An idea, perhaps? What do the refs think?

[Samarkand]

I've always found it a very tough sending off (and obviously stupid from the player's pov) when a player is sent off for 2 non-contact yellows - e.g. dissent for the first one and throwing the ball away for the second.

Is there any merit to the idea of sinbinning rather sending off for two non-contact yellows? (Obviously if either yellow is for contact, then all bets are off.)

Away, two non-contact yellows - sinbin rather than red, a viable idea?

[DadOf6]

I've always found it a very tough sending off (and obviously stupid from the player's pov) when a player is sent off for 2 non-contact yellows - e.g. dissent for the first one and throwing the ball away for the second.

Is there any merit to the idea of sinbinning rather sending off for two non-contact yellows? (Obviously if either yellow is for contact, then all bets are off.)

Away, two non-contact yellows - sinbin rather than red, a viable idea?

A yellow card is a caution that if the player doesn't change his conduct he will be sent off. Sin-binning would suck the meaning out of the yellow card.

If it is agreed that non-contact yellows should not have the same consequence as other yellows then they should not be yellows at all.

Personally, I think that your examples (dissent and kicking the ball away) and USB for a reckless foul are two different classes of offense; one that endangers the safety of an opponent and one of unacceptable sportsmanship.

Poor sportsmanship is a serious threat to the game which I believe should be punished harshly.

However, there are still degrees and shades of gray. The 2006 Memorandum Cautions and Cautionable Offenses is an important document. It frees the referee from the millstone of mandatory and discressionery cautions and replaces it with a series of decisions on whether or not to issue a caution: Does the action meet the criteria for the offence; is the act trifling; would issuing a caution have a positive effect on match and player management?

IOW, I am opposed to sin-binning because it will dilute the meaning of a caution and the referee has adequate tools to do the job.

[Sagy]

However, there are still degrees and shades of gray. The 2006 Memorandum Cautions and Cautionable Offenses is an important document. It frees the referee from the millstone of mandatory and discressionery cautions and replaces it with a series of decisions on whether or not to issue a caution: Does the action meet the criteria for the offence; is the act trifling; would issuing a caution have a positive effect on match and player management?You are making a great point (I didn't read the 2006 Memorandum, so the answer to my questions might be covered there). What about cases when the YC is "mandatory" (e.g. removing shirt after a goal) is the CR allowed to use his discretion and not give a YC?

Do people here feel that a CR should be allowed to issue to YC and at his own discretion decide not to give a RC? Basically let the competition authority deal with the player for getting two YC. For the record, I'm not sure why a CR would want to do this, My question is should the rule be changed to allow a CR to do this.

[Wahoo]

Count me against the sin-bin idea and the reason is simple.

Players know the rules.

Whether it's for throwing the ball away, excessive dissent, or removing their jersey after a goal. These are STUPID reasons to get a yellow. All the players know the rules and know if you do these things, you're going to get a yellow.

It's really that simple.

Remember it's the players fault (not the refs) for doing the deeds that get him sent off. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Wahoo]

You are making a great point (I didn't read the 2006 Memorandum, so the answer to my questions might be covered there). What about cases when the YC is "mandatory" (e.g. removing shirt after a goal) is the CR allowed to use his discretion and not give a YC?

Do people here feel that a CR should be allowed to issue to YC and at his own discretion decide not to give a RC? Basically let the competition authority deal with the player for getting two YC. For the record, I'm not sure why a CR would want to do this, My question is should the rule be changed to allow a CR to do this.

As to the quesiton if the rule should be changed.... I don' tthink you can say.... "the following are cautionable offenses, but only some of them are really important".

All cautions must be treated equally.

[DadOf6]

You are making a great point (I didn't read the 2006 Memorandum, so the answer to my questions might be covered there). What about cases when the YC is "mandatory" (e.g. removing shirt after a goal) is the CR allowed to use his discretion and not give a YC?

http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Cautions_2006.pdf

The answer is found in the last paragraph on page 2. But note that the offense of removing the shirt to celebrate a goal is defined precisely enough that I would find it hard to justify not showing a yellow.

If I were being assesed I *know* that I would call it, so it is reasonable to call it in all games where I see it.

Do people here feel that a CR should be allowed to issue to YC and at his own discretion decide not to give a RC? Basically let the competition authority deal with the player for getting two YC. For the record, I'm not sure why a CR would want to do this, My question is should the rule be changed to allow a CR to do this.

No, a yellow card must remain a caution that the next step is a send-off. Does the second yellow (without a red) mean, "This time I *really* mean it"?

"I'm counting to three! One, two, two and a half, two and threee quarters..."

[Sean_94]

Two cautions in a game, no matter the degree, equals a red card. That's the law.
Would you not call a foul on a basketball player who was carrying four fouls if it was small contact? In basketball, fifth foul (six in NBA) means you are out.
I realize the examples aren't exactly the same, e.g. in basketball the team doesn't have to play short. But the moment in the game is similar.
Basically, give the yellows according to the laws. The cautioned player must adjust his game accordingly. If he doesn't, he is outta here.
Let the league determine severity in terms of length of suspension.

