 
The rule isn't even consistent, I've never seen a goalkeeper get sent off for bringing a player down in the box, surely they are denying a goal scoring opportunity? A lot of these fouls are on the edge of the box so not quite a goal scoring opportunity but I've seen a few where there is no doubt the player would have tapped it into an empty net had he not been fouled.
 
Last edited:
The problem is in FIFA 15, they dont seem to know the rule. Unless the defender tackles you, he never sees a red. Hummels just pulled Rooney's shirt in the penalty box and i was clear on goal. The ref gave him a yellow, i dont know what EA does, but they dont know the rule it seems.
 
Nanook said:
The rule isn't even consistent, I've never seen a goalkeeper get sent off for bringing a player down in the box, surely they are denying a goal scoring opportunity? A lot of these fouls are on the edge of the box so not quite a goal scoring opportunity but I've seen a few where there is no doubt the player would have tapped it into an empty net had he not been fouled.
Click to expand...

Been a few that have happened .
 
Bloedrood said:
A penalty isn't restoring a goal scoring opportunity. A penalty is merely the consequence of a foul in the penalty box, there doesn't need to be a goal scoring opportunity or a last man doing it.

The severity of the foul, in this case the last man taking away the goal scoring opportunity, only influences the colour of the card.
Click to expand...
Stop saying last man. That only perpetuates the common misconception. You don't have to be the last man to be sent off. Taking away a clear goal scoring opportunity is what the red is given for. If there where 5 players next to you when you foul the player, it's still a red card.
 
Think of it this way, a player has the ball with the goalkeeper in no mans land and all he needed to do was tap it in for a goal. Someone from the opposition takes him down and denies that opportunity to score that easy goal. Of course, they get a penalty. But a penalty is much more difficult to score than an open goal.

There has to be some sort of punishment for it, or else taking out a player for a penalty over a clear scoring opportunity would end up being used often as a tactic with no repercussions.
 
It's contributed to the decline in defending. Scrap the punitive rule... Give a yellow and penalty. Still gives the offending team a chance. Repeat offenders will get a second yellow and get sent off.
 
The complaints are utter nonsense in my eyes.

The penalty gives you another chance to score after a clear opportunity was unfairly denied before. The punishment is the red card. Done and dusted. It's not the rule's job to defend players against their own clumsiness or stupidity. If a player didn't want to make the referee "punish" his team with a red card, maybe he shouldn't have fouled there...
We'd have horrible things happen if you could just foul an attacking player through on an empty goal - not in a brutal fashion that would warrant a red card, but significant enough to ruin the chance - and then hope your gk saves the penalty while you can play on. Where's the "punishment" in that?
 
I would change it so that a goal is automatically awarded and the defender only gets a yellow. That would stop cynical fouls whilst not ruining the match IMO.
 
Offside said:
I just think needs to drastically be changed.

I've just seen the incident in the Derby-Watford game where the player was sent off for denying a goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area.

I don't get the sense in this? Surely the punishment is already the penalty? It just completely ruins important matches as we have seen time and time again, players are ultimately trying their best to defend and getting sent off because they miss out, often by fine margins. Another time that springs to mind is the Arsenal-Bayern game last season where having 10 men and giving away a penalty totally fecked them for the whole tie. It is a huge disadvantage they had to carry for another 50 minutes of the tie when they had already been punished for the foul by giving away a penalty.

The rule should be if it is outside the penalty area a red card should be given, so there is then a punishment for denying a goalscoring opportunity. I just think the current rule ruins matches far too often.

Not sure where people stand on this, but I think it needs to be changed....
Click to expand...

Don't agree. If it's just a penalty awarded where's the punishment for making the foul in the first place?

Lets take this more drastic example. Attacker is about to roll the ball into an empty net from 1 yard away. Defender rugby tackles the attacker preventing him from scoring. How is a then a penalty (an effort from 12 yards with a goalkeeper in net) a suitable punishment?

