Should a sub be allowed in a red card situation.

edited July 4 in Miscellaneous
Just returned from my Thursday morning old fogies meeting where we spend most of our time drinking tea and putting the football world to rights. One fogey suggested that when a player is sent off a substitute should be allowed to take his place. His main arguments were (1) that the player concerned is the only villain involved and the rest of the team should not suffer because of his action.
(2) The supporters have paid their hard-earned cash to watch a game that is as equal as possible and by one team going down to ten men, they don’t get what they paid for.
Just wondered what the outstanding minds on this forum think.

Comments

  • I think it's an interesting concept.

    It would help to mitigate situations where a red is later rescinded, as the team would be less hamstrung as a result. However, I think that it would allow players to make an increased number of cynical / last man fouls.

    I wouldn't be opposed to it for straight reds, but if it was two yellow cards then I think the manager should/could manage that situation differently and know the risks.

    A red card for a poorly timed tackle isn't malicious but can ruin the game.

    I feel #onthefence
  • I think it might benefit the big teams who generally have stronger benches than smaller teams and encourage players to be more aggressive / professional fouls as the penalty for being sent off will be dimished
  • Alderz, Your fist statement should not be possible with VAR in use next season.
    PLF, He also suggested that the player concerned should loose a weeks wages making the penalty for the culprit more severe.
  • edited July 4
    It's a big no from me.

    A red card is a sanction for certain kids of behaviour/events.

    If you allow a sub, it's not as much of a sanction.

    Additionally, you are giving an offending team an extra sub, which is in fact an advantage over the non-offending team - how's that fair? Get a red card and get an advantage over your opponent?!

    As for the argument that the player concerned is the only villain involved and the rest of the team should not suffer because of his action: it's a team sport. The players all benefit from the good things a team mate does and I see no reason why the reverse shouldn't also be true. (Extend your argument, and we'd give winners medals only for those who scored goals and not the others.... or, if a player misses a penalty, we allow the goal anyway because why should the others suffer when only one player has messed up?)

    The argument about fans pay to watch an equal game - could be easily answered by saying, OK, don't send anybody off.... it's not, imo, an argument that we should give any credence to in term of the rules or how a game should be refereed :biggrin:

    Moojor
  • It removes discipline if you just replace a red carded player.
    MrsGrey
  • Alderz, Your first statement should not be possible with VAR in use next season.

    :hmm: How not?
  • GAA football and hurling have yellow, red and black cards.

    Yellow and red are as normal, the black card is effectively an enforced substitution. The player has to leave the field, but can be substituted if they haven't already received a yellow. (To a maximum of 3 players.)

    Awarded for what are considered cynical fouls.
  • Another big no from me - with red cards for 'professional fouls' to prevent a goal scoring opportunity the players actions are specifically to aid his own team, so removing the sanction would have a terrible effect on the game in my view.

    In relation to the docking of wages, whilst I am sure this would not be feasible I would also like to see the position where a player is not paid if he is banned from playing due to suspension.

    A rule I would like to add is if a player injures another through foul play, they are not able to play for their club until the player they injured is back available for selection. So a 'career ending injury' caused through foul play would actually end two careers.

    So quite a liberal approach ;)

  • In relation to the docking of wages, whilst I am sure this would not be feasible I would also like to see the position where a player is not paid if he is banned from playing due to suspension.

    I suppose this would come down to employment law, and what was in his contract.

    Also, I can't see clubs imposing it unilaterally, as it would make them unattractive to potential transfers.
  • Remove cards and let's get more like rollerball but this will mean Colin managed teams will win the league by default having the only squad left with no broken bones
  • Don’t most, if not all, clubs fine players who are sent off, usually 2 weeks wages.
  • I think it is somewhat down to the games culture, I was watching an NFL game with some friends when a player was dismissed for violent behavior and a substitute came on, when I expressed surprise at this my friends were literally horrified and said that the game would not be fair as they would have an extra man.

