Is it a mistake for red cards to be no longer issued where CERTAIN goals are denied?

[Rozay]

It was obviously not an attempt to play the ball, to me. It was a quick calculation and a Suarez vs Ghana moment. He gambled on the penalty over a tap in, and for a short-while, it was a gamble he won.

He should have been sent off 100%. Umtiti too, was not even carded for deliberately handling the ball to stop a chance against Australia. The concept has merit, but the reality encourages cheating.

 

[King.of.Red]

I always think a foul in situation like that must get red card. Tbh very surprised ref only gave yellow. Well, at least Croatia won the match.

 

[King.of.Red]

I always think a foul in situation like that must get red card. Tbh very surprised ref only gave yellow. Well, at least Croatia won the match.

 

[harms]

In this specific situation (an open goal when the player is right in front of of goal) a penalty goal rather than a penalty may be the best way forward. It keeps 11 players on the pitch and would discourage foul play more than a sending off.

Never — we've seen countless examples of forwards bottling what looked like a 100% goalscoring opportunity. Unless the ball crossed the line, it shouldn't be a goal — or it gives the referee too much of an influence (how do you judge a 100% chance? a 95% one? a 80%? Where is the limit?)

 

[POF]

A red and a suspension is too harsh, a yellow is too lenient.

Professional fouls are the most obvious argument for sin bins in football. A 10 minute sin bin would be a deterrent within the game but doesn't ruin the whole game if it happens early on like Colombia/Japan. It also wouldn't lead to a suspension in the next game.

I'm surprised there is so little support for it.

 

[Zlatan 7]

In this specific situation (an open goal when the player is right in front of of goal) a penalty goal rather than a penalty may be the best way forward. It keeps 11 players on the pitch and would discourage foul play more than a sending off.

It’s not a 100% going to be a goal though, I know it’s more than likely a goal but it’s not garunteed.

Who knows what connection the player would make with ball running at speed, remember Torres hit an open goal wide, there’s also been open goals and the ball has got stuck in puddles. It may be extreme but it happens.
Penalty goals is a ridiculous suggestion in my opinion.

The rule is fine as is, he did make a genuine attempt for the ball and was only a fraction of an inch away from getting it. Was hardly a rugby tackle.

 

[FootballHQ]

My argument for this is Carlos Sanchez should've just been given a yellow v Japan seeing as Japan got a penalty anyway. From memory wasn't there another Colombian player behind him near on the line?

 

[Denis' cuff]

I'd be worried about penalty goals because the match officials are then awarding a goal where none has occurred.

No ball has crossed the line and a goal has been awarded.

Also a huge grey area. . . The team who the penalty goal is given against could claim some random event could have prevented the goal. We've all seen crazy Youtube videos of someone somewhere missing open goals from the position Rebic was in after rounding Schmeichel. . . Ronny Rosenthal anyone?

26 years ago.

Exception, not the rule. Dalglish, Torres both wilted under the gaze of the Stret. But 9/10 it goes in.

Cheats should be punished, otherwise they are getting a free pass.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I'm inclined to agree and I can't quite get my head around how it isn't a red.

Somebody mentioned how it being a yellow 'keeps the fight in the defender' but that doesn't make much sense. It's the type of situation where a defender (quickly) judges a red card is better than an obvious goal so commits to a tackle, knowing a foul will send him to the fiery pit of doom. High risk high reward.

Basically, Denmark weren't punished. Croatia should have scored but there should be different rules for when the player is well beyond the goalkeeper and when a clear goalscoring opportunity has been denied.

 

[Ish]

It’s a stupid rule and should be a red card everytime.

The Croatia player rounded Schmeichel and had a tap in to put them through it was 100% a goal had he not been taken down. Doesn’t matter if it’s a legitimate attemt to play the ball a foul is a foul simple as.

This

 

[RW2]

A tackle from behind and going through a player without getting the ball could be given a red card anywhere else on the pitch.

But it seems if it's now in the penalty area after the keeper has been rounded with an open goal remaining in front of the attacker. . . It's a case of "Ah, it's ok. . . We accept you made a genuine effort for the ball". . . . So why not apply that logic to other positions of the pitch?

Is the colour of the card and the severity of the challenge now dependent on where the challenge takes place?

Perhaps a red card can be delivered without no suspension. . . A new coloured card issued?

