The merits of the red card as punishment

[cosanostra]

There's nothing like a red card to ruin a game of football you've been really looking forward to.

Take for example the recent Man City v Arsenal tie. Early in the first half, Man City rightly or wrongly, have a man sent off. Then, it's just a waiting game until Arsenal keep things tight in defence and pass the ball around them until the 10 men make a costly error and crack. The game as an even match is gone after only a few minutes and we're left with something completely different.

In Scotland there is great inconsistency in refereeing due to incompetence, the presence of the Old Firm and possibly even corruption. Also, recent years has seen the rise of the straight red as punishment for various infringements. It's a big punishment for a single refereeing decision that might not even be correct and can really impact on a team's fortunes.

Would a 10 or 20 minute sin bin style punishment be more welcome than a red card? Could we keep the red card but introduce a sin bin period between the stage of a yellow and red cards? Would this maybe make the game fairer and reduce the impact of erratic refereeing or should we just leave the game as it is?

[Ecce Romanov]

There's nothing like a red card to ruin a game of football you've been really looking forward to.

Take for example the recent Man City v Arsenal tie. Early in the first half, Man City rightly or wrongly, have a man sent off. Then, it's just a waiting game until Arsenal keep things tight in defence and pass the ball around them until the 10 men make a costly error and crack. The game as an even match is gone after only a few minutes and we're left with something completely different.

In Scotland there is great inconsistency in refereeing due to incompetence, the presence of the Old Firm and possibly even corruption. Also, recent years has seen the rise of the straight red as punishment for various infringements. It's a big punishment for a single refereeing decision that might not even be correct and can really impact on a team's fortunes.

Would a 10 or 20 minute sin bin style punishment be more welcome than a red card? Could we keep the red card but introduce a sin bin period between the stage of a yellow and red cards? Would this maybe make the game fairer and reduce the impact of erratic refereeing or should we just leave the game as it is?

 

Good call. I've thought this for a while. Also, a 10 yard free kick advance because of dissent would be good.

[Do The Dance]

Sounds shite. The 10 yd free kick advance was rubbish too, and often hindered the free kick taker by bringing it too close.

[cosanostra]

Sounds shite. The 10 yd free kick advance was rubbish too, and often hindered the free kick taker by bringing it too close.

 

It could lessen the impact of corrupt or incompetent referees though which is a problem in Scotland.

The 10 yard thing could work ok if the team had a choice whether they wanted to move it forward or leave it where it was.

[vasco]

This has been bugging me recently as well, with the match at Eastlands on Sunday being indicative of the problem.

 

My solution would be to allow the red-carded player to be replaced by one of the substitutes, unless they've all been used. Had this been the case on Sunday, City would have been punished by the reduction in number of possible substitutions, the player would suffer via penalty points and next game ban, which would also deprive City of his services, but the match would still have been a contest between two reasonably well matched teams.

 

Vasco

[mre]

what about awarding a pen to the opposing team (regardless where the offence takes place) and a ban for subsequent match/matches?

[super_vlad]

There's nothing like a red card to ruin a game of football you've been really looking forward to.

Take for example the recent Man City v Arsenal tie. Early in the first half, Man City rightly or wrongly, have a man sent off. Then, it's just a waiting game until Arsenal keep things tight in defence and pass the ball around them until the 10 men make a costly error and crack. The game as an even match is gone after only a few minutes and we're left with something completely different.

In Scotland there is great inconsistency in refereeing due to incompetence, the presence of the Old Firm and possibly even corruption. Also, recent years has seen the rise of the straight red as punishment for various infringements. It's a big punishment for a single refereeing decision that might not even be correct and can really impact on a team's fortunes.

Would a 10 or 20 minute sin bin style punishment be more welcome than a red card? Could we keep the red card but introduce a sin bin period between the stage of a yellow and red cards? Would this maybe make the game fairer and reduce the impact of erratic refereeing or should we just leave the game as it is?

 

I think you are half right, in the EPL i can see the point because of the standard of football played is much better then the spl. A sin bin in the SPL would be a joke mate, in a country were we already priase a player for tackling first, it would be the end of producing any skillful players. Already we see any talent player getting chopped down by the op, its rifle thru all the leagues and age groups, have a look at the tackles flying into wee temps. If anything we need refs to be stronger and punish players, maybe then the likes of st mirren etc will actually try and play football rather then turning up for a fight, in return our national team would improve.

