Three punishments for one act

[Pexbo]

Watching the game with my brother a few weeks back, he brought up good point he heard a commentator make.

If a defender fouls someone in the area (and denies a clear goal scoring opportunity), it often leads to a red card, meaning the player plays no further part in the game. It then leads to a penalty which is further punishment and lastly he then has to sit out the next game for picking up his non-violent conduct red card.

If you actually think about it, it's a bit harsh isn't it? The Red in that situation, I understand. Everyone would cynically foul if it wasn't the standard punishment. A penalty is right because it's just a standard rule in that area and regardless of what type of foul it was, if it's in the area it's a pen - that's the rules.

The one match ban after already having the former punishments is a little too far though isn't it? It's pretty much subjective to defenders as well seeing that other players would rarely find themselves in that situation.

With this in mind, I think the punishment for a dive in the area which is literally the polar opposite....

1. Defender wants to stop impending goal, fouls attacker and gets sent off.
2. Attacker realises goalscoring opportunity is unlikely, feigns being fouled by defender, recieves yellow card.


..... should receive a red card.

Now you could argue it would be harsh to send an attacker off for diving if it wasn't a dive, but how many defenders have we seen get sent off for fouling when it wasn't a foul?

 

[Sylar]

I always thought if you deny a goal scoring opportunity in the box, the penalty should be sufficient as thats the goal scoring opportunity returned with a one on one with the keeper. If its outside the box, a red card should be given as a free kick is not the same as a one on one pen.

But yeah, I think diving is a bigger crime then fouling somebody. Ive seen people clip others feet by coming across them and getting sent off. BUt to blatenly dive to get an advantage, should be a red if its so clear.

 

[kietotheworld]

The only change I'd make is that it's a penalty regardless of where the foul occurs, and maybe in some scenarios, such as what Suarez did in the World Cup, award a penalty goal rather than simply a penalty. It's right to have harsh punishments for defenders denying goalscoring opportunities in my view, fouls which deny Goalscoring Opportunities are the worst kind of cheating in football.

 

[Makki]

Introducing red cards for dives would make even fewer divers being punished. Referees are already reluctant to dish out yellow cards for dives unless they're absolutely certain that it was a dive, which they can never be...

 

[kouroux]

Red cards and penalties at the same time are too much for me.

 

[SER19]

wasnt it steve bruce that suggested before that the penalty should be taken. if he scores the defender stays on, if he misses the defender walks.

 

[rcoobc]

I think your solutions cause more problems than they solve. If its the 90th minute, 2-1 up, player is through on goal but a foul outside the box won't even earn you a suspension its probably worth doing.

If you foul them in the box, give away a penalty and take a yellow, and the penalty gets saved, you've essentially cheated your way to win the game getting off scott-free.

 

[Bross]

The only change I'd make is that it's a penalty regardless of where the foul occurs, and maybe in some scenarios, such as what Suarez did in the World Cup, award a penalty goal rather than simply a penalty. It's right to have harsh punishments for defenders denying goalscoring opportunities in my view, fouls which deny Goalscoring Opportunities are the worst kind of cheating in football.

Cynical fouls are within the laws of the game, in that they are dealth with in the rules of the game. You stop a goal by handballing like Suarez did you know the punishment you will receive, a red card and a penalty.

The worst kind of cheating in football is diving and play-acting. Actively trying to con the referee into thinking you have been hurt or fouled, often to provoke a card that might lead to a sending off. For instance Mascherano against Pepe, or Busquets against Inter. Nothing provokes me more than someone sent off for nothing.

I agree with the OP that suspensions for cynical red-card fouls are over the top as punishment. Dont think dives should be direct reds, but there should be a possibility of retroactive punishment for obvious diving and play-acting where the referee has been fooled. Would weed that shit out pretty fast.

I think your solutions cause more problems than they solve. If its the 90th minute, 2-1 up, player is through on goal but a foul outside the box won't even earn you a suspension its probably worth doing.

