- Print Topic - Archive

Quoted from Maringer

If they want to stop dissent and cynical fouls, just make an obvious cynical foul a red card. The ones where the defenders shamelessly hack down an opponent on the halfway line or try to pull the shirt off their back..

They’re the best kind of fouls, shows a good level of awareness in a player. Plus you only see probably one or two of those a season in reality. You’re now going to have a situation where every foul on the break is over scrutinised - would a defender have got back, how far from the goal was he, does it make a difference it it’s Kieran Green breaking or a speed demon? Just more subjective fart-arsing about.

I give it a week before Gary Neville and Howard Webb are analysing the dictionary definition of the word “cynical”.

If you’re going to bring it it, use it for divers. Something that actually DOES need eradicating.

Quoted from Lincoln Mariner 56

Just apply the current rules correctly and there is no need for change. Start of the season yellow cards aplenty for time wasting now more or less ignored by most refs.

Quite right, like the goalie only holding the ball for 6 secs. Has anyone seen a goalie pulled up for it?

Quoted from Lincoln Mariner 56

Just apply the current rules correctly and there is no need for change. Start of the season yellow cards aplenty for time wasting now more or less ignored by most refs.

Quite right, like the goalie only holding the ball for 6 secs. Has anyone seen a goalie pulled up for it?

Quoted from ska face

They’re the best kind of fouls, shows a good level of awareness in a player. Plus you only see probably one or two of those a season in reality. You’re now going to have a situation where every foul on the break is over scrutinised - would a defender have got back, how far from the goal was he, does it make a difference it it’s Kieran Green breaking or a speed demon? Just more subjective fart-arsing about.

I give it a week before Gary Neville and Howard Webb are analysing the dictionary definition of the word “cynical”.

If you’re going to bring it it, use it for divers. Something that actually DOES need eradicating.

Yeah I agree with you.
Saying that I think the red for the Bournemouth player at the weekend was the right decision.

[quote=213]

They’re the best kind of fouls, shows a good level of awareness in a player.[quote]

No, it's the worst kind of foul. Every fan should want to see attacking play with creativity and positivity. Cynically hacking or pulling somebody down because they've beaten you or you've been caught out of position is terrible for the game. Players know they can get away with one every game so do it anyway. A 'blue card' sin-binning after one of these fouls will see one team trying to shut up shop for ten minutes. Teams will spend more time practising defending with ten men because being a player down will become commonplace. Referees will get loads and loads of the decisions wrong as well.

I only advocate a straight red for the clearest of cynical fouls. This cynicism is something I've always hated to see in the modern game and it shouldn't be accepted because it ruins games.

I'm personally in favour of this. A yellow card is free, costs nothing and can keep a poor team in a match, or scraping out a result. Disrupting play becomes a strategy that we've seen all too much against us until recently with the majestic Crocombe.

That Italy final a few years ago screwed us, because of a rugby tackle on Saka which got a yellow. If players go off for 10 mins, they think twice.

Now defenders can think, do I take the hit and hope our team can weather 10 minutes, and that isn't as clear cut.

I'm surprised more aren't in favour considering those matches against rugby teams end up being really miserable and dull games.

Yeah sending more people off is bound to make games much more open and entertaining. 2 or 3 ten-minute periods every match of one team sitting in, defending and killing the game until they’re back to 11 players.

Quoted from ska face

Yeah sending more people off is bound to make games much more open and entertaining. 2 or 3 ten-minute periods every match of one team sitting in, defending and killing the game until they’re back to 11 players.

Absolutely this!

I think it’s a terrible idea! There is a system that works already, if applied correctly. This is just another example of the powers that be meddling to justify their existence when there are far more pressing problems to address.

The 10 man team should be forced to play with a Postecoglou style high line.

Refs in our league have enough trouble with two cards not sure giving them a third one is gonna help much..

Quoted from ska face

Yeah sending more people off is bound to make games much more open and entertaining. 2 or 3 ten-minute periods every match of one team sitting in, defending and killing the game until they’re back to 11 players.

My thoughts exactly. At team down to 10 men will play possession football to waste the 10 mins, it's not going to be entertaining to watch.

Quoted from DB

My thoughts exactly. At team down to 10 men will play possession football to waste the 10 mins, it's not going to be entertaining to watch.

......and a team having a player sent off after 10 minutes will apply the same tactics but for 80 mins.

Added to all this crap .Factor in proposed new kick off times in the EFL the games is being ruined .I might be wrong but I see a decline in interest in football in terms of fans going to watch live games but time will tell?