[Victorian]

in principle it seems a decent idea. perhaps different periods of inactivity for different offences. it's certainly something which could be trialed in certain places / competitions. it would add another dimension to the game in actual fact.

 

scottish football is a differnt matter entirely though. it would simply become yet another thing that was handled by the referees on a two-tier basis.

 

if they were going to bring in one rule which would benefit football, i would like them to make simulation a straight red card offence. inevitably it would be the same story with scottish referees but i think it would go a long way to improving player behaviour in general. if theylre ever going to do it, it might be better to involve replay evidence as well in order to minimise incorrect calls.

[wibble]

It could lessen the impact of corrupt or incompetent referees though which is a problem in Scotland.

The 10 yard thing could work ok if the team had a choice whether they wanted to move it forward or leave it where it was.

 

The 10 yard advance would apply to all teams except the OF, who get away with abusing refs every week.

 

No amount of rule change tinkering can adjust for refs having one set of rules for the OF and another for everyone else.

[Ecce Romanov]

It could lessen the impact of corrupt or incompetent referees though which is a problem in Scotland.

The 10 yard thing could work ok if the team had a choice whether they wanted to move it forward or leave it where it was.

 

Or even for the defending team to lose a player in the wall

[wibble]

This has been bugging me recently as well, with the match at Eastlands on Sunday being indicative of the problem.

 

My solution would be to allow the red-carded player to be replaced by one of the substitutes, unless they've all been used. Had this been the case on Sunday, City would have been punished by the reduction in number of possible substitutions, the player would suffer via penalty points and next game ban, which would also deprive City of his services, but the match would still have been a contest between two reasonably well matched teams.

 

Vasco

 

Hardly a penalty to a cheating team though is it?

 

A guy can sacrifice himself for the cause as a striker runs through on goal and his team carries on with the full 11 men for the rest of the game.

[world_3]

How about players don't cheat by deliberately bringing other players down when they're in a goalscoring position, and refrain from putting in bad tackles intended to injure the other player. Then we'd have fewer red cards that spoil the game.

[Shaggy2]

There's nothing like a red card to ruin a game of football you've been really looking forward to.

Take for example the recent Man City v Arsenal tie. Early in the first half, Man City rightly or wrongly, have a man sent off. Then, it's just a waiting game until Arsenal keep things tight in defence and pass the ball around them until the 10 men make a costly error and crack. The game as an even match is gone after only a few minutes and we're left with something completely different.

In Scotland there is great inconsistency in refereeing due to incompetence, the presence of the Old Firm and possibly even corruption. Also, recent years has seen the rise of the straight red as punishment for various infringements. It's a big punishment for a single refereeing decision that might not even be correct and can really impact on a team's fortunes.

Would a 10 or 20 minute sin bin style punishment be more welcome than a red card? Could we keep the red card but introduce a sin bin period between the stage of a yellow and red cards? Would this maybe make the game fairer and reduce the impact of erratic refereeing or should we just leave the game as it is?

Firstly the guy was RIGHTLY sent off on Sunday for a professional foul.

 

Your idea is fine in theory if you're a complete neutral (which is not very often in football given that we have favourites or money on games etc). In practice it's a crazy idea and should never ever ever be thought of.

 

Say for example, on 7th November an early corner comes in from Skacel and Big Zal heads it goalwards and Hogg punches it over the bar. We get a penalty which is either scored or missed (doesn't really matter) and then Hogg goes on to score the equaliser/winner in the 90th minute. The Hobos then think the "Cosanostra" rule is the best thing ever whereas your mates don't want to speak to you ever again!

[EH11_2NL]

It could lessen the impact of corrupt or incompetent referees though which is a problem in Scotland.

The 10 yard thing could work ok if the team had a choice whether they wanted to move it forward or leave it where it was.

 

Corrupt? Where is your evidence of that? Corrupt to me means taking cash and making decisions that ultimately favour one team or another. A poor refereeing decision doesn't make somebody corrupt. It certainly appears that the ugly sisters get their fair share of what WE would term 'ropey decisions' but to say, without a shred of evidence, that refs are 'throwing' matches is frankly garbage. How long would Scottish football last if that were found to be true? Not once, ever, has a ref been found to have accepted bungs in Scotland.

