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

[RW2]

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?

 

[Nick7]

Nope. The current rule is perfect. If a defender makes a legitimate attempt to get to the ball it's a yellow, if not, red.

 

[dannyrhinos89]

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.

 

[Siorac]

Nope. The current rule is perfect. If a defender makes a legitimate attempt to get to the ball it's a yellow, if not, red.

I'm not sure it could be called a legitimate attempt in this case. He had no chance to get the ball from that angle. Should have been a red.

 

[NoLogo]

Wait. But I thought denying a clear scoring chance through foul or hand ball is still a red? Just not fouls or hand balls that don't deny clear scoring chances?

 

[sokol11]

It should be a straight red.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

It's a tough one. The problem with less arbitrary rules, where a ref is free to use his own discretion to weigh up the likelihood of a goal from a given situation when punishing a foul, you open the door to more interpretation and less consistency. If there's one thing we hate to see as fans it's when an action is dealt with a certain way in one game but a near-identical action is dealt with differently later, so while more discretion sounds a good idea in theory sometimes a more catch-all rule in black and white may be preferable.

One thing's for sure; new rules such as this and VAR haven't consigned debate and grievance to the past and they never will.

 

[TwoSheds]

Fully agree with OP. 100% goal if he doesn't foul him so should be a red.

 

[maniwin]

Denmark Defender has no choice but to take Rebic down and deep inside he would have knew it could be and should be a straight red.

 

[Rednotdead]

Croatia went from being able to tap the ball into an empty net to having a penalty kick with a goalkeeper in place. The Danish defender knew exactly what he was doing.

Denmark thus got a reward for foul play, and that is not right.

 

[Physiocrat]

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.

 

[RW2]

Croatia went from being able to tap the ball into an empty net to having a penalty kick with a goalkeeper in place. The Danish defender knew exactly what he was doing.

Denmark thus got a reward for foul play, and that is not right.

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.

 

[klsv]

Penalty and a yellow is enough IMO. Loved the tackle, what I'd excpetd from a defender in that situation. If it's a penalty and a red, it tells defenders to give up in situations like that, taking another piece of fight out of the game.

 

[Skills]

That was a red yesterday. You could say he went for the ball, I don't think he really gave a shit. His objective was to get the man out and stop the goal or else they would definitely have been out. He would've happily taken the red too.

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.

This might be the solution.

 

[RW2]

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?

 

[zvezdar]

Now I'm biased as I always played in defence or DM, bu i agree this was excellent defending in that situation. The point is that Croatia had a goalscoring opportunity, and the penalty restores an opportunity to score. Its not the same as, say, a handball off the line where ball was about to hit the back of the net.

The defender still has to make a tackle that puts sufficient doubt in the refs mind and he did it perfectly.

 

[Skills]

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?

 

[Murray3007]

attacking side got no benefit in this situation, a strike at an open goal from 5 yards out or a shot from 12 yards out v a GK, should have been a red card, justice done in the end with Croatia going threw, but not all teams will be that lucky

 

[RW2]

Now I'm biased as I always played in defence or DM, bu i agree this was excellent defending in that situation. The point is that Croatia had a goalscoring opportunity, and the penalty restores an opportunity to score. Its not the same as, say, a handball off the line where ball was about to hit the back of the net.

The defender still has to make a tackle that puts sufficient doubt in the refs mind and he did it perfectly.

It's no longer an opportunity to score when Rebic rounds Schmeichel.

It's going to be a certain goal (barring something crazy), and that goal was denied by Jorgensen.

 

[AndyJ1985]

I believe a red should be given if a 100% guaranteed goal is prevented. In the case yesterday he would have been able to walk the ball in to the goal, so it should be a red.

 

[Nick7]

It's no longer an opportunity to score when Rebic rounds Schmeichel.

It's going to be a certain goal (barring something crazy), and that goal was denied by Jorgensen.

Unless he misses, which isn't impossible

 

[RW2]

Unless he misses, which isn't impossible

Well remove Jorgensen from this scenario. . .

 

[Grylte]

I like the rule as it is, playing 11vs10 AND get a penalty is too much punishment, especially if it happens early, and they get to play with one man more for 70-80 minutes.

I think we also should give the ref cred for getting it right under the current rules.
Many would have given the double penalty (red and pen).

 

[VeevaVee]

Should be a red. It absolutely wasn't fair. Needs to be a punishment and disadvantage to the offending team. As it stood, they only benefited, which makes no sense. Don't know how anyone can think that's right.

Was a full on FIFA move.

 

[Siorac]

Now I'm biased as I always played in defence or DM, bu i agree this was excellent defending in that situation. The point is that Croatia had a goalscoring opportunity, and the penalty restores an opportunity to score. Its not the same as, say, a handball off the line where ball was about to hit the back of the net.

The defender still has to make a tackle that puts sufficient doubt in the refs mind and he did it perfectly.

It was cynical defending. He hacked him down because he knew that a penalty at that stage of the game is better than conceding a goal, even if he gets sent off in the process.

It was no different to what Suárez did against Ghana in 2010. It should have been punished the same way.

 

[Nick7]

Well remove Jorgensen from this scenario. . .

Yeah we've seen a few times that players feck up from those positions. Unlikely, but possible.

 

[RW2]

Yeah we've seen a few times that players feck up from those positions. Unlikely, but possible.

With Jorgensen removed from the scene. . .

Of course it's unlikely but I think we can agree that, on the balance of probabilities, Jorgensen prevented a certain goal from which Denmark ultimately profited from.