I suspect that after a month or two, this will go the same way as the Goalie 6 second rule, and defenders/attackers actually wrestling players to the ground in the penalty area at set plays.

Try it in a league for a year, there is no need to rush into it. It might be good, or might be bad.

OP link didn't work for me but here is another

https://talksport.com/football/1742738/referees-blue-cards-sin-bins-fa-cup/

No one likes watching players ranting at refs and wasting time but there is no situation so bad it can’t be made worse by the games administrators.

For fooksake - there will be red cards yellow card blue cards pink cards and if it's raining the green cards will turn to blue or yellow. I'm only just getting used to what bins take egg cartons never mind what days to put them out.

I'm not against authorities trying to improve the game.

Not every idea is a good one, but we'll never know unless we try them.

However...

I think this blue card is totally unnecessary if yellow and red cards were used appropriately. There's wild inconsistency between officials in every game up and down the land, every weekend.

The way to resolve this is not to bring in an extra layer of contention — because this is what this is!

There are already too many discussion points and arguments over whether something is a yellow or just a free kick, or whether something is a yellow or a red, or whether it's a straight red, etc.

Chuck a blue into the mix and it'll just create more questions.

As it's been said already on here, the answer is to get officials to apply the current laws correctly and as consistently as possible. Sometimes I feel like they all have separate and individual training on how to be a referee.

VAR was meant to clear up incidents and eradicate the absolute shocker. I'd say it's mildly done that but, even now, a few years on from its introduction, it's still not being applied consistently.

VAR remains dependent on the skill level of those using it. And they can be as wildly different as the referees on the pitch.

It's classic case of an authority trying to clean up an issue it created by not improving the source. Don't just chuck something else into the mix because it's only going to complicate things further.

Fans, players and managers want clarity and consistency. Blue cards won't really help with that.

The best Ref this Season for me was the one in the Notts home game.Let it flow allowed tackles and we get a 5-5 classic he didn't need a blue card or VAR.

Quoted from 1mickylyons

The best Ref this Season for me was the one in the Notts home game.Let it flow allowed tackles and we get a 5-5 classic he didn't need a blue card or VAR.

We made some tackles?!?

this in my eyes will break football. Refs getting mixed up do i give a yellow, or a blue, just make yellow cards stand as usual but they get sin binned. The difference being just carry on but when a yellow us given sin bin them.

Quoted from Meza

this in my eyes will break football. Refs getting mixed up do i give a yellow, or a blue, just make yellow cards stand as usual but they get sin binned. The difference being just carry on but when a yellow us given sin bin them.

People have always opposed rule changes. C B Fry (England international at football and cricket) was completely opposed to penalties when they were introduced: “It is a standing insult to sportsmen to have to play under a rule which assumes that players intend to trip, hack, and push their opponents, and to behave like cads of the most unscrupulous kidney.”

100 years on we're "taking one for the team". I'd love to go back in time and show him a modern game.

Sport evolves one rule change at a time! The naysayers would still have us playing without nets and corner flags

For me, the 5 subs thing has made it far easier to get away with what used to be called professional fouls (normally while sneering at Latin players). It is now seen as an essential part of the English game and players are criticised for not doing it. Red cards via a second yellow seem to be less common these days although I haven't dug out any stats. The number of subs is only going to go up. Sub inflation is making a yellow card an insufficient punishment as managers can just haul anyone off who looks in danger of being sent off. Sending someone off is also perceived as "ruining the game" so referees often are reluctant to go for the second yellow and players are often allowed a second or even third chance.

Refs just need to apply the current laws don’t they ?

Quoted from GrimRob

For me, the 5 subs thing has made it far easier to get away with what used to be called professional fouls (normally while sneering at Latin players). It is now seen as an essential part of the English game and players are criticised for not doing it. Red cards via a second yellow seem to be less common these days although I haven't dug out any stats. The number of subs is only going to go up. Sub inflation is making a yellow card an insufficient punishment as managers can just haul anyone off who looks in danger of being sent off. Sending someone off is also perceived as "ruining the game" so referees often are reluctant to go for the second yellow and players are often allowed a second or even third chance.

I think you make a good point. Refs are afraid to send folk off and determine the game. They'd be more confident to punish bad behaviour if it's a 10 minute, not 90 minute impact, and teams are going to think twice about professional fouls. The way it goes now, is anyone not on a yellow, will take a hit for the team and take a free yellow. Your team could absolutely be dominating, but the muscle teams, the Stokes of league 2 will just abuse players, take 7 yellow cards, after sitting deep for 90 mins and stealing a goal from a set play. That is anti-football and the current rules encourage that style of play.

