Should a sub be allowed in a red card situation.
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.
(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
It would help to mitigate situations where a red is later rescinded, as the team would be less hamstrung as a result.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
PLF, He also suggested that the player concerned should loose a weeks wages making the penalty for the culprit more severe.
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:
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.
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
Also, I can't see clubs imposing it unilaterally, as it would make them unattractive to potential transfers.
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.
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.
"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).
Straight reds, however, should be a punishment for the team.
Allowing subs would encourage more cynical fouls.