 

Incompetent? Hmmmm....there have certainly been some poor refereeing decisions but there ALWAYS will be. The very nature of football requires a judgement to be made almost instantly and that's where the other officials should be taking more of a part. To assist the ref in the big decisions. I was a ref in my younger days and made a few howlers but it wasn't through being corrupt or incompetent. All the training and experience in the world doesn't stop refs making MISTAKES!

[Victorian]

Corrupt? Where is your evidence of that? Corrupt to me means taking cash and making decisions that ultimately favour one team or another. A poor refereeing decision doesn't make somebody corrupt. It certainly appears that the ugly sisters get their fair share of what WE would term 'ropey decisions' but to say, without a shred of evidence, that refs are 'throwing' matches is frankly garbage. How long would Scottish football last if that were found to be true? Not once, ever, has a ref been found to have accepted bungs in Scotland.

 

Incompetent? Hmmmm....there have certainly been some poor refereeing decisions but there ALWAYS will be. The very nature of football requires a judgement to be made almost instantly and that's where the other officials should be taking more of a part. To assist the ref in the big decisions. I was a ref in my younger days and made a few howlers but it wasn't through being corrupt or incompetent. All the training and experience in the world doesn't stop refs making MISTAKES!

to you that's what it means. to other people it can also mean that certain factors within the scottish game have inherently corrupted the decision making abilities of match officials.... thereby making their decisions corrupt.

 

the word 'corrupt' does not necessarily always have to mean what you said. a referee doesn't have to be 'on the make' to be corrupt.

[The People's Chimp]

This has been bugging me recently as well, with the match at Eastlands on Sunday being indicative of the problem.

 

My solution would be to allow the red-carded player to be replaced by one of the substitutes, unless they've all been used. Had this been the case on Sunday, City would have been punished by the reduction in number of possible substitutions, the player would suffer via penalty points and next game ban, which would also deprive City of his services, but the match would still have been a contest between two reasonably well matched teams.

 

Vasco

 

The only person who ruined the game was the city player who made a tackle which left the ref with no option but to send him off. Those are the rules, he knew them, he took the punishment.

 

Why should city benefit and not go a man down? Why do they deserve to be in a "contest between two reasonably well matched teams" when one of their players has committed a tackle worthy of a red card?

[The People's Chimp]

if they were going to bring in one rule which would benefit football, i would like them to make simulation a straight red card offence. inevitably it would be the same story with scottish referees but i think it would go a long way to improving player behaviour in general. if theylre ever going to do it, it might be better to involve replay evidence as well in order to minimise incorrect calls.

 

The potential for even more miscarriages of justice is incredible. Sometimes, running at high speed, the slightest touch can send you sprawling. Not a dive, but not a foul either. Straight red.

 

Evasive action as a meaty tackle comes in, but you hit the floor with no contact made? Straight red.

 

It would be horrendous in practice.

 

Look at penalty decisions, and how they are discussed on here. Even amongst decisions going for hearts, and decisions going against hearts, you will have people saying "never a penalty" or "dive." That's amongst ourselves. Imagine the controversy and horrible decisions if your proposal was introduced. It would be mental.

[Victorian]

The potential for even more miscarriages of justice is incredible. Sometimes, running at high speed, the slightest touch can send you sprawling. Not a dive, but not a foul either. Straight red.

 

Evasive action as a meaty tackle comes in, but you hit the floor with no contact made? Straight red.

 

It would be horrendous in practice.

 

Look at penalty decisions, and how they are discussed on here. Even amongst decisions going for hearts, and decisions going against hearts, you will have people saying "never a penalty" or "dive." That's amongst ourselves. Imagine the controversy and horrible decisions if your proposal was introduced. It would be mental.

 

that's why i suggested it would have to go hand-in-hand with replay evidence. if there was any doubt then the benefit of the doubt would have to go to the player under scrutiny.

 

if it was clear simulation... red card.

 

i don't see anything else bringing the behaviour of players back up to an acceptable standard.

[cosanostra]

Firstly the guy was RIGHTLY sent off on Sunday for a professional foul.

 

 

 

Hardly the issue we're discussing but I'd agree that it was a correct decision.

 

 

Your idea is fine in theory if you're a complete neutral (which is not very often in football given that we have favourites or money on games etc). In practice it's a crazy idea and should never ever ever be thought of.