The reason we have 3 points for a win is to incentivise attacking. You gain by going for it, but with the steal goals from set plays football, it can incentivise boring game management teams. Any strong attacking team would happily have a man advantage so they can throw more forward and put the opponent under the cosh. Towards the end of the games, dominant teams outplay the opponent, and it's a case of will they get a goal, or won't they. I think this will give incentives to attacking teams and discouragement to rugby style teams. You'll effectively get teams trying to defend, by errr, defending, rather than fouling. You'll get actual football, and you'll get more excitement as teams get a 10 minute shot at getting a goal against brawler teams. If you cannot get it in the net in that time, ah well. If they do, the other team has to go out and attack. You get more end to end football.

The whole VAR argument is nonsense, because it's the issue with it is about refs deciding games, and the scrutiny over perfectionism in decisions. Right now, they don't off the TV, they just keep their cards in their pockets in lower leagues and you watch anti-football teams ascend.

It's funny how everyone here dug at Wrexham and Parkinson's football, but given a chance to change the game and incentivise the type they'd like, they throw weird illogical arguments forward which have no affect on the rule change.

The great thing about this, is if 10 mins is too much, you can drop it to 7 or 5 mins and balance it quite well to give a reasonable punishment.

My view, is let's try and see under human officials, not top level and learn from it. Worse changes have been implemented such as more substitutes which give an unfair advantage to richer teams that can afford to pay 16 good players rather than 14. Good for youth, obviously, but not the great leveller imho.

Another benefit, is English football is rougher than European football. What players get away with here doesn't work on the international stage, so what you'd get away with domestically defensively, you won't abroad. So English players don't always learn to defend effectively in a way that can be deployed in international fixtures. Creating a system where players learn to defend, rather than foul, can only help us internationally.

The ref can book/give out Yellows for dissent now, but they don't. So why does another card suddenly make them do it.
You should work with what you have to the Nth degree before putting in another layer. If not we will end up with refs running around with Dulux Colours in their pockets with ever-increasing layers of rules no one can understand.
All by the way instigated by retired ex-managers and ex-refs who wouldn't want this implemented when they were on the job. Make what you have now work before complicating further, I mean VAR isn't bedded in the last time I looked.

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

I think you make a good point. Refs are afraid to send folk off and determine the game. They'd be more confident to punish bad behaviour if it's a 10 minute, not 90 minute impact, and teams are going to think twice about professional fouls. The way it goes now, is anyone not on a yellow, will take a hit for the team and take a free yellow. Your team could absolutely be dominating, but the muscle teams, the Stokes of league 2 will just abuse players, take 7 yellow cards, after sitting deep for 90 mins and stealing a goal from a set play. That is anti-football and the current rules encourage that style of play.

The reason we have 3 points for a win is to incentivise attacking. You gain by going for it, but with the steal goals from set plays football, it can incentivise boring game management teams. Any strong attacking team would happily have a man advantage so they can throw more forward and put the opponent under the cosh. Towards the end of the games, dominant teams outplay the opponent, and it's a case of will they get a goal, or won't they. I think this will give incentives to attacking teams and discouragement to rugby style teams. You'll effectively get teams trying to defend, by errr, defending, rather than fouling. You'll get actual football, and you'll get more excitement as teams get a 10 minute shot at getting a goal against brawler teams. If you cannot get it in the net in that time, ah well. If they do, the other team has to go out and attack. You get more end to end football.

The whole VAR argument is nonsense, because it's the issue with it is about refs deciding games, and the scrutiny over perfectionism in decisions. Right now, they don't off the TV, they just keep their cards in their pockets in lower leagues and you watch anti-football teams ascend.

It's funny how everyone here dug at Wrexham and Parkinson's football, but given a chance to change the game and incentivise the type they'd like, they throw weird illogical arguments forward which have no affect on the rule change.

The great thing about this, is if 10 mins is too much, you can drop it to 7 or 5 mins and balance it quite well to give a reasonable punishment.

My view, is let's try and see under human officials, not top level and learn from it. Worse changes have been implemented such as more substitutes which give an unfair advantage to richer teams that can afford to pay 16 good players rather than 14. Good for youth, obviously, but not the great leveller imho.

Another benefit, is English football is rougher than European football. What players get away with here doesn't work on the international stage, so what you'd get away with domestically defensively, you won't abroad. So English players don't always learn to defend effectively in a way that can be deployed in international fixtures. Creating a system where players learn to defend, rather than foul, can only help us internationally.

Persistent fouling is dealt with in a different way in Rugby Union. After a succession of fouls from one side ,the ref will warn the captain that the next foul, regardless of player, will receive a yellow and be sin binned.