    When I stated that surely if going a man down was the known consequence then it would deter violent behavior, they really could not grasp the concept, and yet.

    Watching, the semi final on Tuesday with a different group and no-one batted an eyelid.

  • MrsGrey said:

    Alderz, Your first statement should not be possible with VAR in use next season.

    :hmm: How not?
    Mrs Grey, I meant cards being rescinded as the VAR should be doing the job the review board does at present. As for the advantage the sub would have to be one of the standard 3 allowed now, forcing the offending team to use a sub earlier than they wanted to.
  • edited July 4
    For me, players sent off should not be replaced and the ref should retain the red card sanction in his locker for “straight” red offenses and two yellows, however, maybe there is a case to amend the rules so that there are fewer yellow cards issued.

    For none contact offenses such as excessive celebrations, removing your shirt, cynically kicking the ball away or time wasting, a card could be issued that automatically adds additional time to the game but only counts as a yellow for accumulation and suspension purposes.

  • A no from me. A red card deserves a sending off and this penalty should not be watered down by allowing a substitute on.
  • It’s like suggesting if a player gets a red and a penalty ensues then so the team doesn’t suffer they’re allowed 2 goalkeepers for the penalty.
  • edited July 4
    Dodger58
    "Another big no from me - with red cards for 'professional fouls' to prevent a goal scoring opportunity the players actions are specifically to aid his own team, so removing the sanction would have a terrible effect on the game in my view".

    This is why I wouldn't consider the proposal. One of the phrases I like least in football is "Take one for the team" but at least now when it is done the team is punished. This proposal would give the team carte blanche (see what I did there).
    MrsGreyDodger58
  • would rather a yellow card warranting a 10 minute sin bin (goalkeepers exempt)
    Dodger58BubblesNeverDies

  • Mrs Grey, I meant cards being rescinded as the VAR should be doing the job the review board does at present. As for the advantage the sub would have to be one of the standard 3 allowed now, forcing the offending team to use a sub earlier than they wanted to.

    Ok, gotcha :ok:
  • A big NO from me too
  • Personally I think it could work for double yellows. Some of them are rather harsh and if the first yellow was wrong (I don't think VAR checks yellow) then it would be ok to sub the player (provided you have subs left).

    Straight reds, however, should be a punishment for the team.
  • I don’t think subs should be allowed for 2 yellows either but I think there should be a right of appeal where one or both could be deemed harsh.
    Allowing subs would encourage more cynical fouls.
  • edited July 4
    So if say Eric Dier gets sent off and spurs are trailing they can bring on a better player in the mold of Harry Kane or Son? A substitution they may have already been planning? No not for me I'm afraid :ok:
  • Hamstew said:

    So if say Eric Dier gets sent off and spurs are trailing they can bring on a better player in the mold of Harry Kane or Son? A substitution they may have already been planning? No not for me I'm afraid :ok:

    Or bring on one of the ballboys.
    HamstewwhupathmanMarkNobleLocalHero
  • They can bring Kane or Son on anyway they just will not have a choice on who to take off, it could be Ericson that has been sent off.
  • What I'm saying is it may have been a substitution that they were going to make anyway so wouldn't have mattered. Also you'll get situations where the team that got a player sent off might benefit from either a forced substitution or a star player of the other team getting injured with no punishment for the offending team.
  • It was not the other team who injured him, it was one member of that team.
  • Only If it suits us lol
  • #gamesmanship
  • edited July 4
    It's a team game. Like when one player scores a goal the whole team benefits from it :hmm: Part of the punishment is the fans and team mates coming down on them afterwards for possibly costing a game. I just don't think players would care that much if they got sent off if another player can come on in their place. Just my opinion of course.
    MrsGreyFortuneseekerswhtsMarkNobleLocalHerosecrethammersfanchicagohammer
Sign In or Register to comment.