http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/7148293/fifa-panel-seeks-reduce-red-cards-penalty-area Actually, the most interesting thing in this article to me is Bussaca confirming he felt he had no choice in Khume's send-off against Uruguay. I seem to recall that in the game discussion, there was a lot of debate about the "direction to goal" being present and that because Bussaca did not get another game, the assumption was that he failed.
On the subject of Busacca and the Khume send off, I have since learned (or been informed, rather) that the problem for the Swiss crew was the offside leading to the foul, not the red card. That would be consistent with crews being sent home for the mistake of an AR in other situations. And even though one simple offside decision might seem a particularly harsh justification to dismiss a crew, when you couple it with the team involved and what an African referee was going through over "one simple foul call" (I use quotes there because we all know Coulibaly was poor throughout the match and it was more than one call--but that's not how it was viewed) it makes Busacca's fate almost a foregone conclusion. Regarding these proposed changes, I just want to address the "triple punishment" and leave the offside stuff alone, because I don't think anyone knows where the offside issue might be going at the moment. As far as the triple punishment for DOGSO goes... first, it's a stupid name, because that means every single red card is a "double punishment." "Triple punishment" is used to make it sound all the more draconian compared to other red cards when, in reality, the only difference is the penalty kick. Second, there is a simple answer here if you want to make it less than a so-called triple punishment: remove the suspension for DOGSO fouls. You punish the incident in the game appropriately and the team which was aggrieved (the opponents on the field) benefit. But you don't suspend a player for the next match. Third, the approach they are taking about "serious" fouls still warranting a red but other DOGSO fouls in the penalty area being yellow is a recipe for disaster. By "serious" do they mean the standard for SFP? Or are they creating a distinction between unintentional vs. intentional DOGSO fouls? If it's the latter, you are calling upon referees to determine intent and you might also be creating a situation that's more dangerous for attackers (because a shirt hold would be intentional, and still red so defenders would always resort to tackling from behind, which might not be viewed as an intentional foul). And if it's the former, it means that a careless, accidental foul 19 yards from goal is a red card and a DFK, but a deliberate, professional foul from 8 yards out is a yellow card and a PK. And that's stupid. It means FIFA and the IFAB would be creating a double standard for fouls. This is so easy to me that it's painful to think how greatly FIFA seems willing to alter the game to solve what is a simple problem. The real problem is some people don't want DOGSO cards causing a suspension. You can debate whether or not that is a problem that needs to be "solved," but if that's FIFA's conclusion, then the answer should be: waive the suspension for DOGSO cards! Instead, they're ready to put more pressure on referees and give us more discretion on a judgment call that is already one of the most controversial in the game. If they do this, I am certain that it will backfire spectacularly in some high-profile matches.
My recipe would be this: (1) DOGSOS is always at least a yellow. (2) If the DOGSO foul warranted a yellow in it's own right (i.e, was tactical or reckless), than it upgrades the yellow to a red. That dichotomy requires teh referee to make only the same distinctions that he makes on any other decision as to whether a foul is misconduct to determine if a red is required. I doubt it will happen, but I think it woudl still properly punsh the "professional foul," while not creating the "cheap" red card for a clumsy challenge. Of course, it differs from the trend in that it gives the ref more rather than less room to exercise judgment.
It is interesting that no matter how they might choose to downgrade the DOGSO punishment, any kind of downgrade would theoretically increase the chance of cynical fouls occurring and have a negative effect on goals per game averages. Which runs counter to what I suspect the whole reason for DOGSO (and other law changes) for being implemented in the first place. In an era where teams are shifting to 4-5-1 defensive tactics, this knee-jerk response is not going to help overcome the sport's excitement issues. Not that as a referee I care so much about that, but I'm just sayin'...
Sorry, but I don't see the point, since I think most of these keeper sendoffs are errors to begin with. The question should be whether the referee judges that the foul was deliberate or accidental, and in that case, I think keeper's should be given wide latitude in their areas. I think the statement that referees HAVE to send off keepers who accidentally take down an attacker is just a misinterpretation of the law. Sad that a top FIFA referee is interpreting the law this way, but I think the USSF'f Four Ds are ahead of the game here. A PK is a pretty severe consequence for a foul in the area. With keeper sendoffs, there's actually a quadruple penalty, since the team plays down, the player has a suspension, a PK is given, and the team generally has to burn a sub to get the backup keeper on. Swiping an attacker's legs to prevent a shot should still be a sendoff, though.
i am very pleased that there may be a keeper exception for dogso-f. i bet 10 bucks that the offside rule will be refined, clarified, and subsequently even more confusing than before.