It's just completely wrong that Jorgensen was allowed to stay on the pitch last night.
He knows what he was doing and so did everyone else.

 

[Gio]

Never — we've seen countless examples of forwards bottling what looked like a 100% goalscoring opportunity. Unless the ball crossed the line, it shouldn't be a goal — or it gives the referee too much of an influence (how do you judge a 100% chance? a 95% one? a 80%? Where is the limit?)

It's restoring the same level of opportunity though. The same rationale that suggests the striker could have missed that open goal after rounding the keeper is much the same as the striker missing a 'penalty goal'. Neither are 100%, but they're both not far off. If the defender has the choice of giving the striker a 75% opportunity (a normal penalty) and a 99% opportunity (the position the striker was in last night), it's pretty clear which one he will take. There does need to be some caveat in the rules that doesn't reward the defence in the way it was last night.

 

[GazTheLegend]

No. The people in this thread arguing otherwise are wildly wrong.

The problem with giving reds for denying a goal scoring opportunity is that when this was the case before you ended up with a penalty (which mostly ended in a goal), a red card (which made the rest of the game unfair) and a suspension (which made the next game harder). Usually this happened because of a desperate mistimed tackle by a central defender who was last man, and wasn’t malicious or intentional. It ruined far too many games and is a shit rule and I won’t hear otherwise.

Edit: case in point - Jonny Evans in the 6-1 defeat to Man City. He was an idiot - but his foul wasn’t malicious and it ruined what should have been a closely contested game and essentially cost us the league title in the end.

 

[Mb194dc]

In knockout in games in something as important as the world cup a penalty goal should be awarded if the ball is blocked on the line in violation of the laws of the game, or a player is hacked down with an open goal like last night. I would suggest a red card as well for cheating / unsporting behaviour.


At the moment it makes sense for players to keep the ball out at any cost, using hands, reckless tackles from behind, even a rugby tackle. It makes sense to take the penalty and red card. There is a reasonable chance the attacking team will miss; as Modric did yesterday and Gyan did for Ghana in 2010.


At the moment the rules positively encourage teams to cheat. It’s ridiculous and needs to be sorted for the next tournament.

 

[VeevaVee]

No. The people in this thread arguing otherwise are wildly wrong.

The problem with giving reds for denying a goal scoring opportunity is that when this was the case before you ended up with a penalty (which mostly ended in a goal), a red card (which made the rest of the game unfair) and a suspension (which made the next game harder). Usually this happened because of a desperate mistimed tackle by a central defender who was last man, and wasn’t malicious or intentional. It ruined far too many games and is a shit rule and I won’t hear otherwise.

Edit: case in point - Jonny Evans in the 6-1 defeat to Man City. He was an idiot - but his foul wasn’t malicious and it ruined what should have been a closely contested game and essentially cost us the league title in the end.

It nearly ruined Croatia's World Cup, totally undeservedly. If the defender is an idiot, that's their fault. They're already beaten. The team attacking shouldn't be punished for it.

 

[RW2]

No. The people in this thread arguing otherwise are wildly wrong.

The problem with giving reds for denying a goal scoring opportunity is that when this was the case before you ended up with a penalty (which mostly ended in a goal), a red card (which made the rest of the game unfair) and a suspension (which made the next game harder). Usually this happened because of a desperate mistimed tackle by a central defender who was last man, and wasn’t malicious or intentional. It ruined far too many games and is a shit rule and I won’t hear otherwise.

The penalty is because the foul occurred in the penalty area.
It is the punishment for the foul.
Many defenders have been cute enough in the past to bring down a player outside the box.

Now with some fouls a referee has to make an additional decision. Was the foul serious enough to issue a card? If yes, should it be yellow or red?
This is the case everywhere on the pitch and with ALL fouls.

I cannot think of anything serious enough than preventing a certain goal AND simultaneously committing a foul involving a tackle from behind. . . As what happened to Croatia & Rebic last night.

Those advocating "games being ruined". . . Are they effectively then advocating the abolition of all sending offs?

 

[GazTheLegend]

It nearly ruined Croatia's World Cup, totally undeservedly. If the defender is an idiot, that's their fault. They're already beaten. The team attacking shouldn't be punished for it.

They’re not punished. 90% of penalties end in goals. And the defender gets a yellow - that’s punishment enough.