[cdin]

I've always found it a very tough sending off (and obviously stupid from the player's pov) when a player is sent off for 2 non-contact yellows - e.g. dissent for the first one and throwing the ball away for the second.

Is there any merit to the idea of sinbinning rather sending off for two non-contact yellows? (Obviously if either yellow is for contact, then all bets are off.)

Away, two non-contact yellows - sinbin rather than red, a viable idea?
First off, I have no idea of what you mean my "sinbinning." Could someone please explain?

Second, ALL cautions are equal. If a player dissents and then later throws the ball away, they obviously haven't learned their lesson and should be sent off. Remember it is also ok to threaten a caution as long as you follow it up if necessary.

[Claymore]

First off, I have no idea of what you mean my "sinbinning." Could someone please explain?



Think "penalty box" in hockey.

[Eric B]

Think "penalty box" in hockey.Indeed.

Sinbinning is done in Rugby Union but IIRC, it's for the first cautionable offense.

[Rufusabc]

I liken the idea of a yellow card to a Technical Foul in Basketball. Two T's and you are shown the door to the locker room. Could be for mouthing off, could be for a serious foul (flagrant). I HATE the concept of a penalty box. If a player cannot show restraint after the first caution, and he knows the 2nd caution will "only" earn him time in the box, I think we would have our hands-ful of "box-able" offenses. Say a team is up big 4+ goals...late in the game...in a troubling match you would have guys in the box all over the place if it wasn't for the deterrent of the red card and it's subsequent penalties reaching into future games. if a player who is on a yellow can't control himself and play within all the rules, then ...he's gone in my book.

R

[ManiacalClown]

I liken the idea of a yellow card to a Technical Foul in Basketball. Two T's and you are shown the door to the locker room. Could be for mouthing off, could be for a serious foul (flagrant). I HATE the concept of a penalty box. If a player cannot show restraint after the first caution, and he knows the 2nd caution will "only" earn him time in the box, I think we would have our hands-ful of "box-able" offenses. Say a team is up big 4+ goals...late in the game...in a troubling match you would have guys in the box all over the place if it wasn't for the deterrent of the red card and it's subsequent penalties reaching into future games. if a player who is on a yellow can't control himself and play within all the rules, then ...he's gone in my book.

R

Not that it matters to your argument, but a flagrant foul is an automatic ejection and thus more akin to a red card.

Also, only direct technical fouls work for yellow cards since it takes THREE indirect technical fouls for an ejection, making them the equivalent of blue cards in indoor.





I'm overanalyzing this, aren't I.

[Craig the Aussie]

Indeed.

Sinbinning is done in Rugby Union but IIRC, it's for the first cautionable offense.

Sin bin in rugby is usually for a professional foul - such as a deliberate offside, or for repeated infringements.

Can also be used for low level violent play - say a couple of guys having a bit of a punch up.

[onfirst]

I liken the idea of a yellow card to a Technical Foul in Basketball. Two T's and you are shown the door to the locker room. Could be for mouthing off, could be for a serious foul (flagrant). I HATE the concept of a penalty box. If a player cannot show restraint after the first caution, and he knows the 2nd caution will "only" earn him time in the box, I think we would have our hands-ful of "box-able" offenses. Say a team is up big 4+ goals...late in the game...in a troubling match you would have guys in the box all over the place if it wasn't for the deterrent of the red card and it's subsequent penalties reaching into future games. if a player who is on a yellow can't control himself and play within all the rules, then ...he's gone in my book.

R

This is a poor example. In international play a basketball player can get up to 5 technicals (each would also count as a personal foul, 5 personal fouls and your ejected). In the NBA, players can get more than 2 technical fouls without being ejected. Players can be assessed a non-unsportsmanlike technical foul for such things as hanging on the rim (seems unsportsman-like to me, but thats what it is called). These types of technical fouls do not count towards their limit for being ejected, but the opposing team still gets their fre throw and possesion of the ball). Not all technical fouls are equal, which is precisely the concept that the original poster is pondering. Is there a way to penalize a player or their team for an offense that is cautionable, but not so serious that their team should go down a man because of it?

[ManiacalClown]

This is a poor example. In international play a basketball player can get up to 5 technicals (each would also count as a personal foul, 5 personal fouls and your ejected). In the NBA, players can get more than 2 technical fouls without being ejected. Players can be assessed a non-unsportsmanlike technical foul for such things as hanging on the rim (seems unsportsman-like to me, but thats what it is called). These types of technical fouls do not count towards their limit for being ejected, but the opposing team still gets their fre throw and possesion of the ball). Not all technical fouls are equal, which is precisely the concept that the original poster is pondering. Is there a way to penalize a player or their team for an offense that is cautionable, but not so serious that their team should go down a man because of it?

The anology works best for NCAA basketball rules, which are what I drew my own comparisons from.