Last Man Fouls to no longer carry Red Card - Proposal to IFAB

kietotheworld

Players may no longer be sent off for fouls which deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity if the referee gives a penalty as well, under a proposal submitted to the game's rulemaking body.

There has been a growing chorus of opinion that the punishment is too harsh - a penalty, a red card for the defender and a subsequent suspension.


FIFA have submitted the item to the International Football Associations Board (IFAB) meeting on March 6 and the outcome may be that the offence is downgraded to a yellow card if a penalty is awarded.


The IFAB agenda released today says the FIFA submission is "to discuss sending-off offences, particularly the triple punishment (penalty kick, red card, player suspension) that results when a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to the opposing team''.


FIFA are also raising the issue of whether players should be allowed to feint at all during the run-up to take a penalty - for some penalty-takers such as Robbie Keane it has become a trademark of their spot-kick routine.
The current law is open to interpretation with feinting being permitted unless the referee considers it "an act of unsporting behaviour''.


The latest developments in goal-line technology and the on-going experiment in the Europa League of having two extra assistant referees behind each goal-line will also be discussed at the meeting in Zurich.
The IFAB is made up of the four home nations, who each have one vote, and FIFA, who have four. Any rule change needs a minimum of six votes in favour.

Red card for last-man foul set for International FA Board review - Global - ESPN Soccernet

Absolutely ridiculous proposal for me, as far as I'm concerned the punishment as it is is not harsh enough. If a player denies a clear goalscoring opportunity, he should be sent off and the opposition get a penalty, regardless of where the foul takes place. It is the worst form of cheating a player can commit on the field, on most occasions it denies the opposition a goal because of unfair behaviour, and should be severely punished. The ruling with red cards is enough, but it often leads to only a red card and no goal for the attacking team, with a penalty, the usually get the goal anyway. The attacking team should not be in any way disadvantaged by the opposing team committing this sort of foul, and the defending team should be punished severely.

Count Duckula

You'll get people in here arguing that surely the penalty is punishment enough, completely missing the point.

kouroux

A penalty kick + red card is always a bit too much.If they can find some middle ground that's fine by me

Bread

Deliberatly denying a goal scoring opportunity should be a red card and pen, but as ridiculous as it sounds last man fouls arent always definate goal scoring chances and the suspension and penalty can be too harsh for a simple mistake.

for example goal keepers regually have to dive into feet with no protection and when they do it wrong they give away a penalty and quite often arent there to save it.

George the Giraffe

WireRed

If it happens outside the box like Ole's then it should be a straight red. If it's in the box, then a penalty is punishment enough IMO.

Besides, sometimes the goalscoring oppurtunity is debatable, so this would clear that up straight away.

Rowem

Solskjaer's should be a red even in the box, as it's a dangerous tackle.

pillory

Except such fouls in the penalty area are almost always honest attempts to play the ball, not cheating. But penalties for fouls outside the box isn't a bad idea.

WireRed

Aye, I was just using that as an example. Perhaps the Vidic red card for the rugby tackle on Gerrard last season is a better example. If that was in the box then it should be a booking IMO. We see too many games where a red card and a converted penalty kill the game no matter how long left.

SharkyMcShark

It's a penalty and a red because

a. The penalty is to restore the goalscoring opportunity itself. The penalty is not the punishment

b. The red card is the punishment. As if to say, don't drag back someone in the box if they're one on one with the keeper.

It'll be ridiculous if this goes through. I will call it the Carragher law.

MikeUpNorth

Absolutely.

SittingBull

A red card and penalty is still a better option. The offender's team has to be heavily punished as it is a delibrate attempt to prevent a goal scoring chance, and besides there is always a chance that the penalty may be missed. A suspension to me is however a little harsh, unless for violent conduct.

kietotheworld

That's cheating, pure and simple.

WireRed

This rule would also encourage refs to take these decisions more. I saw a game the other day when a clear goalscoring oppurtunity outside the area was denied, and the ref bottled it because he would have had to send the player off. Refs should call it as they see it anyway but this ruling would give them a bit less pressure on these calls.

kietotheworld

A better method would be to either re-educate or fire referees who don't apply the rules properly. According to this proposed rule change by the way, professional foul outside the box would still carry red cards.

pillory

It's sometimes desperate, but almost never deliberate. Doing it deliberately is usually very stupid because of the double/triple penalty. I might be in favour of yellow + pen if you just mistime your tackle and red + pen if it's deliberate. (But then you have shirt tugging, which is a bit of a grey area since it's obviously deliberate, but to a certain little-known degree tolerated, and often practised by everyone in vicinity of the ball.)

Logan!

Good post. Sums it up well.

AgainstAllOdds

Why is it too much? If you make a deliberate foul and deny a goalscoring opportunity (which seen in context is 'cheating'), then you shouldn't be allowed to play anymore.

If you foul inside the box it's a penalty because and it's a different rule altogether. And a deliberate foul is a yellow anyway. It's the added goalscoring opportunity to it which makes it a red.

A penalty is 50/50 chance of being scored anyway, it's not an almost certain goalscoring opportunity, that's why you have to be penalised and be a man down.

I don't think it will happen because it is fair.

George the Giraffe

Spot on.



That's absolutely ridiculous. Using your argument a freekick is punishment enough outside the box as on a basic level a penalty is a direct freekick within the penalty area.

Grinner

On a different note I reckon a dive by a forward in the penalty box should be punished by a yellow card and a free kick for the defending team in the opponents penalty box in the same location as the dive. I reckon that'd cut out the dives sharpish.