 

[RW2]

They’re not punished. 90% of penalties end in goals. And the defender gets a yellow - that’s punishment enough.

75% of penalties end in a goal scored. . . with that figure much reduced if it is late into a match

Let's face it . . . We're now back to these days.

The 1980 FA Cup Final where a 17 year old Paul Allen (the youngest player on the pitch) was denied a dream of scoring in the final by a cynical tackle by Wille Young.

Do you support this?

 

[GazTheLegend]

Those advocating "games being ruined". . . Are they effectively then advocating the abolition of all sending offs?

That’s straw manning the argument but I’ll argue the case anyway - I’ve always thought it strange that a red card in the first minute was so much worse for a team than a red card in the 89th minute when the game was basically done. The likes of Keane used to try to hurt people lost to in the 90th minute because he’s stopped caring at that point.

So yeah the red card rule has flaws.

 

[RW2]

That’s straw manning the argument but I’ll argue the case anyway - I’ve always thought it strange that a red card in the first minute was so much worse for a team than a red card in the 89th minute when the game was basically done. The likes of Keane used to try to hurt people lost to in the 90th minute because he’s stopped caring at that point.

So yeah the red card rule has flaws.

I only remember Keane deliberately doing that once . . . On Alfie Haaland.

It's not straw manning every argument. The point at which the red occurs is irrelevant as the rules have to applied equally and fairly across the entire 90 minutes, although I'd say referees are less inclined to give reds in the early part of games.

 

[GazTheLegend]

75% of penalties end in a goal scored. . . with that figure much reduced if it is late into a match

That figures wrong. In the premier league since 1992-2018, 83% of penalties were scored.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Premier_League_Penalty_Statistics.html

 

[VeevaVee]

That figures wrong. In the premier league since 1992-2018, 83% of penalties were scored.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Premier_League_Penalty_Statistics.html

Well, success rate is going down. It's less than that as things stand, as that's the average over those years.

Football isn't just in the PL either. Success rate apparently falls further elsewhere. It's also still way less likely than scoring in the position the player was in (99%?), which is the important thing here and why it's totally unfair, to the point where you're basically advocating cheating.

 

[bonsaiboy]

I just do not understand why a defender (or any other player) deserves some protection in the laws of the game for denying a certain goal on the basis of "well he meant to win the ball".

Croatia had entirely breached Denmark's defensive line leaving them with no GK to beat and an empty goal. . . . and that is given the same punishment as time wasting, a mistimed tackle in the centre of the pitch, a player taking their shirt off when celebrating a goal [i.e. a yellow card]

That is simply wrong.

It's not about protecting a player, it's about proportionate punishment for the team. Under the previous laws, the player would have been sent off and 9 times out of 10 a goal would have been scored. The team would also have then had to play on with 10 men, a serious disadvantage for what was a legitimate attempt to play the ball. Of course, as it turned out, the result for the attacking team turned out to be disproportionate, but that's the unfortunate side-effect of trying to make the rules fairer for both teams -- you'll always end up with situations like this.

As others have said, a yellow card and a penalty goal if the fouling player is the last man (e.g. the goalkeeper, or the defender in this case) would be a fairer outcome, but it would be a big change to the rules so unlikely to happen any time soon.

 

[Pexbo]

That’s very deceiving. Deliberately so. He’d already gone through the back of the players legs after lunging in. The only way to get that ball is to go round the players leg but then he ran the risk of not bringing him down. He lunged at the back of his legs to make sure he brought him down.

The punishment of a red card is there to act as a deterrant to stop defenders deliberately taking one for the team. In this instance there’s no doubt he’s knowingly made sure Croatia don’t have an empty net to roll the ball into. How is that more fair then him being sent off?

Did you actually read my post?:

As it was, he did make a slight connection on the ball but went through the player first and it was a clear foul. He could quite easily have just kicked his legs out with no attempt for the ball which is my point about it possibly being an honest challenge.

I think he did try to get the ball in that challenge and with a huge, huge wedge of luck the timing could have been perfect and he could have made contact with the ball through the players legs. It was his only option at making a legal challenge as there was no way in hell he was going to get around him to make a clean tackle. So he gambled knowing that there was a tiny chance of a legal tackle and failing that he was bringing down the player and accepting the punishment.