I agree that often a sending off can ruin games and especially so if it's an early one but that shouldn't actually matter.

Rado_N said:
Red card = punishment
Penalty = restoring goal scoring opportunity
Click to expand...

This
 
Traub said:
I would change it so that a goal is automatically awarded and the defender only gets a yellow. That would stop cynical fouls whilst not ruining the match IMO.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree with that. Can of worms for me. Where do you draw the line? Some would give a red card for a foul committed 30 yards from goal if a player's through with the keeper. Is it reasonable to give an automatic goal for a foul committed 30 yards away from goal?

Refereeing will just get even worse if you add another rule that requires interpretation that can be influenced by pressure, which ref it is, managers etc.
 
Anustart89 said:
Strongly disagree with that. Can of worms for me. Where do you draw the line? Some would give a red card for a foul committed 30 yards from goal if a player's through with the keeper. Is it reasonable to give an automatic goal for a foul committed 30 yards away from goal?

Refereeing will just get even worse if you add another rule that requires interpretation that can be influenced by pressure, which ref it is, managers etc.
Click to expand...
I hear that. But even in that situation, I think it still works. For example, if it's early on in the game, you don't want the game ruined by sending off a defender. If it's late in the game, you don't want a player to hack down an attacker outside the box and taking a red just so the attacker doesn't make it into the box (FIFA style).

The referee will be in the exact same situation as they are now when dealing with a tackle by the last man.

Another example where this would've worked better was the 2010 WC QF when Suarez saved it on the line with his hand. I know it's not really the last man argument but a penalty goal would've been much more appropriate in that situation.
 
Nanook said:
The rule isn't even consistent, I've never seen a goalkeeper get sent off for bringing a player down in the box, surely they are denying a goal scoring opportunity? A lot of these fouls are on the edge of the box so not quite a goal scoring opportunity but I've seen a few where there is no doubt the player would have tapped it into an empty net had he not been fouled.
Click to expand...

Really? I find that hard to believe.

Rule is fine imo
 
It is one of those things where the punishment outweighs the crime. I remember when Hyppia got sent off against is after 5 or so minutes. Liverpool conceded a goal anyway from the pen, had to play 85 minutes with 10 men and Hyppia got a one match ban to boot. Triple punishment. (Funny on that occasion of course)

But still, I don't see an obvious solution that doesn't have consequences.
 
Piratesoup said:
The complaints are utter nonsense in my eyes.

The penalty gives you another chance to score after a clear opportunity was unfairly denied before. The punishment is the red card. Done and dusted. It's not the rule's job to defend players against their own clumsiness or stupidity. If a player didn't want to make the referee "punish" his team with a red card, maybe he shouldn't have fouled there...
We'd have horrible things happen if you could just foul an attacking player through on an empty goal - not in a brutal fashion that would warrant a red card, but significant enough to ruin the chance - and then hope your gk saves the penalty while you can play on. Where's the "punishment" in that?
Click to expand...
Agreed. The problem isn't the 'rule' or the referees, it's the defenders who choose to make the silly challenges in the first place.
 
Good question is this? Not sure what to think is best.

Outside the box, a yellow card and a free kick doesn't look right. Refs & fans, can & do hide behind 'he's a long way from goal' or that player can't run very fast or whatever excuse can be found to keep it 11 v 11. Goalkeepers (mainly Chesney at Arsenal) seem to get away with yellow cards.

Sometimes (obv) pens aren't given cos ref is confused by whether it's also a red card. So that can't be good.

I might go for being harsher outside the box, leaving it as just a pen inside the box, but the problem here is missed penalties.

No red cards 1st half maybe?
 
Nanook said:
The rule isn't even consistent, I've never seen a goalkeeper get sent off for bringing a player down in the box, surely they are denying a goal scoring opportunity?
Click to expand...
I've literally seen hundreds of these tbf. There was a reason Rio played in goal against Portsmouth a while ago :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.