Captain... Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 I've seen this come up a couple of times that they are talking about not making it an automatic red card for stopping a goal scoring opportunity if a penalty is awarded as it is a double punishment. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/michel-platini-sin-bins-uefa-2893735 I didn't agree at first, but after seeing Danny Rose get sent off for Spurs against Chelsea, I have changed my mind: It was a clear attempt to get the ball, he even made contact with the ball, but dived in from behind and took out Dzeko, a clear foul and a clear penalty and a clear goal scoring opportunity, but to send him off just seemed ridiculous, especially seeing as it became an even better goal scoring opportunity from the spot than where Dzeko was. If it had been a cynical foul, like a hand ball on the line, or just hacking him down without getting anywhere near the ball then fair enough, I am starting to understand the double punishment argument.
StanSP Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 Isn't a triple jeopardy thing, too? With the third premise being that he is suspended for following matches as well as being punished in the match with which the player got sent off.
Harry - LCFC Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 Can certainly see the case for it. The team who had their opportunity to score taken from them are given another one by the referee. If both the original chance and the penalty are roughly equal then they haven't really lost out, at which point it seems unfair to send one of their opponents off.
Captain... Posted 31 January 2014 Author Posted 31 January 2014 Can certainly see the case for it. The team who had their opportunity to score taken from them are given another one by the referee. If both the original chance and the penalty are roughly equal then they haven't really lost out, at which point it seems unfair to send one of their opponents off. So would you still have it as a red card if he is brought down outside the area, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity?
foxfanazer Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 I think it's a good idea. At least then if the ref gets it wrong he's only got tge the penalty bit wrong if that makes sense
ScouseFox Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 Where do you draw the line, though? Say Suarez in the WC10, he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity, he denied a clear goal, the penalty was then missed. If that had been mid-match then they'd effectively have gone from definitely conceding a goal to not conceding, facing no disadvantage for the rest of the game because he, basically, cheated. Would lead to a lot more obvious denials of goalscoring chances if people knew they'd get away with just a penalty, it's effectively no lose for a defender. Don't stop him and he's almost definitely going to score. So obviously you stop him, he might score the penalty anyway, in which case that's just the same outcome as if you don't commit a foul, yet there's also a chance he misses his penalty, therefore you've gained a bloody huuuuge advantage by deliberately fouling (cheating) the attacker.
foxfanazer Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 So would you still have it as a red card if he is brought down outside the area, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity?yeah still a red outside the box as a free kick isn't a big enough punishment
Captain... Posted 31 January 2014 Author Posted 31 January 2014 Where do you draw the line, though? Say Suarez in the WC10, he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity, he denied a clear goal, the penalty was then missed. If that had been mid-match then they'd effectively have gone from definitely conceding a goal to not conceding, facing no disadvantage for the rest of the game because he, basically, cheated. Would lead to a lot more obvious denials of goalscoring chances if people knew they'd get away with just a penalty, it's effectively no lose for a defender. Don't stop him and he's almost definitely going to score. So obviously you stop him, he might score the penalty anyway, in which case that's just the same outcome as if you don't commit a foul, yet there's also a chance he misses his penalty, therefore you've gained a bloody huuuuge advantage by deliberately fouling (cheating) the attacker. In the Suarez case it should still be a red card as it was a deliberate foul. I just think that it shouldn't be an automatic red when it could be a slip or in Rose's case a successful attempt to win the ball, but from behind and taking out Dzeko so a foul.
Nalis Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 Where do you draw the line, though? Say Suarez in the WC10, he didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity, he denied a clear goal, the penalty was then missed. If that had been mid-match then they'd effectively have gone from definitely conceding a goal to not conceding, facing no disadvantage for the rest of the game because he, basically, cheated. Would lead to a lot more obvious denials of goalscoring chances if people knew they'd get away with just a penalty, it's effectively no lose for a defender. Don't stop him and he's almost definitely going to score. So obviously you stop him, he might score the penalty anyway, in which case that's just the same outcome as if you don't commit a foul, yet there's also a chance he misses his penalty, therefore you've gained a bloody huuuuge advantage by deliberately fouling (cheating) the attacker. Completely agree with this.
pSinatra Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 If it's a totally cynical foul.....then there is an argument for a sending off, regardless of where it is on the pitch. Give a penalty, but if it's a genuine attempt to get to the ball, I don't see how you could possibly send someone off. If it was Morgan or Moore defending & they just let someone waltz past them without making a challenge for fear of being sent off, this place would go into meltdown. It seems that football is quickly becoming a non-contact sport. It's already bad enough that if the slightest of contact is made the attacker will go down like a sack of spuds. I would prefer they concentrate on trying to stop what I consider to be cheating. I'm tired of over-analysis & replays from every angle where they look to see if contact was made with the attacker. I would rather they send off someone clearly guilty of diving than a defender genuinely attempting to get to the ball.