 

Say for example, on 7th November an early corner comes in from Skacel and Big Zal heads it goalwards and Hogg punches it over the bar. We get a penalty which is either scored or missed (doesn't really matter) and then Hogg goes on to score the equaliser/winner in the 90th minute. The Hobos then think the "Cosanostra" rule is the best thing ever whereas your mates don't want to speak to you ever again!

 

For denying a clear goal scoring chance, we'd clearly have to keep the straight red card rule in place.

[cosanostra]

Corrupt? Where is your evidence of that? Corrupt to me means taking cash and making decisions that ultimately favour one team or another. A poor refereeing decision doesn't make somebody corrupt. It certainly appears that the ugly sisters get their fair share of what WE would term 'ropey decisions' but to say, without a shred of evidence, that refs are 'throwing' matches is frankly garbage. How long would Scottish football last if that were found to be true? Not once, ever, has a ref been found to have accepted bungs in Scotland.

 

Incompetent? Hmmmm....there have certainly been some poor refereeing decisions but there ALWAYS will be. The very nature of football requires a judgement to be made almost instantly and that's where the other officials should be taking more of a part. To assist the ref in the big decisions. I was a ref in my younger days and made a few howlers but it wasn't through being corrupt or incompetent. All the training and experience in the world doesn't stop refs making MISTAKES!

 

Corruption could also mean favouring a team that they support or favour another team in a game for the ultimate benefit of the team they support. Also, corruption could mean that referees are afraid they will not be given chances to referee big matches if they award decisions against the Old Firm. I'm not saying that these things are regular occurrances in Scottish football but the incidents with Mike McCurry and Andy Davis were certainly suspicious.

As for incompetence, I think there are several referees who are completely incompetent. Willie Collum and Ian Brines for example. Just my views.

[The People's Chimp]

that's why i suggested it would have to go hand-in-hand with replay evidence. if there was any doubt then the benefit of the doubt would have to go to the player under scrutiny.

 

if it was clear simulation... red card.

 

i don't see anything else bringing the behaviour of players back up to an acceptable standard.

 

So we'd have TV replays for these incidents; football is stop start enough as it is, so where do you draw the line? Does each teams have 3 calls a game, use them up at your peril!!

The point I was making about controversy was essentially that even the most clear cut of decisions are rarely clear cut or without controversy. What we should have is clear, consistent retrospective action. McGregor and Laugherty's antics should have received bans - there should be a set ban - 2 games, for that kind of simulation. But keep it away from the pitch, we want 90 minutes with as little stoppage as possible. One of my many b?te noires is the way that the modern game is ruined by too many overly officious, pedantic refs stopping the game every ten seconds and never letting any kind of flow build up. We need to avoid an increase in such stoppage as much as possible.

Football without the talking points would be shite anyway.

[Shaggy2]

Hardly the issue we're discussing but I'd agree that it was a correct decision.

 

It's the example you used as to why red cards ruin games though.

 

For denying a clear goal scoring chance, we'd clearly have to keep the straight red card rule in place.

 

Sending-off Offences

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any

of the following seven offences:

? serious foul play

? violent conduct

? spitting at an opponent or any other person

? denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring

opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply

to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

? denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent

moving towards the player?s goal by an offence punishable by a

free kick or a penalty kick

? using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

? receiving a second caution in the same match

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must

leave the vicinity of the fi eld of play and the technical area.

 

So which of the above would you say should be a sin bin and not a red card?

[Taffin]

dont agree with the sin bin idea, however it may work well for 2 yellows = sin bin. straight red, still a red.

[cosanostra]

It's the example you used as to why red cards ruin games though.

 

 

It was indeed the example that I used and I think it clearly did ruin the game as a spectacle. As I said though, it was the correct decision and I wouldn't remove the red card punishment for denying a goal scoring opportunity. It was merely an example of a red card affecting a game.

 

It's the example you used as to why red cards ruin games though.

 

 

 

Sending-off Offences

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any

of the following seven offences:

? serious foul play

? violent conduct

? spitting at an opponent or any other person

? denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring

opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply

to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

? denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent

moving towards the player?s goal by an offence punishable by a

free kick or a penalty kick

? using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

? receiving a second caution in the same match

 

 

So which of the above would you say should be a sin bin and not a red card?