If you foul them in the box, give away a penalty and take a yellow, and the penalty gets saved, you've essentially cheated your way to win the game getting off scott-free.

Good point that shows how difficult it is to change the severity of the punishment.

 

[Makki]

The only change I'd make is that it's a penalty regardless of where the foul occurs, and maybe in some scenarios, such as what Suarez did in the World Cup, award a penalty goal rather than simply a penalty. It's right to have harsh punishments for defenders denying goalscoring opportunities in my view, fouls which deny Goalscoring Opportunities are the worst kind of cheating in football.

I'm strongly against penalty goals. I don't see how you can give a goal when the ball hasn't crossed the goal line. It goes against one of the fundamental rules of football.

 

[Aint gota Kalou]

Red card and a penalty makes sense, the ref punishes the offence and the penalty gives them the goalscoring opportunity back.

I think they should get rid of the suspension though.

 

[MrK]

Red cards and penalties at the same time are too much for me.

It's a difficult balance to strike, though. Just giving a penalty alone seems too little, as in some cases it may encourage last ditch fouls. The red card and penalty feels a bit too harsh at times, because it can effectively decide the game really early on.

It also largely depends at what stage of the game the incident happens. If it happens in the first 10 minutes, the punishment can seem incredibly harsh, but if it happens in the last 10 minutes the punishment can seem pretty light (a chance of the opposition missing a penalty, and then just a short time to hold on with 10 men).

A sin bin system could make it better. How about a penalty, red card, and 20 minutes in the sin bin?

wasnt it steve bruce that suggested before that the penalty should be taken. if he scores the defender stays on, if he misses the defender walks.

I dunno about that... could it lead to strategic missing of penalties early on in games? What if the rebound is put in the net - does the defender still walk?

 

[Wowi]

I always thought if you deny a goal scoring opportunity in the box, the penalty should be sufficient as thats the goal scoring opportunity returned with a one on one with the keeper. If its outside the box, a red card should be given as a free kick is not the same as a one on one pen.

What? Wait.. really? You actually think that a defender should be allowed to foul a player in the box without any punishment (apart from the penalty of course, if the referee sees it), just because the other team gets another chance? We'd see 50 penalties per game if that was the rule.

I think your solutions cause more problems than they solve. If its the 90th minute, 2-1 up, player is through on goal but a foul outside the box won't even earn you a suspension its probably worth doing.

If you foul them in the box, give away a penalty and take a yellow, and the penalty gets saved, you've essentially cheated your way to win the game getting off scott-free.

I was going to post exactly this. If you don't get suspended you'll see more players making these fouls towards the end of a game.

The current system is fine for me. The defender is fully aware of what he's doing almost every time, but he takes the chance anyway. Only giving a yellow card when it's a penalty means that defenders will make a foul more often than not if given the chance, and as we've seen in this PL season a penalty is by no means a certain goal.

Regarding the idea of waiting till after the penalty and see what happens that opens up entirely new problems. First of all, it'd give some very odd situations where the team getting the penalty might miss it on purpose if they have a chance to get an important player from the opponents team sent off. Second of all, what happens when the ball is saved? If the ball stays in play the player who's about to get sent off could go up and score in the other end - or hack down an opponent with no punishment, as he was going to be sent off anyway.

 

[kietotheworld]

Cynical fouls are within the laws of the game, in that they are dealth with in the rules of the game. You stop a goal by handballing like Suarez did you know the punishment you will receive, a red card and a penalty.

Yes, they are, and you do know that under the laws of the game you will get such a punishment - that is why the Laws of the Game need to be changed in my view. There should be no advantage gained by scything someone down when they are through on goal, or handling the ball on the line. If Uruguay had gone on to win that World Cup it would have been an absolute travesty.

The worst kind of cheating in football is diving and play-acting. Actively trying to con the referee into thinking you have been hurt or fouled, often to provoke a card that might lead to a sending off. For instance Mascherano against Pepe, or Busquets against Inter. Nothing provokes me more than someone sent off for nothing.

