Coldeanseagull
Opinionated
1 point deduction for dissent would solve referee verbal abuse by players overnight. They may not be right all the time, but they don't deserve the crap they get
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] New blue card and 10 mins in sin-bin
- Thread starter Colonel Mustard
- Start date
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Because they want to take action against "professional" fouls and dissent (hopefully, diving too) and they think this is the way to do it.
Then why not just improve the application of the current laws? At the start of the season there was a new directive about dissent…it was a good idea, worked well, but it lasted a total of 2 games. The current laws are adequate; we don’t need blue cards.
Just give a yellow, like they did at the start of the season.
Its been used to good effect in Rugby for a long time now. And has already been said more neds to be done to stop technical fouls. 10 mins out of the game is far worse than a yellow card.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
A professional foul is already a red.
Dissent should simply be a mandatory yellow, EVERY time. Only the captain should be allowed to speak to the referee. Apply this properly and consistently, and you solve the problem. Eventually the message will sink in, even with these thicko bleach-blonde endlessly tattooed morons, because if they're picking up yellows for gobbing off then they'll soon start missing games. And even these brain-dead cheating dunces will eventually get the message.
Same for divers - do it restrospectively if necessary. When they know the crackdown has arrived, these insufferable pricks will eventually toe the line.
You don't need more different coloured cards. You just need to use the ones we already have more consistently and severely. Why add yet ANOTHER layer of rules, open to confusion and interpretation FFS. Seriously ?
HastingsSeagull
Well-known member
I'm a very bad person and been doing this for kids teams for around 20 years (just saying and in no way suggesting it's a good thing for pro level, if anything that it's just treating them like kids).
Solid at the back
Well-known member
Might aswell change the name of the sport whilst they're at it.
As soon as the argument is “it works in rugby”, I’m sceptical. Beyond being played on a green rectangle, there is next to no similarity between the sports in terms of skillset, culture and flow. That’s one major reason VAR is crap in football - totally unsuited to the sport. They promised it would be quick and unobtrusive which has turned out to be nonsense and now there’s no going back.
What problem are they trying to fix though?
Utterly daft. Another attempt to rugby-fy a game that isn’t rugby.
Stopping a break is part of a defender’s armour. Every coach knows the difference between a good foul and a silly one.
How much time will be added when this eventually reaches the PL and every single foul is sent to VAR to judge if it was “cynical”?
Stopping a break is part of a defender’s armour. Every coach knows the difference between a good foul and a silly one.
How much time will be added when this eventually reaches the PL and every single foul is sent to VAR to judge if it was “cynical”?
Is it far worse though? Even the most thickest of footballers knows that they’re walking a tightrope when on a yellow. 10 mins in a sin bin and they’re free to start doing it again. Give a yellow, do it again and they’re off.
Two blue cards or a blue card and a yellow would lead to a red.
According to the article in the OP.
We already have enough debate another whether it should be a yellow or not, or yellow and not red etc. This will just lead to more nonsense. What is this fixing?
Fignon's Ponytail
Well-known member
Do what they do in the NFL, and have a proper evaluation for concussion etc on the sidelines - then miss a minimum of 5 mins.
I bet the number of "head injuries" would fall dramatically if they're off the pitch for 5+ mins, knowing they've faked it & haven't actually got anything wrong with them.
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
I thought it was dissent and ‘professional fouls.’ The kind of fouls that ex player pundits say have to be made but fans go apoplectic about because currently the punishment does not fit the crime unless it is a clear goal scoring opportunity.
I don't know or care, I was just addressing the objection you raised in your previous post.
I gather it's worked well in trials at lower levels, but then presumably those matches won't have had every decision poured over by a load of entitled twats who can't accept that literally every decision doesn't go their team's way.
While this is true, that's not to say that bringing some elements of rugby into football would be useful. As someone pointed out earlier, there used to be some horrendous tackles in the 70s, these have largely been eliminated now - so it is possible to change culture.
And those worried about time-wasting during a sin bin; in rugby the ref stops the clock so the miscreants serve their full ten (in fact, it's generally longer as they can't come back on until there's a break in play). A rugby ref has many more tools at his disposal. Any backchat about a penalty and we move 10m further up the field. Any foul play near a tryline and we can award a converted try.
Last week, I reversed a penalty and gave the kick to the offending team (there had been two offences, so I penalised the first one. The captain said I should have issued a card so I reversed the decision for him trying to ref the game).
On top of that, I have a free hand to issue yellow cards for any backchat. It all keeps nonsense to a minimum.
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 4,099
Referees should just be consistent, instead of introducing a new gimmick where they can continue to be inconsistent. When its used at County League level its a mess sometimes, of course the referees are completely inconsistent across the board and you have stupid situations where you've got 8 v 10 for 10 minutes then 11 v 11 again. More Rugbyification of the sport which is silly.