 

The ones that I've highlighted should stay reds, no matter what. I'm not sure what is meant by serious foul play.

Also, I'm not hugely in favour of this idea, I'm just interested in discussing it's merits.

[Shanks]

The thing is at the moment if a player is sent off after 5mins he then misses 85mins of the game, if the player had commied the exact same foul after 60mins he only misses the last 30mins of the game. So it seems like there are different punishments depending on when the foul is commited, I think something like a 30min sinbin could work and would be more fair.

[N User]

Red cards are great.

[Ecce Romanov]

The thing is at the moment if a player is sent off after 5mins he then misses 85mins of the game, if the player had commied the exact same foul after 60mins he only misses the last 30mins of the game. So it seems like there are different punishments depending on when the foul is commited, I think something like a 30min sinbin could work and would be more fair.

So, if they were sin binned after 85 mins, would the miss the first 25 of the next game?

 

Interesting!

[ibpc]

There's nothing like a red card to ruin a game of football you've been really looking forward to.

Take for example the recent Man City v Arsenal tie. Early in the first half, Man City rightly or wrongly, have a man sent off. Then, it's just a waiting game until Arsenal keep things tight in defence and pass the ball around them until the 10 men make a costly error and crack. The game as an even match is gone after only a few minutes and we're left with something completely different.

In Scotland there is great inconsistency in refereeing due to incompetence, the presence of the Old Firm and possibly even corruption. Also, recent years has seen the rise of the straight red as punishment for various infringements. It's a big punishment for a single refereeing decision that might not even be correct and can really impact on a team's fortunes.

Would a 10 or 20 minute sin bin style punishment be more welcome than a red card? Could we keep the red card but introduce a sin bin period between the stage of a yellow and red cards? Would this maybe make the game fairer and reduce the impact of erratic refereeing or should we just leave the game as it is?

 

Just come off the golf course where we were discussing exactly this point, as well as the general need to have a more "rugby" approach to discipline generally.

[Francis Albert]

Some of the best games I have seen included red cards, and some of the most pleasurable Hearts wins have followed either us or the opposition being reduced to ten men. I doubt many Arsenal fans were complaining and neither would we have been in the same situation. Ruining the TV spectacle for the armchair neutrals comes low on my list of priorities.

As for bias, I can just see Scottish refs revelling in adding the sin bin to their pro-OF tool-box.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Some of the best games I have seen included red cards, and some of the most pleasurable Hearts wins have followed either us or the opposition being reduced to ten men. I doubt many Arsenal fans were complaining and neither would we have been in the same situation. Ruining the TV spectacle for the armchair neutrals comes low on my list of priorities. As for bias, I can just see Scottish refs revelling in adding the sin bin to their pro-OF tool-box.

 

Exactly.

[The People's Chimp]

Some of the best games I have seen included red cards, and some of the most pleasurable Hearts wins have followed either us or the opposition being reduced to ten men. I doubt many Arsenal fans were complaining and neither would we have been in the same situation. Ruining the TV spectacle for the armchair neutrals comes low on my list of priorities.

As for bias, I can just see Scottish refs revelling in adding the sin bin to their pro-OF tool-box.

 

Some might say this has been the downfall of the game in general. In short, FT armchair neutral!

[Ribble]

This has been bugging me recently as well, with the match at Eastlands on Sunday being indicative of the problem.

 

My solution would be to allow the red-carded player to be replaced by one of the substitutes, unless they've all been used. Had this been the case on Sunday, City would have been punished by the reduction in number of possible substitutions, the player would suffer via penalty points and next game ban, which would also deprive City of his services, but the match would still have been a contest between two reasonably well matched teams.

 

Vasco

 

 

Too open to abuse imho, for instance what's to stop a team starting a reserve player with the aim of him doing a hatchet job on the opponents star player then subbing on the pleyer that would have started normally? Only hindrance to the team would be 1 less sub to use (ableit actually strenthening the 11 on the park) whilst the opposition would have lost their star player!! As for the points and next game ban, doesn't really affect the club if it is a reserve player!!

 

For instance say Man City are away to Anfield and Torres is already injured, that leaves only Gerrard as being a genuine threat to City. So City give Viera a start with Yaya Toure dropping to the bench. Viera cattles Gerrard and puts him out of the game whilst City are forced into bringing on Yaya for Viera! City now have a better first 11 and Liverpools only threat has been strechered off! Tell me how that is better than someone getting a red card?