ScouseFox Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 In the Suarez case it should still be a red card as it was a deliberate foul. I just think that it shouldn't be an automatic red when it could be a slip or in Rose's case a successful attempt to win the ball, but from behind and taking out Dzeko so a foul. Yeah that's what I mean, good idea in theory, but who's to know what's "deliberate" and what's a genuine attempt to play the ball? Are you leaving that to the referee to decide? Would surely lead to much, much more debate and controversy, no?
RobHawk Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 In the Suarez case it should still be a red card as it was a deliberate foul. I just think that it shouldn't be an automatic red when it could be a slip or in Rose's case a successful attempt to win the ball, but from behind and taking out Dzeko so a foul. Main issue for me is we are talking about giving the referrees descretion over what is delibrate and what isn't! They get it wrong every weekend when it comes to the same descretion with yellow cards so why start with reds? simply, the referrees are bad enough as it is and in my opinion this would only make them worse!
Kitchandro Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 Don't agree with this at all. The rule is fine as it is.
ousefox Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 See no reason to change it personally. If you miss the penalty after having an open goal but you were taken out by a defender, you have no advantage given to you at all and it rewards the other team. You're probably more likely to score when you're through on goal than a penalty I reckon too.
Bert Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 The thing is, in the Rose case by the letter of the law it was a red card even if it wasn't a penalty. Once the penalty was awarded the ref had to send Rose off. You can't just not send someone off because they've got the penalty. Rose's challenge was a very genuine one and he got the ball, can be deemed very unlucky.
foxfanazer Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 You're probably more likely to score when you're through on goal than a penalty I reckon too.So Nugent's goals do count then?
Fatty Arbuckle Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 So would you still have it as a red card if he is brought down outside the area, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity? I've always thought a penalty for this too, instead of a red card would be a much better way of dealing with it. Sort of like a penalty try in rugby, but still leaving the act of actually scoring the goal. Seeing a player get a red card for a deliberate trip when a player is clean through is one of the most annoying things in football for me. It is quite often of no benefit whatsoever for the attacking team.
Harry - LCFC Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 So would you still have it as a red card if he is brought down outside the area, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity? Yes, free kicks are much lesser opportunities than one-on-ones. The trouble with all this is that it's very subjective. The ref has to make a judgement on how good a chance was, I think these rules are reasonable in theory but are too much to ask in practice.
leicsmac Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 Yes, free kicks are much lesser opportunities than one-on-ones. The trouble with all this is that it's very subjective. The ref has to make a judgement on how good a chance was, I think these rules are reasonable in theory but are too much to ask in practice. That's the nail on the head really. Refs already have to interpret rules to particular situations and that often leads to controversy, and this would only add additional complexity. I must say though I'm in favour of the idea in principle, I just don't see how you could implement it in practice without video technology as a backup for referees (something I'm actually in favour of for critical incidents too).
DennisNedry Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 Leave football alone!! As ScouseFox said, what would be the incentive to not deliberately foul someone who is about to score when the penalty could be missed?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 31 January 2014 Posted 31 January 2014 I've seen this come up a couple of times that they are talking about not making it an automatic red card for stopping a goal scoring opportunity if a penalty is awarded as it is a double punishment. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/michel-platini-sin-bins-uefa-2893735 I didn't agree at first, but after seeing Danny Rose get sent off for Spurs against Chelsea, I have changed my mind: It was a clear attempt to get the ball, he even made contact with the ball, but dived in from behind and took out Dzeko, a clear foul and a clear penalty and a clear goal scoring opportunity, but to send him off just seemed ridiculous, especially seeing as it became an even better goal scoring opportunity from the spot than where Dzeko was. If it had been a cynical foul, like a hand ball on the line, or just hacking him down without getting anywhere near the ball then fair enough, I am starting to understand the double punishment argument. It wasn't a clear penalty at all. If you win the ball and the other play then falls over your leg you used to do so, not a foul.
Captain... Posted 31 January 2014 Author Posted 31 January 2014 It wasn't a clear penalty at all. If you win the ball and the other play then falls over your leg you used to do so, not a foul. He slid in from behind and took Dzeko out, yes he got the ball, but the rules are, or were, sliding tackles from behind are outlawed.
Captain... Posted 31 January 2014 Author Posted 31 January 2014 I get what people are saying about giving the ref too many subjective calls. So how about denying a goal scoring opportunity is a yellow card, you can also recieve a second yellow card if the foul is deemed worthy of a yellow card under normal circumstances.
Bert Posted 2 February 2014 Posted 2 February 2014 I get what people are saying about giving the ref too many subjective calls. So how about denying a goal scoring opportunity is a yellow card, you can also recieve a second yellow card if the foul is deemed worthy of a yellow card under normal circumstances. If I'm a defender chasing down a striker knowing that I'm gonna give a penalty away and guarantee myself only a booking he's getting chopped down.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.