I have read often in these "news" threads how people on BS think Paul Gardner is an idiot, or at least not worth reading. "Why?" I wondered? Isn't he a soccer journalist with a long pedigree? Surely his time writing affords him respect. And then I read this. Paul thinks that it's unfair that teams can't substitute for red-carded players. It destroys the game, he says. His solution? Allow the substitution, and award a penalty kick for each red card. Yes, Paul. That's far less disruptive to the game than making a team play with 10. Seriously, could you imagine the fouls players would get away with if this rule were implemented? Referees are already loathe to call penalties in the box unless there's absolutely no doubt. ------RM
Yeah, a PK is dumb. I would agree that red cards are too disruptive though. I have always thought that the player should be sent off, you play a man down for 15 minutes or something, then you are allowed to sub someone else on in sent off players players place, assuming you still have subs to use.
I'm not sure that letting teams partially off the hook for red cards is such a good idea. You don't want to make martyrs out of players who are sent off, or let the sentiment that "he took one for the team" creep in to the thinking behind them. In my opinion, the only thing wrong with red cards is simply how they are administered, and that's a refereeing issue, not a LotG issue.
Red cards are meant to be a deterrent so in that since they are a very good one. The problem is that too often players are undeservingly shown red cards. These are the type of plays that should be reviewable if Soccer would ever step into the modern age.
Perhaps. A lot of RC offenses are still judgement calls even if you can see replay though. Sure it would help, but wouldn't totally solve the problem. Maybe there should just be an intermediate level "orange"card to bridge the gap from yellow card slap on the wrist to red card you just screwed your team in which my proposal could be implemented. Totally agree they need to start using some tech though. Review could be enormously helpful and if used right really doesn't have to slow the game down much at all. A better way to, for example, track offside would A) lead to fewer bad calls and (which esp in the case of offside is a big deal) and b) allow ARs to be able to pay attention to things other than staring down the line
i think that the player should be sent off and then you can't bring on his replacement for say 5/10 minutes for a second yellow red and 15/20 minutes for a straight red. sort of like a hockey "penalty" box sort of thing. there is some punishment, playing a man down for a period ... but not a total distortion of the game. and there is also the punishment of having to use a sub which limits the tactical strategy the coach can employ later in the game. but a PK is a dumb idea as is totally doing away with punishing the team at all by not having them have to play a man down for at least some amount of time.
this is what i never understand about the arguments against "replay". people tend to think about using video/tv in soccer all wrong. why is the game not just reffed by one guy, the ref? why are their ARs/Linesman? because they are there to assist the ref in calling the game, they have a view of the game that the lone on field ref cannot. a 3rd AR in front of a video screen with replay ability would operate EXACTLY like a linesman/AR ... (tho instead of raising a flag he directly buzzes the ref). any call an AR/linesman could make or have input into (as often the ref consults the AR/linesman on foul/card/penalty/etc calls) the same could be done by the Video AR ... it wouldn't slow the game down one single iota ... the game would flow exactly as it does now. the only difference is one of the 4 people reffing the game would have "super-vision". because most calls aren't gotten wrong because the ref doesn't know the rule or makes the wrong judgement but rather because he couldn't see what actually happened. arming the ref team with one person who can see clearly what happens via video/replay most of the time would vastly enhance all of the simple clear errors in reffing games. would there still be judgement calls that are too close even on video/replay to get 100% correct. of course. but 75% of the wrong calls, those based mostly on simple "couldn't see that clearly" would be eliminated without any noticeable difference in the game. now the fact that refs have huge egos and don't listen to ar/linesman now and ar/linesman tend to be subservient and not contribute much to the reffing team might still happen with a new 4th video AR .. but that is a simple fix of having a good ref review process ... one where the ref judging panel refs the game from a video after the fact and if they game day crew (ref, two linesman, and video ar) didn't get the calls the same a the panel they are fined/punished/eventually fired.
Which works great when the action is stopped due to a wrong or missed call, but what do you do when the action doesn't stop and the call was wrong? The CR rules a goal not in but it had gone in. Or vice versa, the action was stopped when it shouldn't have been (offside incorrectly called). Would video replay help, yes, is it a fix in all situations, no. Goal line technology with instant recognition should be the first goal of adding tech to the game.
