Red Cards and Penalties

[Boyle the Royal]

Someone wrote on the BBC live text today that if a player illegally prevents an obvious goalscoring opportunity resulting in a penalty, they should only be sent off if the penalty isn't scored. Seems like a decent idea to me, particularly as everybody seems to go on about how a red card and going a goal down is too much of a punishment. So how do we go about getting this idea implemented? Anyone got Blatter's email?

[SLAMMED]

Or they could just not get sent off in the area.

[roadrunner]

I like the idea but then there isn't much wrong with the rule as it is. I think it's fair game; if you're the last man then it's a red, if you happen to give away a penalty and you're the last man then more fool you. It doesn't happen that often.

One of the refs got it wrong this weekend and gave a yellow for what was a clear last man and goal scoring opportunity, but awarded the penalty. I'd have liked to have seen him interviewed on why he only gave a yellow card.

[Handsome Man]

It's a rubbish idea.

The rule as it stands is one of the best ones there is in the game: if you stop somebody trying to score, you get sent off.

On red cards in general, there were two surprising yellow cards yesterday for Carragher and the twin where most referees wouldn't have thought twice about the red card. This was a game where Paddy Power were refunding all bets if there was a red card. There wan't a link was there?

[Rex]

So encroachment results in a goal, reytaken as a reult ( ), saved and then the offending player is sent off. Let the ructions begin.

[Tails]

A harsh punishment designed to discourage unsporting behaviour - can see anything wrong with it myself.

Should be a red card for a very blatant dive.

[Handsome Man]

A harsh punishment designed to discourage unsporting behaviour - can see anything wrong with it myself.

Should be a red card for a very blatant dive.

Or a handball goal as well.

(Do you mean blatant? The ref can't tell it's not blatant.)

[Tails]

A harsh punishment designed to discourage unsporting behaviour - can see anything wrong with it myself.

Should be a red card for a very blatant dive.

Or a handball goal as well.

(Do you mean blatant? The ref can't tell it's not blatant.)

I mean that if the ref can see that its one of these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz_mgHPvuBU then he has a duty to send the player off. I know players look for legs and arms [especially in the box] and a significant number 'make the most' of what should be a physical game. Its not going to start a raft of red cards but that's not the point - its designed to make an example of those that a.dive b. are so shit at it that they are caught out.

Essentially, cheating = red card.

[TBM]

One of the refs got it wrong this weekend and gave a yellow for what was a clear last man and goal scoring opportunity, but awarded the penalty. I'd have liked to have seen him interviewed on why he only gave a yellow card.

If you're talking about the Wolves Spurs game then the reason he didn't send Hutton off, was cos although he fouled the player, the Wolves man would never had got onto the end of the ball to score - hence we wasn't denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.

[Silver Fox]

fvcking hell TBM, has Mark Halsey nicked your log in? The ball was at the Wolves player's feet!

[cmonurz]

fvcking hell TBM, has Mark Halsey nicked your log in? The ball was at the Wolves player's feet!

^This.

TBLOLM.

[TBM]

fvcking hell TBM, has Mark Halsey nicked your log in? The ball was at the Wolves player's feet!

No it wasn't - the initial shot was deflected into his path and he was stretching to get to the ball, he didn't once have the ball under control at his feet

[southbank1871]

Why exactly do you think Hutton cynically pulled him back?

[cmonurz]

fvcking hell TBM, has Mark Halsey nicked your log in? The ball was at the Wolves player's feet!

No it wasn't - the initial shot was deflected into his path and he was stretching to get to the ball, he didn't once have the ball under control at his feet

He'd have got to the ball if he hadn't been fouled. That he didn't have it under Bergkamp like control is irrelevant.

[TBM]

But you dont know that and in the refs OPINION (which the law states) he wouldn't have, hence why he only gave a yellow card.......i must admit i did shout red when i first saw it, but after hearing his explanation at half time i could see his point of view.

He got the disallowed goal wrong though.

[cmonurz]

If Halsey has come out at half time to explain then fair play to him, I didn't realise that - that's more my beef, that these sorts of decisions go unexplained at times.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Or they could just not get sent off in the area.

This.

The rule as it stands is terrible. You get punished 3 times for 1 mistake its totally out of proportion to the offence. I seem to remember Coppell describing the rule as "an ass"

Would like to see the rule amended to only a yellow card being given, unless you deny a clear goal (eg handling the ball on the line). A penalty is still better than any 1 on 1 situation for the attacking team.

[cmonurz]

Or they could just not get sent off in the area.

This.

The rule as it stands is terrible. You get punished 3 times for 1 mistake its totally out of proportion to the offence. I seem to remember Coppell describing the rule as "an ass"

Would like to see the rule amended to only a yellow card being given, unless you deny a clear goal (eg handling the ball on the line). A penalty is still better than any 1 on 1 situation for the attacking team.

If the threat of going down to 10 men is taken away, it would actually make sense for a defender to commit a foul to deny a clear goalscoring opportunity, at a critical point in the game.

World Cup final, it's 1-1, Rooney through on goal and he is taken down by the opposition centre-back on the edge of the D.

As it stands, we have a free-kick, and the opponents have to play extra time with 10 men. Under your rules, unless we score from the free kick, we've gained no advantage whatsoever from a clear and cynical foul.

Edit: just realised to referred to penalty area fouls. I still don't like it, an offence should be punished the same no matter where on the pitch it is committed.

[Handsome Man]

fvcking hell TBM, has Mark Halsey nicked your log in? The ball was at the Wolves player's feet!

It was in the goalie's hands so it wasn't a red card.

[Handsome Man]

A harsh punishment designed to discourage unsporting behaviour - can see anything wrong with it myself.

Should be a red card for a very blatant dive.

Or a handball goal as well.

(Do you mean blatant? The ref can't tell it's not blatant.)

I mean that if the ref can see that its one of these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz_mgHPvuBU then he has a duty to send the player off. I know players look for legs and arms [especially in the box] and a significant number 'make the most' of what should be a physical game. Its not going to start a raft of red cards but that's not the point - its designed to make an example of those that a.dive b. are so shit at it that they are caught out.

Essentially, cheating = red card.

A red card for anything like that would be brilliant.