Diving is within the laws of the game, in that it is dealt with in the rules of the game. You try to win a penalty by diving or get an opponent sent off and you know the punishment you will receive if the referee sees it - a yellow card.

See how it can be turned around? Personally I think the way certain teams set out to physically harm or intimidate their opponents (they normally term it as "Get stuck in") to gain an advantage is a worse form of cheating.

I agree with the OP that suspensions for cynical red-card fouls are over the top as punishment. Dont think dives should be direct reds, but there should be a possibility of retroactive punishment for obvious diving and play-acting where the referee has been fooled. Would weed that shit out pretty fast.

I agree in theory that there should be retroactive punishment for diving, but where do you draw the line? What if a player goes down because he sees a player flying in for a tackle and falls trying to avoid it? What if a player is the victim of a careless tackle (which is a foul according the LotG) and he goes over to try and bring attention to the foul? Is that cheating or is it helping the referee make the right decision? It'd be very difficult to implement.

 

[samabachan]

I hate this notion of being punished twice. Really you're only being punished once, while the other team has their (illegally) prevented chance restored, and I can't stand this recent obsession for changing professional fouls to a yellow. Imagine how much more stop start it would be if each player got a free professional foul once per game

 

[Bross]

Heh ye that could be turned around pretty easily I realise. In my defense play-acting isnt really covered in the rules except subjectively under "unsporting conduct" or whatever and its worse than the diving in itself.

I agree its a difficult thing to change because of the subjectivity of it all. But a board of different people (former refs, players, experts) discussing it together like a jury would at least lead to an official decision and possible punishment of a controversial event. Not everyone would be happy naturally, but it would be better than one ref having to decide everything in a split second.

This could be applied to diving and play-acting incidents just as it is to dubious red cards at the moment.

 

[Danny1982]

I don't think the rules are too harsh.. From another perspective things could look different.

 

[Makki]

It's a difficult balance to strike, though. Just giving a penalty alone seems too little, as in some cases it may encourage last ditch fouls. The red card and penalty feels a bit too harsh at times, because it can effectively decide the game really early on.

Another point related to this is that referees are reluctant to give penalties+red cards early on in the games when they might be warranted due to not wanting to influence the game. See Woodgate against us. Had it only been a penalty the ref might have been more inclined to give the correct decision in that instance.

 

[kietotheworld]

Another point related to this is that referees are reluctant to give penalties+red cards early on in the games when they might be warranted due to not wanting to influence the game. See Woodgate against us. Had it only been a penalty the ref might have been more inclined to give the correct decision in that instance.

That should be dealt with by punishing the referee who aren't doing their jobs properly, not changing the rules.

 

[SharkyMcShark]

People get on my tits when they go on about how its a double (or triple in this case ) punishment.

There is one punishment - the red card.

The penalty is restoring the goalscoring opportunity. It is not a punishment.

And missing the next game being a third punishment? Well you could say for any red card then that the player is being double punished because theyre missing the rest of that game and then serving a 1 or 3 game ban after.

 

[Irwin]

The problem is that penalties are supposed to replace the goalscoring chance but it's almost always far easier to score from a penalty than it would have been from the chance. To be a equal replacement for most prevented goalscoring chances, the penalty spot would have to move back at least a couple of yards.

 

[Pexbo]

People get on my tits when they go on about how its a double (or triple in this case ) punishment.

There is one punishment - the red card.

The penalty is restoring the goalscoring opportunity. It is not a punishment.

And missing the next game being a third punishment? Well you could say for any red card then that the player is being double punished because theyre missing the rest of that game and then serving a 1 or 3 game ban after.

You're completely missing the point.

If a player trips a player outside the area and it's not in any way malicious then a foul is given. One punishment.

If a player fouls a player with a goal scoring opportunity, then:

1. The player is sent off.
2. The goal scoring chance is restored by way of a penalty.
3. the resulting red card means the player is then banned for a game.