 

 

[Shanks]

So, if they were sin binned after 85 mins, would the miss the first 25 of the next game?

 

Interesting!

 

Haha come on! If the player gets sent off after 85mins then they just miss the remainder of the game.

 

(i do realise my idea is pish, it was just a suggestion)

[jambobroch]

I think the beauty of football is that it is a progressive sport, and when something appears to be wrong, or unfair, the powers that be make alterations.

 

I think there is merit in the sin bin idea, however imagining this in a Scottish context I feel it would be the last time we ever saw an OF player sent off at Tynecastle. I can hear the commentary now "Kenny Miller has broken Marian Kello's nose with that high challenge. 20 minute sin bin, but never a red...."

[Ben Dover]

I think the beauty of football is that it is a progressive sport, and when something appears to be wrong, or unfair, the powers that be make alterations.

 

I think there is merit in the sin bin idea, however imagining this in a Scottish context I feel it would be the last time we ever saw an OF player sent off at Tynecastle. I can hear the commentary now "Kenny Miller has broken Marian Kello's nose with that high challenge. 20 minute sin bin, but never a red...."

 

 

Apart from the GSO / last man rulings I dont think much real improvement has been made in the last 100 years?

Problem is, like internet hackers or Tax avoidance, we have teams devising ways round the laws....................INSTEAD OF employing their time better by simply improving their ability to PLAY IT THE way it should be played

Mind it's great to see David and Goliath matches with the wee team tackling ( fairly ) like their very lives depended on it.

It's not acceptable however for mid - table teams to consider themselves to have the right to assault another teams

play makers JUST BECAUSE they are financially disadvantaged and unable to obtain such quality !

[jambo_jack]

Firstly the guy was RIGHTLY sent off on Sunday for a professional foul.

 

Your idea is fine in theory if you're a complete neutral (which is not very often in football given that we have favourites or money on games etc). In practice it's a crazy idea and should never ever ever be thought of.

 

Say for example, on 7th November an early corner comes in from Skacel and Big Zal heads it goalwards and Hogg punches it over the bar. We get a penalty which is either scored or missed (doesn't really matter) and then Hogg goes on to score the equaliser/winner in the 90th minute. The Hobos then think the "Cosanostra" rule is the best thing ever whereas your mates don't want to speak to you ever again!

 

Totally agree with this. The rule would cause more problems thanit solved

[harvey05]

There's nothing like a red card to ruin a game of football you've been really looking forward to.

Take for example the recent Man City v Arsenal tie. Early in the first half, Man City rightly or wrongly, have a man sent off. Then, it's just a waiting game until Arsenal keep things tight in defence and pass the ball around them until the 10 men make a costly error and crack. The game as an even match is gone after only a few minutes and we're left with something completely different.

In Scotland there is great inconsistency in refereeing due to incompetence, the presence of the Old Firm and possibly even corruption. Also, recent years has seen the rise of the straight red as punishment for various infringements. It's a big punishment for a single refereeing decision that might not even be correct and can really impact on a team's fortunes.

Would a 10 or 20 minute sin bin style punishment be more welcome than a red card? Could we keep the red card but introduce a sin bin period between the stage of a yellow and red cards? Would this maybe make the game fairer and reduce the impact of erratic refereeing or should we just leave the game as it is?

 

I would get rid of the card system completely. Referees don't know how it works anyway. Just look at the disparity between say Stokes challenge on Papac(sp) on Sunday and say dissent. The stokes challenge was crude and probably deserved to go off. Yet they both have the same sentence,

 

2 things need to be introduced, the Video ref and a sin bin system. The ref. still does his job as is now but he doesn't decide what the punishment is, the video ref does. There should be clearer defined punishments to "fit the crime" The current system is too vague.It's also abused regulary. There could be 3 different sin bin punishments, 10,20 and 30 minutes.

 

This system would allow refs to concentrate more on the game and not have to worry about accusations of corruption and so forth. It will also see the game start to move into the 21st. centuary

 

I'm not saying that this is the be all and end all but i think it would be a step in the right direction.

 

And please, no smart a..s asking me for the new definitions, i'm not on the SFA payroll.

 

YET

[Sydney]

I have no issue with red cards.

 

In fact, sometimes they are not punishment enough.

