Meh, the rule is fine. Defenders have to be disciplined, or simply be ready to take one for the team Solskjaer style when the heat is really on.
The 'Last Man' rule
- Thread starter Offside
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
No.
As for Hyppia, he could just not get sent off that early. When did players stop being adults? The rules are quite simple to understand, and they know there's a big risk involved in trying to tackle an opponent who's clean through. If you don't get sent off for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity you take most of that risk away and any defender with half a brain will try to make the tackle almost every time. It'd be horrible and we'd see even fewer goals from open play. The rules in this area are completely fine at the moment and it's up to the players to use their brain and not take stupid risks.
Why not call it a quintuple punishment? The team has to change their tactics and the fans might also be grumpy... for crying out loud.
the problem with the rule is that it can ruin a game in the first 10/15 minutes (pretty early in the game), so that game is basically finished...
for most supporters it's just annoying to watch after that
for most supporters it's just annoying to watch after that
Absolutely not..This means after a player has beaten the defence (which is what the game is all about) any trailing defender is free to take him out..The rule should be left as it is.
Just like conceding 3 goals in the first 15 minutes ruins the rest of the game for the fans, but these things are a part of football. Not to mention that a team with 10 players can still turn around a 0:1 or 0:0 (if the goalkeeper saves the penalty).
And again: If applied correctly it's not the rule or the referee that ruin the game, it's the defender himself.
Yes but the onus is on the players not the fans or the referee...You can't give people a pass just because it might ruin a game.
That would be the most ridiculous idea ever. Right up there with the chocolate tea pot.
Players got to use their brains though. It's the player, not the rule that ruins the game.
Does the violent conduct rule also "ruin the game" if a player is sent off in the fifth minute for punching someone?
It's the player that is stupid enough to take a silly risk that ruins the game, not the rule.
Instead of changing the rules, referees should just finally be allowed to review potentially match changing decisions like that via replay... that would rule out players being sent of despite their having been no actual clear scoring opportunity. That's the biggest issue here. The rule is perfectly fine, but referees sometimes get it wrong. Just let them take a 10 second peak at a replay after halting play to decide if a red card should be added to the penalty. How hard can it be?
That means that soemtimes for a "normal" challenge which would result in a yellow card (at most) outside of the box, the defender gets punished with a red card and a penalty against his team. The difference is gross.
Not true, because it's one of the rules that is applied very inconsistently, and often wrongly (foul inside vs. outside of the box, hardly ever in the PL).
Ah... I think I was supposed to make some kind of point that the off/pen rule 'looks' better if happens in the final 10 mins with the score at 0-0 than it 'looks' if there's an occurrence of it in the first 10mins. But the scaffolders arrived to start faffing about outside here.
You're 100% right about the usefulness/sense of having different rules, 1st/2nd half though.
The problem is that the punishment for bringing them down as last man outside the box is so much less severe than in the box even though realistically there is barely a difference in the level of opportunity they are denying. They are after all through on goal either way. Considering they get a penalty then there is hardly a goalscoring opportunity being denied at all. Should be red cards outside of the box and yellows for honest challenges in the box, with reds for obviously cynical fouls.
Works for me.
Yellows for honest challenges and reds for cynical ones? Maybe a nice idea in theory but so subjective it will end in loads of controversy.
I've always thought a 10-15 minute sin bin and no ban is most suitable for a professional foul.
I'm guessing the ref today must have seen this thread... Thanks guys! 
Totally agree.
that is my Point - defenders yes - but sending a keeper off for trying to take the ball is just wrong. But there should be a possibility for the referee to send off a keeper who deliberately does it to prevent a player from scoring.
for accidental fouls yes (as in trying to win the ball and fails) - for intentional fouls no
Well that is the same for any rule that gets a player sent off. So let's just do away with sending offs in the first half.
Refs have a hard enough time already, they don't need some ambiguous rule about keepers fouls being deliberate or not. It doesn't matter if its a defender or a keeper or if its deliberate or not, if you take a player out in a goal-scoring opportunity then it should be a red card. If keepers had a different rule they'd just be flying into everything knowing they'll only get a yellow.