That is three punishments, two if you count the ban as a result of a red.

Surely if you have restored the goalscoring chance, a red should not be given?

 

[Wowi]

You're completely missing the point.

If a player trips a player outside the area and it's not in any way malicious then a foul is given. One punishment.

If a player fouls a player with a goal scoring opportunity, then:

1. The player is sent off.
2. The goal scoring chance is restored by way of a penalty.
3. the resulting red card means the player is then banned for a game.

That is three punishments, two if you count the ban as a result of a red.

Surely if you have restored the goalscoring chance, a red should not be given?

You can prevent a goal scoring opportunity outside the box as well, in which case you won't have the goal scoring opportunity restored. One punishment. Saying that it's a "punishment" to restore a goal scoring opportunity is quite odd in the first place really. There is one punishment for illegally preventing a goal scoring opportunity and that's the red card. The subsequent ban is a result of the red card, and the ban is there no matter how you get the red card (assuming it isn't rescinded obviously).

Don't you understand, that if you don't get a red card for illegally preventing a goal scoring opportunity defenders will do so more often? Referees often miss fouls and if you aren't send off if he sees it I'm sure a lot of players would see it as a chance worth taking.

 

[SharkyMcShark]

You're completely missing the point.

If a player trips a player outside the area and it's not in any way malicious then a foul is given. One punishment.

If a player fouls a player with a goal scoring opportunity, then:

1. The player is sent off.
2. The goal scoring chance is restored by way of a penalty.
3. the resulting red card means the player is then banned for a game.

That is three punishments, two if you count the ban as a result of a red.

Surely if you have restored the goalscoring chance, a red should not be given?

There is a single punishment in there: the red card.

You can deny a goalscoring opportunity from outside the penalty area too (eg Boyata against Arsenal at COMS last season) - there you get a direct freekick to restore the goalscoring opportunity. There is a single punishment there too (the red card).

Missing a game through suspension is part of the red card. It's not separate - I'm (very very) sure that there is no instance in which a red card does not carry a suspension of some kind (usually 1 game, although more for reckless/violent conduct).

It ensures that a professional foul in the 92nd minute carries more weight that missing the last moments of the game. If that wasn't the case you'd see all kinds of ludicrous defending as tight games go on because the defenders know they can bring down the attackers (especially outside the penalty area) and just miss the next couple of minutes.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

For me diving should be a red card. Especially when it is done in an area that can get an opponent sent off.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

It can be difficult for a referee to be certain if a dive is really a dive or not, shouldn't be an automatic red card in my opinion. Have it reviewed afterwards and if it's a dive on video give the player a lengthy ban.

 

[samabachan]

for me the thing that should go is the whole grey are aaround injury/feigning/timewasting. If the ref thinks a player is trying to trick him as regards the severity of any offence, it should be a mandatory yellow card, wherther it be falling elabotarely, theatrically clutching the face or whatever.

 

[Bross]

for me the thing that should go is the whole grey are aaround injury/feigning/timewasting. If the ref thinks a player is trying to trick him as regards the severity of any offence, it should be a mandatory yellow card, wherther it be falling elabotarely, theatrically clutching the face or whatever.

All it really would take is for one referee to have the balls to just do it. Book someone who lies down dramatically clutching some random bodypart but is back up as soon as play resumes. Justify it by the "unsportsmanlike conduct" paragraph.

There would be a big debate over whether he was correct to do it or not, the general public and most pundits would agree that it was the right thing to do, and it would soon become the norm.

 

[lysglimt]

There are 2 ways to look at this imo....

you can say it's harsh yes - because you are punished twice. But if illegally denying a goalscoring opportunity does NOT lead to a red card - why should the defender not foul the player if the latter is likely to score.

For instance - the famous Rob Lee / Solskjær-episode when Ole brought him down from behind - if this had happened inside the box - NOT giving a red would be madness.