 

Imagine, Hearts vs Celtic, Scottish Cup Final - Celtic are 1-0 up with 2 mins to go. Long ball over the top from Kello and Temps is away, only one man to beat, but still just inside the Celtic half. He knocks the ball past baldy swedish bloke, and baldy halves him, knowing fine well that he wouldnt have the pace to keep up with him. Red card - but only a free kick for Hearts, 45 yards from goal. Baldy's actions have won the cup for Celtic.

 

So, sometimes, a red is not enough. Stopping a player when through on goal (imo) should be a straight red AND a penalty - no matter where the foul is committed.

 

As for the rule about foul and abusive language. Was that dreamt up by someone who's never played the game? Whistle blows...automatic reaction (even if you dont know what it is for) = "****'s sake ref"

[Ben Dover]

The sin-bin would be ideal for minor misdemeanours that can currently get you sent off - like one innocuous jersey pull followed up soon after by thoughtlessly kicking the ball away.

[bean counter]

My problem with the current Red Card system is that although the player that comitted the foul misses the remainder of the game and therefore leaves his team disadvantaged he also misses all of the next game, which is no advantage to the team that the foul was committed on.

 

I would make it that if a player is sent off against team A he misses the next match his team play against team A not the next match his team play

[Era Macaroons]

There's nothing like a red card to ruin a game of football you've been really looking forward to.

Take for example the recent Man City v Arsenal tie. Early in the first half, Man City rightly or wrongly, have a man sent off. Then, it's just a waiting game until Arsenal keep things tight in defence and pass the ball around them until the 10 men make a costly error and crack. The game as an even match is gone after only a few minutes and we're left with something completely different.

In Scotland there is great inconsistency in refereeing due to incompetence, the presence of the Old Firm and possibly even corruption. Also, recent years has seen the rise of the straight red as punishment for various infringements. It's a big punishment for a single refereeing decision that might not even be correct and can really impact on a team's fortunes.

Would a 10 or 20 minute sin bin style punishment be more welcome than a red card? Could we keep the red card but introduce a sin bin period between the stage of a yellow and red cards? Would this maybe make the game fairer and reduce the impact of erratic refereeing or should we just leave the game as it is?

 

I think your onto something here....Im all for sin bins.

 

a yellow card covers everything from dissent/kicking the ball away right up to pretty serious fouls.

 

At the moment we have a very restricted punishment system that actually affects the game in progress, ie

 

Yellow card - effectivley no punishment at all other than 'naughty boy, dont do it again'.

 

or

 

Red Card - your off

 

 

Why not introduce a 10 min sin bin for every yellow card offence (or even have, say, 3 degrees of severity e.g. 5 mins, 10 mins, 15 mins depending on offence). a second yellow or straight red could remain the same...simply send them off for rest of match.

 

Im pretty sure that would go a huge way to cleaning up the game, players know they have '2 chances' before being properly punished and play accordingly

 

It would also go some way to stopping 3 or 4 differant players all happily taking bookings over the course of a match as they all take turns at cything down their opponents star player.

 

Im pretty sure the number of yellow cards (and subsequent Reds) would plummet

 

The game would become more honest and interesting, any team facing a team that has a man in the sin bin must surley go for goals during this period?

 

[EH11_2NL]

Corruption could also mean favouring a team that they support or favour another team in a game for the ultimate benefit of the team they support. Also, corruption could mean that referees are afraid they will not be given chances to referee big matches if they award decisions against the Old Firm. I'm not saying that these things are regular occurrances in Scottish football but the incidents with Mike McCurry and Andy Davis were certainly suspicious.

As for incompetence, I think there are several referees who are completely incompetent. Willie Collum and Ian Brines for example. Just my views.

 

And you are entitled to them. But corruption, in whatever form it takes, is a very strong word and implies an accusation. And there is no evidence other than non-old firm fans getting huffy when things go against us. But the SFA can get rid of 'incompetent' refs.

[Acey]

Every single one of the "solutions" in this thread is terrible.

[harvey05]

Every single one of the "solutions" in this thread is terrible.

Why? and what's wrong with my idea?

[Acey]

Why? and what's wrong with my idea?

 

I would get rid of the card system completely. Referees don't know how it works anyway. Just look at the disparity between say Stokes challenge on Papac(sp) on Sunday and say dissent. The stokes challenge was crude and probably deserved to go off. Yet they both have the same sentence,

 

That's not a problem with the law - it's a problem with how the law is applied.