 

[VeevaVee]

It's not about protecting a player, it's about proportionate punishment for the team. Under the previous laws, the player would have been sent off and 9 times out of 10 a goal would have been scored. The team would also have then had to play on with 10 men, a serious disadvantage for what was a legitimate attempt to play the ball. Of course, as it turned out, the result for the attacking team turned out to be disproportionate, but that's the unfortunate side-effect of trying to make the rules fairer for both teams -- you'll always end up with situations like this.

As others have said, a yellow card and a penalty goal if the fouling player is the last man (e.g. the goalkeeper, or the defender in this case) would be a fairer outcome, but it would be a big change to the rules so unlikely to happen any time soon.

It's 8 times out of 10, as opposed to what would be rounded to 10 times out of 10 in the position the player was in, because of something that was against the rules, while the player knows full well they have little to no chance of successfully making a tackle. So how is that fair when the other team is unfortunate enough to be on the negative end of chance? The punishment should at least be severe if a player decides to do that.

 

[VeevaVee]

@GazTheLegend by the way, the closest comparable competition has a success rate as low as 63% for penalties, averaging 73%.
@RW2

 

[Irish Jet]

Yes it’s an absolutely ridiculous rule. A penalty is nowhere near adequate compensation for an open net. It actually encourages them to take players out. That would have been the smart thing to for Jorgensen to do even if it’s a red, given the situation, but defenders should now be doing it whether it’s the first minute or the last. A penalty is better odds for the keeper, often even with a one on one.

People (Arsenal fans) used to complain about ties being ruined and the punishment being too severe but it’s bullshit – If you take a player out who’s through on goal it should be a red. Vidic should have been sent off for us in the Carling Cup final vs Villa that time – I doubt anyone would have said the game was ruined when the huge favourite gets it. Just ridiculous.

 

[Physiocrat]

Never — we've seen countless examples of forwards bottling what looked like a 100% goalscoring opportunity. Unless the ball crossed the line, it shouldn't be a goal — or it gives the referee too much of an influence (how do you judge a 100% chance? a 95% one? a 80%? Where is the limit?)

The criterion would something like very likely for a penalty goal to be awarded - so you would have to be around the keeper to be considered to be given a penalty goal but it wouldn't sufficient, angle etc would have to be taken into account, you could have a panel on VAR for it. It does give the ref more influence in one way but at least we could have some correct decisions with some inconsistency than having a rigid system which encourages taking out a player in the last minute.

It's true that Rebic could have missed however a penalty goal is more appropriate restitution than a red card and a penalty. Further, that Rebic could have missed encourages the defender not to foul and see if he does rather than take the red card and chance the penalty missing. Also keeping 11 v 11 is pretty crucial for a good spectacle. Penalty goals are not perfect but I don't see a better option

 

[Enigma_87]

There's really no point in VAR if situations like this are overlooked.

It was a straight red if I ever saw one. There was no possibility the defender to get the ball without clattering the attackers legs.

Let alone the penalty that's as dangerous play as it gets - lunge from behind through the legs, yet you get an yellow for that.

 

[RW2]

Also keeping 11 v 11 is pretty crucial for a good spectacle.

I read this sort of argument a lot.

It's not about "a good spectacle". . . It's about whether the punishment fits the offence.

Now, it seems, the difference between taking down a player certain to score OR allowing him to score/forcing your own team to come up with an equaliser with 5 minutes remaining. . . . is just a yellow card.

In the end all defenders are going to choose the former option, because if Denmark could take penalties it would be them rather than Croatia playing Russia in the QF.

 

[Enigma_87]

I read this sort of argument a lot.

It's not about "a good spectacle". . . It's about whether the punishment fits the offence.

Now, it seems, the difference between taking down a player certain to score OR allowing him to score/forcing your own team to come up with an equaliser with 5 minutes remaining. . . . is just a yellow card.

In the end all defenders are going to choose the former option, because if Denmark could take penalties it would be them rather than Croatia playing Russia in the QF.

In not so wild scenario if Rebic right peg was planted sooner Jorgensen could've easily broken it with that lunge from behind.

he went straight for it with eyes closed.

But I guess we can count that as an "attempt"

 

[acnumber9]

Never — we've seen countless examples of forwards bottling what looked like a 100% goalscoring opportunity. Unless the ball crossed the line, it shouldn't be a goal — or it gives the referee too much of an influence (how do you judge a 100% chance? a 95% one? a 80%? Where is the limit?)

