As someone who regularly sees (and has gotten used to) conflicting decisions from different judges on identical issues, I have to to say that this is a real head scratcher (throat grabber?) While I'm at it, I think that the league should change the rule on a red card or DisCo suspension to a suspension the next time that the player plays the team that he committed the infraction against. Otherwise, it provides an unearned benefit to a random team that just happens to be next up on the schedule. AND, while I'm at it, I think that the PK rule should be amended so that the player fouled (like in basketball) has to take the PK. If it's a hand ball or other foul where it's not clear who "earned" the PK, then it should be up to the ref or the team can choose who takes the PK or who is closest or something. I think that would even up the the PK taking and make it more exciting. Anyone with me?? I think that Medunjanin told the DisCo Committee that he was right there and it "wasn't that bad."
It seems to me that both Baseball and Soccer hate to change the rules for fear of creating a different game. The idea being that if you make too drastic a change, the statistics will be skewed over time. I think the reluctance to add a blue card / sin bin is driven by this. The changes you propose are not the first I would make. I actually like the idea that anyone can take the PK. It opens up the potential for a fight among the players . I would like to get rid of the tripple offense - if a goalkeeper gets a red card - play a man down, use a substitute to get a new goalkeeper on the field, and give up a PK. That seems like too much, particularly when it was due to simulation that the Referee missed.
I've always argued that the person fouled should take the penalty. It just makes sense to me. So... @mattylip for president or something.
You don't necessarily need a law change for the suspension bit. That's under the control of each competition and it doesn't sound bad to me. I'd have it be the next dame plus next against the opponent. I don't like the second one.
It could be a long time before that opponent was met again (or even never), the player could be transferred... you have to think of it as a sanction against the offending player's team, which is administered immediately, rather than a benefit to the next opponent. In the long run these will even out. Besides there are other 'unearned' benefits that come from the scheduling: international duty, short intervals between games for one team, long road trips, etc.