The professional foul straight red card rule

[loz]

I posted about this in the match thread for the Blackburn game but it isn't really a point specific to that game, more of a general one, however the Blackburn game provided a clear example of it.

Basically, against Blackburn, Anelka was clipped by Robinson when through on goal thus bringing him down. The ref didn't give anything and was wrong to do so as it was a clear penalty and therefore also a red card as it was denying a cleargoal scoring opportunity (i.e. tap in!).

However I don't think Robinson tripped Anelka deliberately, I think it was a genuine attempt to get the ball after a woeful pass back to him by his defender. My thoughts on this are that the punishment for that should be a booking and a penalty, not a red card and a penalty. I think the red card should only be shown when the foul is deliberate (there is even a case for it not even being a booking if it is accidental).

What are your thoughts?

[Chippy]

I posted about this in the match thread for the Blackburn game but it isn't really a point specific to that game, more of a general one, however the Blackburn game provided a clear example of it.

Basically, against Blackburn, Anelka was clipped by Robinson when through on goal thus bringing him down. The ref didn't give anything and was wrong to do so as it was a clear penalty and therefore also a red card as it was denying a cleargoal scoring opportunity (i.e. tap in!).

However I don't think Robinson tripped Anelka deliberately, I think it was a genuine attempt to get the ball after a woeful pass back to him by his defender. My thoughts on this are that the punishment for that should be a booking and a penalty, not a red card and a penalty. I think the red card should only be shown when the foul is deliberate (there is even a case for it not even being a booking if it is accidental).

What are your thoughts?

As I read through your post I was about to say that in that particular case or similar situations I dont think a booking is warranted, It's enough the keeper has fairly made a challenge with no intent to touch anything but the ball and to give away a penalty,

no need for a sending off and in my opinion in case like this where he just touched the oncoming striker, no need for a card.

on a reverse note I think players running round the front of a keeper who has thrown the ball up and is about to volley it upfield should be allowed to make more of a nuisance of themselves than is allowed nowadays.

[loz]

on a reverse note I think players running round the front of a keeper who has thrown the ball up and is about to volley it upfield should be allowed to make more of a nuisance of themselves than is allowed nowadays.

Agreed. I don't buy into this claim that the act of kicking the ball out is all one move and therefore you can't challenge for the ball when the keeper is mid kick. If the keeper is not alert enough to realise there is a player behind him then he deserves everything he gets. The only problem I see with this though is it will encourage a centre forward to just stand right in front of the keeper which means the keeper would surely be entitled to just hold on to the ball and then he would be breaking the 6 second rule,

[Chippy]

Agreed. I don't buy into this claim that the act of kicking the ball out is all one move and therefore you can't challenge for the ball when the keeper is mid kick. If the keeper is not alert enough to realise there is a player behind him then he deserves everything he gets. The only problem I see with this though is it will encourage a centre forward to just stand right in front of the keeper which means the keeper would surely be entitled to just hold on to the ball and then he would be breaking the 6 second rule,

Thats something I hadn't thought about...might be interesting and promote more goals if the keeper could still only hold on to it for 6 seconds and in that time his defenders would have to give him an option to throw it to them.

lets make the goals bigger as well, and the balls smaller B)

[loz]

lets make the goals bigger as well, and the balls smaller B)

Yeh, and split the game into quarters, have adverts on the big screens, allow 987 substitutions, wear more padding than the Michelin Man and allow people to walk around the stand selling beer and hot dogs from trays.... wait a minute that suddenly doesn't sound so bad.

[Chippy]

Yeh, and split the game into quarters, have adverts on the big screens, allow 987 substitutions, wear more padding than the Michelin Man and allow people to walk around the stand selling beer and hot dogs from trays.... wait a minute that suddenly doesn't sound so bad.

Whats the betting if we had 987 Subs Scolari would still give Deco a full 90 minutes every game?

We've ruined your sensible thread you know.

[geezer]

Whats the betting if we had 987 Subs Scolari would still give Deco a full 90 minutes every game?

We've ruined your sensible thread you know.

And the kids still wouldn't get on.........

[Scott]

Loz your wrong the TV commentators said there was "clearly no contact made" by Robbo. So how could it be a foul? They also said Nic's first goal was off his hand, but later had to admit off hand "that it was believed to have probably come off his knee". ;) :w**k2:

[BlueBeard]

I agree with your initial point, Loz, but think that if the offence is committed against a Chelsea player then the offending keeper or defender should be taken off and shot.

[ethicalstrategy]

The problem with this rule as I see it is that if the offence is in the area then a penalty ought to suffice but if it is outside the area a freekick is not enough of a punishment.

The easiest way to deal with it is to simply allow the ref to award a penalty goal whether the offence is in the box or not. That way there is simply no incentive for any player to commit a professional foul.

At the moment it could be argued that taking the red card and even a penalty is worth it because a goal is not certain. If a penalty goal could be awarded then it would always be better for the player/keeper to let play continue as there is still a chance that the player will miss even if it seems easier to score.

[Backbiter]

I think the automatic red card for denying a goal-scoring opportunity is wrong. I think today the ref bottled the pen because he knew he'd have to send off the keeper, leaving the home side with 10 men for 85 minutes. It was a blatant pen and a massive cock-up by the officials that could have cost us dear (would have cost us without Cech's 2 crucial saves), but I think he'd have given it without the red-card rule. He was also way behind play with bodies between him and Anelka, so he couldn't have been 100% anyway.

The red should be for denying a goal-scoring opportunity in a cynical, deliberate way, not because of a genuine attempt to tackle someone. I know it's hard tp judge what's cynical and what's genuine but what part of refereeing is easy?

[Lofty]

If you compare the Anelka incident with the one that's been shown repeatedly on Sky Sports News, that Sheffield United player deliberately and calculatedly rams his elbow into the opponents face, fracturing his skull .. and that twat only got a yellow card? No of course a professional foul shouldn't result in a sending off, any more than handling a ball on the line to prevent a certain goal at the expense of a penalty should be a sending off.

The penalty is punishment enough. As for that Sheffield United player - this was one of those incidents that, had it happened in the street, would have resulted in a nicking - at the very least it was assault, and with the severity of the injury, quite possibly GBH and a prison sentence.

[andy]

I think if someone is pulled down cynically then yes it is a red.. I agree Robinson should not of gone or it being a pen, after watching the reply 10 times I am still not convinced he touched him... (The argument agaisnt video replays to make a decision).

If you look at JT againt Man City.. another great example.. He got this Red resinded.. okay it was rugby tackle'ish.. but under video replay he was never the last man and the bloke really went down like a sack of spuds, made a right meal out of it... I think in this case if it is a clear meal being made out of a challenge and the tackled player is waving his arms around looking for a decision the ref has to use judgement.

We have to go back to the refs judgement, he is there on the pitch, can hear the tone of the players voices, has a feel for how the game is going etc. he will get it wrong of course and make some crap judgements, this is the nature of the game and long may it last.

[midlandblue]

To me it should be very simple. Red cards should only be issued if the foul/offence wrrants one. By that I mean, no red card for last man, hand ball on the line, denying a goal scoring opportunity.

It should be issued if the severity of the foul/offence warrants it and only then.