 

2 things need to be introduced, the Video ref and a sin bin system. The ref. still does his job as is now but he doesn't decide what the punishment is, the video ref does.

 

So the referee just blows the whistle? Why not just have the video ref linked into the tannoy system, and he can just boom "STOP" whenever he sees a foul?

 

There should be clearer defined punishments to "fit the crime" The current system is too vague.It's also abused regulary. There could be 3 different sin bin punishments, 10,20 and 30 minutes.

 

"The current system to is too vague. Here, have three arbitrary levels of sin-bin time."

 

This system would allow refs to concentrate more on the game and not have to worry about accusations of corruption and so forth.

 

That's not true.

 

It will also see the game start to move into the 21st. centuary

 

What does that actually mean?

 

I'm not saying that this is the be all and end all but i think it would be a step in the right direction.

 

No.

 

And please, no smart a..s asking me for the new definitions, i'm not on the SFA payroll.

 

[interista]

This has been bugging me recently as well, with the match at Eastlands on Sunday being indicative of the problem.

 

My solution would be to allow the red-carded player to be replaced by one of the substitutes, unless they've all been used. Had this been the case on Sunday, City would have been punished by the reduction in number of possible substitutions, the player would suffer via penalty points and next game ban, which would also deprive City of his services, but the match would still have been a contest between two reasonably well matched teams.

 

Vasco

 

I have to agree in general terms. Red card would have to remain for certain offences but for others a compulsory substitution, possibly after a "sin bin period", would be preferable.

[The People's Chimp]

That's not a problem with the law - it's a problem with how the law is applied.

 

 

 

So the referee just blows the whistle? Why not just have the video ref linked into the tannoy system, and he can just boom "STOP" whenever he sees a foul?

 

 

 

"The current system to is too vague. Here, have three arbitrary levels of sin-bin time."

 

 

 

That's not true.

 

 

 

What does that actually mean?

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

"This"

[harvey05]

That's not a problem with the law - it's a problem with how the law is applied.

 

And therein lies the problem. Have a look at older clips of matches and see what is/isn't a booking compared to now. The refs nowadays are card happy. You look how quickly a Hearts player will get booked in a match against the old firm rendering his ability to compete for the rest of the match reduced.

 

 

 

So the referee just blows the whistle? Why not just have the video ref linked into the tannoy system, and he can just boom "STOP" whenever he sees a foul?

 

How much is a quarter these days?

 

 

"The current system to is too vague. Here, have three arbitrary levels of sin-bin time."

 

Intelligent response!

 

 

That's not true.

 

How do you know?

 

 

 

What does that actually mean?

 

Have you got betamax player or a blueray player?

 

 

No.

Yes it would

 

 

 

Obviously you've no humour either.

[colinmaroon]

to you that's what it means. to other people it can also mean that certain factors within the scottish game have inherently corrupted the decision making abilities of match officials.... thereby making their decisions corrupt.

 

the word 'corrupt' does not necessarily always have to mean what you said. a referee doesn't have to be 'on the make' to be corrupt.

 

 

The "ego rules" tendency of this age extends even to the dictionary!!!

 

If taken to its logical conclusion there can never be any meaningful debate because, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the "truth" is, the cop out is to retreat into the dead-end of IMO!!!

 

I have no doubt that there have been instances where referees and officials have deliberately favoured one team over another, for whatever reason, and that is "corruption" - e.g. Davis cheated with his award of a penalty. He made a "corrupt" decision!

 

Back to the topic, if we started introducing a raft of measures - sin bins etc. - it only gives the cheats more scope to influence games!

 

I do think that, if a player is brought down as in the City/Arsenal example, rather than a red, award a penalty - even if 30 yards out.

[colinmaroon]

And you are entitled to them. But corruption, in whatever form it takes, is a very strong word and implies an accusation. And there is no evidence other than non-old firm fans getting huffy when things go against us. But the SFA can get rid of 'incompetent' refs.

 

 

But, they don't - not unless they've really screwed the OF.

 

As I've already said, I accuse the likes of Davis, MacDonald, to name just two, who have made decisions because they seek to give the advantage to one team.

 

What happened to Davis again?

 

He was given a Cup Final!!!