As I see it - the correct would be a red card for a deliberate foul in the box - for instance blocking a shot with the hand on the goalline - but not for accidentally tripping a player as a last man

 

[marjen]

In my opinion, it's only natural that denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity carries a really harsh punishment - it's against the nature of the game, and defenders should really have to think twice about doing, for example, what Luiz did the other day. It's cheating, you've been beaten fair and square by a clever piece of play, and you shouldn't get away with it like he did. If you're inclined to cheat your opponent of a clear goalscoring chance, then you're rightly sent off.

There shouldn't exist an opportunity to cynically deny a goal against the laws of the game without being severely punished for it. Simple as.

 

[SharkyMcShark]

You're not punished twice for crying out loud.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

It can be difficult for a referee to be certain if a dive is really a dive or not, shouldn't be an automatic red card in my opinion. Have it reviewed afterwards and if it's a dive on video give the player a lengthy ban.

For me that isn't fair. Players get sent off and suffer bans because some punk dived. For me those who get caught blatantly diving in a situation in which a player could have been sent off if the ref had been fooled should do the marching instead. At the very least it would make divers think twice about taking the plunge.

 

[Makki]

For me that isn't fair. Players get sent off and suffer bans because some punk dived. For me those get caught blatantly diving in a situation in which a player could have been sent off if the ref had been fooled should do the marching instead. At the very least it would make divers think twice about taking the plunge.

First of all; Players may get sent off for things that weren't worthy of a red card, but they don't tend to get bans because the cards are rescindable. Problem is that if a player dives and the red card subsequently gets rescinded, then nothing happens to the diver. That's absolute bollocks. Look at the Downing incident against us. That was as blatant a dive as you're ever going to get. The referee sees it, the linesman has a perfect view of it, yet the referee doesn't book him. Do you think the ref would've been more or less inclined to punish him if the punishment was a red card instead of a yellow?

I do agree that players trying to con the ref should be punished, but to make a split second decision on whether there was/wasn't/wasn't enough contact and with that potentially influence the game by sending a player off? I don't think any ref would do that. Better to punish them retrospectively IMO.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

First of all; Players may get sent off for things that weren't worthy of a red card, but they don't tend to get bans because the cards are rescindable.

Who cares about rescindable. The eventual result isn't rescindable if your team loses because of it. For me if a ref really catches you blatantly diving, especially in a situation in which your act could cause a red card, you should walk instead.

Problem is that if a player dives and the red card subsequently gets rescinded, then nothing happens to the diver. That's absolute bollocks. Look at the Downing incident against us. That was as blatant a dive as you're ever going to get. The referee sees it, the linesman has a perfect view of it, yet the referee doesn't book him. Do you think the ref would've been more or less inclined to punish him if the punishment was a red card instead of a yellow?

Yes. If the rules say send off a diver, few divers would escape. Most divers are not experts like Suarez and co.

I do agree that players trying to con the ref should be punished, but to make a split second decision on whether there was/wasn't/wasn't enough contact and with that potentially influence the game by sending a player off? I don't think any ref would do that. Better to punish them retrospectively IMO.

Retrospective punishment for me is scant consolation for losing a game when your player was sent off because someone dived.

 

[Makki]

Yes. If the rules say send off a diver, few divers would escape. Most divers are not experts like Suarez and co.

Retrospective punishment for me is scant consolation for losing a game when your player was sent off because someone dived.

That first bit doesn't make sense at all. You really do think that referees would send players off for diving, instead of saying "well there might have been a little bit of contact so I don't think it was a dive"? I think that it would take a VERY brave referee to send someone off for diving. When some don't even give yellow cards for diving, why should they give red cards and influence the game even more?