Or maybe it would stop defenders from cheating

Did you actually read my post?:



I think he did try to get the ball in that challenge and with a huge, huge wedge of luck the timing could have been perfect and he could have made contact with the ball through the players legs. It was his only option at making a legal challenge as there was no way in hell he was going to get around him to make a clean tackle. So he gambled knowing that there was a tiny chance of a legal tackle and failing that he was bringing down the player and accepting the punishment.

i did read it but the focus was on the picture which makes it look like he had a chance of getting the ball when he didn’t. Luckily it made no difference to the end result on this occasion.

 

[RW2]

In not so wild scenario if Rebic right peg was planted sooner Jorgensen could've easily broken it with that lunge from behind.

he went straight for it with eyes closed.

But I guess we can count that as an "attempt"

Ah sure. . . he meant well.

Referee should have offered Jorgensen some counselling with sandwiches/cuppa tea

 

[Physiocrat]

I read this sort of argument a lot.

It's not about "a good spectacle". . . It's about whether the punishment fits the offence.

Indeed it is however if the correct punishment is given out and it retains a good spectacle then surely that's a good thing

 

[UweBein]

I think it was the right call. Also the rule is great as it is.

 

[hobbers]

Surely refs have enough common sense to bear out the nuances of these situations.

Like if the player is round the keeper and about to score into an empty net, red card. Similarly for a hand ball on the line.

But if the last man takes out an attacker with the keeper still to beat, yellow card and a penalty inside the box. Red card outside the box (and only if there are no other defenders in the vicinity capable of catching up).

 

[BusbyMalone]

It's ridiculous. That's not to say that every challenge in the box should result in a red card, but this one should have. I'm aware of the new rule, but don't like it. When it is such an obvious goal that the Denmark player prevented, then a red should be shown. It wasn't even as if the guy made slight contact with Rebic first and then touched the ball, he lunged in through the back of him and chopped him down. So even ignoring the fact that he was denying an obvious goal, it was a dangerous tackle anyway; regardless of his intentions.

The punishment was not commensurate with the crime and he should have seen red. If the keeper was still on his line and Rebic had some work to do i could understand it more, but he was staring at an empty net for feck sake. It was a goal and they (most probably) would have won the game without going to pens. It was such an advantage to Denmark it was absurd. You stopped a certain goal, escaped a red card AND put yourself in a position where your keeper has a chance to save the resultant penalty (which he obviously did).

 

[Josep Dowling]

I am, of course, referring to Denmark's Mathias Jorgensen last night against Croatia.

We all saw what happened. With a few minutes of extra time remaining Modric plays the ball to Rebic, who then goes around Schmeichel to score what would be a CERTAIN goal to put Denmark out. In an act of desperation Denmark's defender Mathias Jorgensen denies this event from occurring, Schmeichel saves the penalty, and then Denmark could then have possibly won the shoot out with no consequence for Denmark.

But, I hear you say, the penalty restores the goal scoring opportunity?

But this scenario is different. Rebic earned the right to shoot at an empty goal by taking the ball around Schmeichel when he could have taken the shot beforehand, but choose to take the risk of Schmeichel winning the ball in order to have an empty goal to finish the move. The resulting penalty sees Denmark profit from the situation as Schmeichel gets to return to goal and Denmark remain with 11 on the pitch.

If Jorgensen commits his foul with Rebic still having Schmeichel to beat then arguably a yellow card/penalty is a fair decision if Jorgensen makes a genuine attempt to play the ball.

Are players now no longer going to be sent off for a professional foul like this unless it is something extreme (like Suarez for Uruguay in 2010 against Ghana)?

Is it a mistake for no red card to be shown where certain goals are denied?

Should a red card for a professional foul even be immediately reinstated?

I have to agree with you on this one. I thought the yellow card in this situation was ridiculous. He had a open goal which was snatched away by a poor tackle from behind. Should have been a red card imo.

 

[Alek M]

How is this different than the Columbia game,which the player got red carded. I thought that was harsh. Here are red should have been awarded. Imagine this happened early in the game. Having the penalty saved still would have given Croatia advantage to make up from the missed penalty.

 

[Hawks2008]

Should be a red as well as a penalty. Anywhere else on the pitch it's a red but people get caught up in the double punishment side of it. 'Professional' fouls are cheap and ruin games and thankfully this time it didn't ruin Croatia's WC.