If they make the wrong call then overturn it via replay it is still better than the alternative of just having it go uncorrected. If I get whistled offside but am not, sure I miss whatever opportunity I had, but at least my team doesnt lose the ball too. And anyway, I find it hard to believe we are very far away from the ability to have instant recognition for offside as well. If we are going to be putting sensors in the ball for the goal line tech (assuming they go that route and not cameras) then it couldnt be that much more to add one to players shoes (similar to what will be going on at the ASG). When sensor in ball recognizes it has been kicked, note location of players. If receiving player was past last defender at time of kick, buzz the ref.
uh, it would work the same way it works in the CL where there are refs behind the goal. the shot goes in but the ref doesn't think it does so the game continues on and then the AR behind the goal, who has seen it has gone in due to his better view waives his little flag gets the refs attention the game is stopped and the ref consults with the behind the goal AR and the goal is counted. it would work exactly that way except instead of the behind the goal AR waiving a flag the Video AR would buzz the Ref and tell him he has clearly seen the ball cross the line on his video/replay so the game stops, the ref talks to the video ar over a headset and the goal is counted. it really is that simple ... anything an AR linesman/behind goal can do a Video AR could do better ... the only difference is the crowd won't see a flag or see the ref consult with the AR it will all be done electronically (and would need redundant back up in-case of tech failure). and of course if the goal is called but it didn't go in is even easier since the play is stopped due to the "goal" ... the goal is simply waived off after the ref consults with the Video AR and a restart of some kind ... a free kick i guess ... takes place. a video AR would fix 80% of the wrong calls (the obvious ones that are due mostly to the refs/linesman having limited views on pitch) and the mechanism (flags and headsets aside) would work exactly as the game works today ... the ref can consult with any AR on a call he has a question on or an AR can stop the play himself to tell the ref he has seen something. edit: actually there would be one difference and that is offside plays close to the goal or while a player is going for/shooting on goal. the players would have to "play thru" the flag for offsided to the natural conclusion of the play ... ie the shot and perhaps goal. the offside decision could then either be upheld (goal waived off) or overturned (goal counts). that is the only difference and it really should be how the game is played to day ... just finish the play despite the flag (it is how it works in other sports with replay actually) and then make the decision after the fact.
I don't really agree. Red Cards aren't every-game occurrences to begin with, let alone unjust ones. (See http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/fairplay/_/league/eng.1/barclays-premier-league?cc=5901. The Premier League is known as a fairly 'hard' league, and yet only one team, QPR, has more than 5 reds out of 37 games played. One team, Fulham, has gone through the whole season without one. If I'm adding right, there have been only 64 total RCs in the entire EPL season in 370 games, or 0.17 per game.) I think it's more the other way around: not enough total red cards are shown to make for the deterrent that they should be. One tends to remember the unjust red really well, but far more common is the player who gets a yellow and doesn't really change his play because he doesn't expect the same offense would get him a second one.
I don't know much about Paul Gardner, but I think it would be ridiculous to award a penalty kick for every red card. Last year an MLS player scored and was ejected for a second yellow card for leaving the field to celebrate with the fans. If Gardner got his way and the penalty kick was scored, the player would have essentially scored for each team.
Yet another inane idea from that ass Paul Gardner. Back in the mid 90s when I had a subscription to Soccer America (when it was still an over-sized mag on newsprint) I can remember one of his pieces arguing that the size of the goals should be enlarged. According to Paul, goalkeepers were too big and athletic - too good, basically - and it was killing the game by robbing spectators of goals. Of course he didn't mention how a change like that would make it so that no goalkeeper under 6'5" would ever even be considered for the position again...
Btw, in this week's Canadian Championship game, winless Toronto played mid-table Montreal, went down a man within 20 minutes. . . and won 2-0. http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-05-09-tor-v-mtl/recap
It's unfortunate that Gardner has attached his name to this idea since he is justly maligned most of the time. Nevertheless, the red card system is not beyond reproach. Setting aside Gardner's weird love of all things Latin, I do appreciate that he wants the game to be entertaining for spectators. With all the soccer that gets played every year there will of course be exceptions but red cards generally ruin games. If the 10-man team is already up a goal it can be exciting watching the other team try to get that equalizer but unless there's something really important on the line, watching a 10 man team play an 11 man team for more than a half is not that entertaining. The game is reduced to packing men into the box and counterattacking and time wasting. My solution would be to allow substitutions for players who earn a second yellow card. A straight red means you've screwed your team (and the fans) and you'll be missing an additional game. Two yellows means you are done for the day and your team makes an involuntary substitution. The caveat here is that referees would then be encouraged to to be far less lenient with that second yellow. I would expect at least one player ejected for yellow cards each game, but since the penalty would be far less controversial we wouldn't have the endless moaning and debating.
I was reading Paul way back in the 90s in Soccer America and he was an old fart then ... now 20 years later maybe that explains why he comes up with this stuff. Paul is very astute when it comes to football but his ideas leave a bit to be desired.