I agree. Fellani wasn't set out on a course of destruction here. He tried to use his size as his biggest asset and pushed it a little too far ( a couple times, I felt the calls were soft). Not much of a problem there, in part, a credit to both teams for coming there to play and not kvetch.
Agreed, reset cards at the end of the group stage. Also reset at the end of quarterfinals. This will allow referee's to deal with misconduct and punish without fear that players will miss out in the knock out stages. I think that once on a card, players need to modify their behavior to avoid a second caution and a send off.
I hate accumulating cards at all. Cards represent misconduct and were created for a single match. Cautions are part of the match...and they should end there. I think cards accumulating through 5 matches is a huge change to the tournament and not one I like. It sometimes forces the hand of the referee. We all know 2nd cautions are differentt han first cautions in a match. Sometimes we issue game control cautions...but never as a 2nd and teams understand that. This middle ground is tough. Di Maria has a YC now...you need a game control caution and he gives you the chance in the QF. However, that forces him out of the SF. Do you give it? If you do you are villified becasue you gave what may be perceived as a soft yellow, but it was one you felt you needed to get control. If you don't, maybe the game spirals out of control. Bottom line is that YCs were intended for a single match and carrying them over multiple games (whether 3 or 5) changes player behavior, causes good players to sit out suspensions in the biggest tournament of their lives for 2 mistimed tackles over 5 matches in a fast paced game, and affects referees' tools for match control. In my opinion, none of this is good for the sport.
A reasonable plan! I don't think the current approach is working. I wouldn't be surprised by a serious injury.
I don't know that I'd choose to get rid of it, but I'd instead choose to put the number of yellows required for a suspension at 4. If a guy gets four cautions in his first five matches, something is wrong and he needs to sit a game.
Another idea that might work with the limit being two, but with the caveat that if you play the next game without getting one, then the carried over card expires from the player's record. To clarify - If player A gets a caution in game one and then a caution in game two, he sits game three. If player B gets a caution in game one, no caution in game two, and a caution in game three, he can still play in game four. If player C gets a caution in game one, no caution in game two, a caution in game three, and a caution in game four, then he sits game five. Not saying this is the best way, but it is an alternative to the current system.
I agree that I would like to see the accumulation rule changed. I would also like to see one sub added for extra time games especially in tropical tourneys. That would be consistent with the one sub per 30 minutes of regular time.....
Watch Green's shot. He appears to have mis hit it. It certainly doesn't come close to the level of "buried".
Why? A caution is be definition a "be careful", many of them are for silly things, FRD, DR even dissent. They are designed for effect in THIS GAME ONLY. Introducing an artificial penalty that effectively raises it almost to the level of a red card is wrong in my view. Heck if you pick up your "final" caution in the last 10 seconds of the game, it essentially is a red card. The only difference is the effect on your team in the current game. I'd rather see accumulation gone, then turn the refs lose to do their job with no worry on effect in the next game.
The one thing that card accumulation does is take a degree of cynicism out of play. Yes fear of a second caution does in an individual match, but knowing you can foul tactically or hard enough to warrant a caution for every match without fear that an accumulation will lead to suspension does change the approach players have towards the game and their actions. Even more importantly, it gives coaches the flexibility to play a system of breaking up attacks through persistent infringement without fear of punishment. They know as we have seen in this world cup that referees are very mindful of sanctioning fouls for fear of suspending players based on card accumulation. One last point, as far as I know card accumulation is common in every league in the world. Most league rules of competition allow four cautions between 10- 20 matches. If you receive a 5th caution before the predetermined match count you sit out the next game. Some rules of competition state if you play clean for X number of matches a card comes off the accumulation list.
I have no problem with accumulation, but do think the 2 yellows in 5 games in pretty steep. The "problem" arose from the decision not to have anyone suspended from the final and just lumping the R16 and QF on top of the group stage. Keeping it simple, I'd tweak it as follows: if you get 2 yellows in any of the last 3 games, it results in a suspension. Or said differently, if you go two straight games without a yellow, your slate is wiped clean.
It's a very different effect, having a 1 game suspension mid-season vs. the world cup. Probability in the WC is that you are sitting a knockout round or better. In a league, it's one game of 20+ and the effect is minimized.
I recall a situation involving Michael Bradley back in the 2008 Olympics. The US won the first group stage match, and was leading in stoppage time in the 2nd match. A win would clinch a spot in the knockout round. Bradley received a yellow card in the first match, and in stoppage time in the second match blatently delayed the restart on a free kick. A free kick was around midfield and he repositioned the ball well after the referee whistled for the kick to hurry up and be taken. It seemed to be painfully obvious he wanted to pick one up intentionally to 'clean the slate' for the knockout round, and try to waste a bit more time while he was at it. Unfortunatly for him, the US conceded a goal in stoppage time with the match ending in a draw. The US went on and lost the third match, with Bradley serving a suspension, and failed to advance.
But that only works if the cards are actually given. If the effect of the accumulation rule is that the refs are overly reluctant to issue cautions, as seems to be the case here, then the rule is having the opposite effect from what is intended.
If this had been a particularly cynical display of soccer I would agree, but I certainly don't think its been more so than in other recent tournaments and is arguably less so. Having a low accumulation limit and high bar for yellow cards seems to have worked fine - only 2 players are missing this round for accumulation (and 8 total for the tournament) and the high yellow tolerance means those players have well earned their suspensions and no one seems to have any complaints about their missing players.
That's a fair point. It's those of us watching with our ref goggles on who are probably the ones most missing the cards ...
Bubba, you need to take my remarks on card accumulation in the context of my post on modifying the current system. It's too stringent for long term discipline and potentially creates man management issues. As an example player X is not cautioned knowing he is already on a caution and the match blows up or escalates with hard fouls all around. Most important, we have a set of laws in place that have proven to be effective in keeping the game fair when applied evenly. What's happening in this world cup goes against the spirit of the written laws and how games are typically managed. FIFA has not learned anything.
I posted this yesterday in the regular referee thread under "limited subs" but I'll post it again here if you don't mind: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/fifa-consider-allowing-4th-sub-162753698--sow.html