M160RA

FIFA in dumb idea shocker.

beardsleybob

Maybe the player should just be sent off for the rest of the game, with no further suspension??

The Azzurri

Anyone remembers last season whereby Paul Scholes was sent off in a crucial league game against Fulham (think it was after the defeat to Liverpool) for delibrate handball in the first 5 mins of the game?

In an instant, we were down to 10 men, a penalty (which was converted later on), and further suspension on Scholes at a time when we were having an injury crisis. We susequently lost the game.

At that time, i thought Scholes didn't meant to handled the ball, it was more like a reflex reaction.

Team Brian GB

It should always get a red card if it is a professional foul regardless of whether it is in the penalty area or not, if a challenge is clumsy or mistimed then perhaps it could be downgraded but I'm not convinced such a distinction could work in practice so I'd maintain the status quo.

VoetbalWizard

a professional foul. one of the many legendary things ole has done for us.

Interval Level

So if this rules comes in,

A defender when chasing a striker who is one on one with the keeper would rather challenge and go in for the ball when the striker has rounded the keeper than when he is outside the box?

I challenge him in the box I might give away a penalty. I challenge him outside the box, I'll get a red. Sounds a bit stupid

McGrathsipan

another classic piece of clap trap by FIFA

a deliberate foul to deny a scoring oppurtunity should be a red card and a peno if its inside the box.

Its against the rules and players know that when they decide to make the tackle. If the rules are changed the game will suffer IMO. Dishonest players committing professional fouls will be getting away with it game after game. Not good

I cant see how that will help the game or the fair play campaign that FIFA rattle on about so much.

Leave it alone Blatter you cock. Its OK as it is

Walrus

[/thread]

If it was made just a penatly, then there is essentially no punishment being given. The defender denies a goalscoring opportunity - the other team gets another one in the way of a penalty, and the defender is no worse off.
However, if the ref misses it and/or doesnt award the penalty, the defender has "gained" because the opposing team is denied a goalscoring opportunity.

Long story short, if this kind of ruling went ahead, anyone who got into a position that they are likely to score from would probably just get constantly fouled because there is no real punishment.


That said, possibly getting a suspension as well is a bit harsh. They could remove that part of it I reckon - although then, the dilema is that if it is very near the end of the game, the defending team might fancy their chances to hang on with 10 men for 10-15 minutes and we are reverted to the "no punishment" argument.

Anderson Searl

Keep the red, Drop the suspension, and you have a deal.

JazzG

I think something needs to be set up where for every last man tackle, it is reviewed afterwards and if it was a blatant foul then the suspension should be in place if it was an honest or just mistimed tackle take the suspension away. If you take the suspension element away then what in the 93rd min your striker is clean through any defender with half a brain cell will take them down knowing they won't get suspended.

It won't work though because when you leave things up to interpretation more often than not someone will

Pogue Mahone

I do think it's harsh when a keeper gets sent off, just because he's beaten to the ball.

You don't get many cynical last-man fouls in the box, seeing as it's usually a split-second incident. In fact, I can't think of any?

kietotheworld

You'd get a lot more if this decision was implemented.

Pogue Mahone

You think?

I'd say the penalty-kick is a strong enough deterrent as it is.

The reason you see cynical challenges outside the box is because the defender knows he can replace a clear goal-scoring opportunity (striker through on goal) with a really difficult one instead (free-kick) On that basis, a red card can seem worth it. Totally different scenario when there's a penalty kick as a result.

I do agree that the really cynical last-man fouls outside the box penalised with a penalty instead of a red. That would stop them pretty quickly IMO. If they're gonna make any change to the rules that would be the most sensible.

peterstorey

Particularly as they're often 'bought' by the attacker nicking the ball away and waiting for the collision.

Vidic on Nasri last season at Arsenal (Webb didn't give it).

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

The red should remain regardless.

pauldyson1uk

mmm maybe so ,but still cheating.

pauldyson1uk

yeap Blatter at it again , whats next you score more than 3 in the first half you have to play the second with no keeper?

Pogue Mahone

He wouldn't have done it if it meant a penalty. Much easier to score a pen than it is to beat a keeper who's off his line, while a defender is bearing down on you.

Which proves it's the penalty that acts as a deterrent, not the thought of being sent off.

kietotheworld

I see your point, you might not many more cynical fouls, but you would get a lot more risky tackles which end up denying an opportunity, especially earlier in the game. You'd certainly get players handling on the line very often if a red could not be given for denying an opportunity in the box, presumably that'd have to be legislated for.

A rule where you differentiate between the cynical and being beaten to the ball is nice in theory, but it would be difficult to implement. There are hardly any challenges where players have 0% chance of winning the ball, even the Solskjaer one above one could argue that he just mistimed the challenge. OK it would be a bloody thin argument, and no rational person would believe it, but if you say a referee has to be certain, he could not have sent Solskjaer off if it had happened in the box. The rule has to be cut-and-dried, referees have a difficult enough job as it is.

Pogue Mahone

Good point. That would have to remain an automatic red. The one occasion where a penalty represents a reduced likelihood of scoring. I don't agree about their being more risky penalties early in the game. A penalty is never a risk worth taking. How often do strikers get the opportunity to shoot at the goal from 12 yards out, with the keeper on his line and all the time in the world to take a shot?

As far as the rule being cut and dried, I guess it would mean that if a penalty is awarded then it's only a red card if the challenge merits it in it's own right (e.g. dangerous play etc) That wouldn't be too hard to implement.