Well, what's the solution then? Changing the punishment to a red card won't change anything. Having a challenge system whereby the punished team can challenge the decision would go some way to help the referee, but since some people are of the opinion that controversy > correct decision that won't happen. We already know that referees aren't brave enough to go against the rules in order to have the correct decision made (see Argentina-Mexico in the World Cup. A brave ref could've changed the laws of the game, but instead he took the easy way out). You see players, who are already on a yellow card, dive anyway because they don't fear the consequences. Would they fear them more if the punishment was a straight red? I don't think so. I think they would know/figure out that refs would be more reluctant to punish diving, and as a result dive as much as they do now.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

That first bit doesn't make sense at all. You really do think that referees would send players off for diving, instead of saying "well there might have been a little bit of contact so I don't think it was a dive"? I think that it would take a VERY brave referee to send someone off for diving. When some don't even give yellow cards for diving, why should they give red cards and influence the game even more? .

Because the offence deserves it. It's cheating, its unsporting behavior, which for me can't be denied. It really should be in the refs power to send a player off for it. That is a rule change I'd be very happy with personally.

 

[Makki]

Because the offence deserves it. It's cheating, its unsporting behavior, which for me can't be denied. It really should be in the refs power to send a player off for it. That is a rule change I'd be very happy with personally.

Well, I obviously agree with the point. I just don't think that the application of it would give us a desirable effect, considering the human aspect of refereeing. In a perfect world where all referees were brave enough to call a dive, yes, they should get sent off. But some referees are weak (see our game against Liverpool), and some are just plain shit (look at the GIF request thread, that fecker gave Richards a fecking free kick!).

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Well, I obviously agree with the point. I just don't think that the application of it would give us a desirable effect, considering the human aspect of refereeing. In a perfect world where all referees were brave enough to call a dive, yes, they should get sent off. But some referees are weak (see our game against Liverpool), and some are just plain shit (look at the GIF request thread, that fecker gave Richards a fecking free kick!).

I agree. Though it would possible help refs get braver by sending off the ones they do actually catch red handed. For nowadays people jut try diving no matter how shit they are at it. Because they know the worst they can get is a yellow. It makes men like Suarez strive to perfect their technique.

 

[Makki]

I agree. Though it would possible help refs get braver by sending off the ones they do actually catch red handed. For nowadays people jut try diving no matter how shit they are at it. Because they know the worst they can get is a yellow. It makes men like Suarez strive to perfect their technique.

Yeah, but it always takes one ref to be the first one, and who will do that?

Like I said earlier, the ref in the Argentina-Mexico game had a great opportunity to make a change in football for the better. His linesman saw the replay on the monitor and saw that he'd missed a three yard offside. The Argentina players appealed and said "you can't use video evidence!". What would have happened had he disallowed the goal? Would he have been blasted by the rest of the world for ensuring that the correct decision was made? Probably not.

What is worse, a goal scored from an offside position, or an offside goal disallowed thanks to video evidence? FIFA maintains that the unlawful goal is better, but that referee's actions could've really opened the debate up. Instead, he goes with the "I'm not allowed to make the right call" line and bottled it.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Yeah, but it always takes one ref to be the first one, and who will do that?

Like I said earlier, the ref in the Argentina-Mexico game had a great opportunity to make a change in football for the better. His linesman saw the replay on the monitor and saw that he'd missed a three yard offside. The Argentina players appealed and said "you can't use video evidence!". What would have happened had he disallowed the goal? Would he have been blasted by the rest of the world for ensuring that the correct decision was made? Probably not.

What is worse, a goal scored from an offside position, or an offside goal disallowed thanks to video evidence? FIFA maintains that the unlawful goal is better, but that referee's actions could've really opened the debate up. Instead, he goes with the "I'm not allowed to make the right call" line and bottled it.

That is why FIFA should step in and make the law. Refs like to be prompted so that law change would prompt them IMO.

 

[Gio]

It can be difficult for a referee to be certain if a dive is really a dive or not, shouldn't be an automatic red card in my opinion. Have it reviewed afterwards and if it's a dive on video give the player a lengthy ban.

That can be the problem. For instance, when there was a crackdown on diving in the early part of the decade, refs often panicked. See Totti's second yellow against South Korea of an example of a tumble that was neither a penalty nor a dive, but the ref sent him off anyway.