 

[SqualorVictoria]

The law is fine; it's application yesterday was shit though. No one can convince me that yesterday's challenge was an honest attemt to play the ball. He went in from behind know 100% that he'll smash the attacker too. There was like 0.01% chance he can get solely the ball from there.

 

[Gio]

He was in no position to get the ball. He wasn't far off in the end but he clearly went to take the man down and lifted his foot up to make sure that happened. Ref/VAR should have applied the rules properly as it was a deliberate foul and should have been a red.

Otherwise there's no disincentive to hauling players down like that in similar positions.

 

[Schmiznurf]

I just saw it, that should have been a red, 150%.

 

[Physiocrat]

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?

The criterion would something like very likely for a penalty goal to be awarded. 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

 

[Physiocrat]

He was in no position to get the ball. He wasn't far off in the end but he clearly went to take the man down and lifted his foot up to make sure that happened. Ref/VAR should have applied the rules properly as it was a deliberate foul and should have been a red.

Otherwise there's no disincentive to hauling players down like that in similar positions.

What do you reckon to my penalty goal idea in this case?

 

[Gio]

What do you reckon to my penalty goal idea in this case?

Seems fair and proportionate. A clear-cut foul like last night's or a deliberate handball on the line for example merit a higher quality of opportunity than a standard penalty. Especially when those fouls take place late on in games where the disincentive (red card) becomes increasingly irrelevant.

 

[Pexbo]

I just saw it, that should have been a red, 150%.

Only going by the letter of the old law. That's been changed and rightly so in my opinion.

Previously, a professional foul in the box which denied a goal scoring chance was punished with:

1. A red card - team has to play with ten men.
2. A penalty - goal scoring opportunity is restored.
3. A suspension resulting from the red card - team is without suspended player for the entirety of the last match.


That is a completely disproportionate punishment for a professional foul. Especially when some of these fouls will actually be honest (albeit desperate) attempts to put in a block or get a toe on the ball. Last night for example, he actually tried to get a toe on the ball through the players legs, it wasn't like when Solskjaer just clipped his back leg out and accepted the punishment.

 

[Sky1981]

I believe a red should be given if a 100% guaranteed goal is prevented. In the case yesterday he would have been able to walk the ball in to the goal, so it should be a red.

Problem is, no goal is virtually guaranteed.

Hence penalty

 

[Siorac]

Only going by the letter of the old law. That's been changed and rightly so in my opinion.

Previously, a professional foul in the box which denied a goal scoring chance was punished with:

1. A red card - team has to play with ten men.
2. A penalty - goal scoring opportunity is restored.
3. A suspension resulting from the red card - team is without suspended player for the entirety of the last match.


That is a completely disproportionate punishment for a professional foul. Especially when some of these fouls will actually be honest (albeit desperate) attempts to put in a block or get a toe on the ball. Last night for example, he actually tried to get a toe on the ball through the players legs, it wasn't like when Solskjaer just clipped his back leg out and accepted the punishment.

There is no way this was an honest attempt at winning the ball. He brought Rebic down because a penalty is still a better outcome than a goal at that stage of the game. This should have been a red even going by the new law.

I understand that the triple punishment can be excessive but in this case Denmark benefited from a cynical professional foul and suffered no disadvantage whatsoever.

 

[PieCrust]

Professional fouls ruin the game. Obviously some have greater impact than others, but I'm also tired of seeing players on a break away at mid-pitch getting their shirts or shorts pulled to stop the counter. It's a cheap way out when you've been beaten and isn't punished enough imo.

For situations like this one though, I agree with awarding the penalty goal and I'd be ok with a red on the defender in addition, but could live with just a yellow. The level of cynicism in these types of fouls is just too much. Getting a PK isn't an advantage to the attacking team in this case. Maybe there could be something like if he makes the PK, it's a yellow to the defender, but if he misses, it's a red. IDK, still don't like it as even a straight red isn't enough punishment when it's to the defending teams benefit to force a PK instead out of desperation. The penalty goal is a better answer.

 

[Pexbo]

There is no way this was an honest attempt at winning the ball. He brought Rebic down because a penalty is still a better outcome than a goal at that stage of the game. This should have been a red even going by the new law.

I understand that the triple punishment can be excessive but in this case Denmark benefited from a cynical professional foul and suffered no disadvantage whatsoever.

My point is that he went for the ball, obviously he wanted to stop the player too but if he got a clean connection on the ball without going through the player and managed to bring the player down in the process that's perfectly legal.

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.


Anyway, it's a moot point as whether it was an honest challenge or not is completely irrelevant. The point is that some attempts are honest and yet they could get hit with triple punishment.


I think people are just too entrenched in the whole "last man, definitely a red" kind of thinking. A professional foul earns a yellow card and a foul in the box earns a penalty. Lumping on an additional punishment of a player being sent of and then banned for the next game is excessive.

 

[acnumber9]

My point is that he went for the ball, obviously he wanted to stop the player too but if he got a clean connection on the ball without going through the player and managed to bring the player down in the process that's perfectly legal.

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.


Anyway, it's a moot point as whether it was an honest challenge or not is completely irrelevant. The point is that some attempts are honest and yet they could get hit with triple punishment.


I think people are just too entrenched in the whole "last man, definitely a red" kind of thinking. A professional foul earns a yellow card and a foul in the box earns a penalty. Lumping on an additional punishment of a player being sent of and then banned for the next game is excessive.

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?

 

[Morpheus 7]

It should have been a straight red last night. He went right through the back of him, that would be an attempt to play the ball if the opponent was bloody invisible. There was no genuine attempt to play the ball, he took him out from behind. The player took one for the team. It was close to dangerous play for a red, the Croatian player could have been seriously injured from a tackle like that. Awful decision.