I do not think this is at all necessary as the existing laws are plenty functional, if the refs actually call fouls the way the laws are written. But federations rarely, if ever, actually use common sense on the enforcement of the laws. The "Pink" card is one of the worst ideas since VAR. It gives the refs another way to avoid taking real responsibility for their calls. It is almost as bad for football as the "Separate but equal" doctrine was for integration. I just hope the matches to not get too screwed up because of it. It will give the commentators something new to discuss rather than actually calling the matches. I can, however, see a very interesting drinking game evolving where every time "pink card" is mentioned everyone must take a drink. But that might result in too many deaths from alcohol overdose but those deaths might be exactly what some people desire. I think this is the first time I have heard a "specialty" card call "pink." The usage I have heard mostly calls the "in between" card(s) orange. New rule introduced at Copa America alongside yellow and red - but what is it for? https://www.goal.com/en/lists/pink-...ow-red/bltab4b39598c440b71#cseea3aefb438b79ff
The article in the link you've posted says they're only using this to signal to the public when a team is making a concussion-related substitution.
Yep, it will be an "extra" substitution. Interestingly, it will allow both teams to get an extra substitution if one player gets concussed in the name of fairness. It's a really interesting solution to the age old problem of injured players in soccer.
Leagues (including MLS and the Premier League) already have this, and I guess it was already approved for all international football starting July 1. So it seems the main thing this measure will do is move that start date up a few weeks for this tournament and use a pink card to make it clear when a concussion sub is taking place.
im not looking to add a fifth "official", but this would make way more sense if they were issued/prompted by a neutral medic.
And teams will abuse this. Contrary to popular belief it is possible, and even relatively easy, to fake a potential concussion and there are plenty of unscrupulous coaches/players/trainers that will teach others how to get an extra sub late in games. It also will become an extra delaying tactic near the end of matches. I just think the potential for abuse outweighs any real advantage. I think the real question is how long will it take for this to be abused. The article, as i read it, does not really place the responsibility for choosing to make the "extra" sub and it removes the coach's duty to retain a sub, just in case. I think the extra subs (beyond three) have done nothing positive except slow down matches and allow coaches to make the end of matches seem like slow torture. I think this is another step in the direction of unlimited subs. It almost seem that international soccer is wanting to use youth soccer, say U12, as a modle for the future of soccer. Maybe they really want something like the indoor soccer's "sub on the fly" as much as wanted. I liked the older laws where teams were limited to 3 subs for the match and there were no exceptions. It made the coaches actually think about holding a sub in case of injury and did not slow the game down.
This was in effect (the substitution protocol, not the pink card) in the 2022 and 2023 World Cups, a number of leagues, all CONCACAF competitions, etc. The change on July 1 is that competitions no longer have to request to use it on a trial basis, they can just do it, though it remains optional.
I agree that this can and will get abused. However, we have all seen the flip side too. Players won't come off due to the limited number of substitutions. So I will disagree on the 3 sub rule. I really think the 5 sub rule improves the game. 1. Allows for subs to occur for injuries to avoid players staying on the pitch when they really shouldn't be out there. 2. Allows for better quality of play. 3. Allows younger less experienced players a way better chance to get on the field and get that experience.
I thought perhaps the OP didn't understand what the pink card was supposed to be, but since they have doubled down on this in their follow-up post, I now really have to ask: Do you truly believe that allowing each team to make an extra sub if a player suffers a concussion "is almost as bad for football as the "Separate but equal" doctrine was for integration"?