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

[RW2]

Punishment stakes:
Two footed challenge, professional foul & preventing a certain goal = yellow card = taking shirt off for celebrating goal.

That's just taking the piss.

 

[Siorac]

Punishment stakes:
Two footed challenge, professional foul & preventing a certain goal = yellow card = taking shirt off for celebrating goal.

That's just taking the piss.

I agree that Jörgensen should have got a red card but this is a poor argument. The obvious reply here would be that removing your shirt should not be a yellow card offence because that's a stupid rule.

 

[RW2]

I agree that Jörgensen should have got a red card but this is a poor argument. The obvious reply here would be that removing your shirt should not be a yellow card offence because that's a stupid rule.

A yellow card is a nothing punishment. No one cares unless it's the second one.

 

[soap]

Completely agree, there was an incident somewhat similar to this in the EPL this season where a wild tackle denied an almost certain goal and was only punished with a yellow and a penalty. The new rule means in situations where a striker has a literal tap in, defenders can just hurl themselves towards the ball and man without having to worry about making a foul.

Maybe it should only be a one match ban rather than three if it is deemed to be a legitimate attempt to play the ball but it should definitely be a red card whether deliberate or not in situations where they're denying a chance that is far easier to score than a penalty.

 

[buckooo1978]

tell you what I would have done in a case like last night

let Modric take the penalty - if he scores yellow card

if he misses Red

that was a tap in last night and he couldn't win the ball without coming through the player

 

[soap]

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?

That shot was definitely going in.

 

[soap]

tell you what I would have done in a case like last night

let Modric take the penalty - if he scores yellow card

if he misses Red

that was a tap in last night and he couldn't win the ball without coming through the player

I like your thinking, but I wonder if sometimes players would then deliberately miss the penalty because they'd prefer the extra man advantage . Possibly, if very early in the game I'd imagine!

 

[Njord]

Don't see how it was a genuine attempt, as he could've tried that tackle 100 times, and he would probably make a foul every time. If the GK went for the ball, and fouled the player being 5 cm away from catching it, I'd say a yellow would be OK. When it's a hopeless tackle from behind, it's a red for me.

 

[RW2]

How about making the offending defender, who gets to stay on the pitch, responsible for saving the penalty he gave away?

He goes in goal for the penalty...

 

[shamans]

should be red. That was unfair and I was so glad Danmark got knocked out.

 

[montpelier]

I don't like the auto red card somehow.

What about 2 penalties? That would also deter the challenge getting made in the first place.

 

[Charlie Foley]

I think whatever law that didn't result in a danish red card for that tackle is flawed

 

[Charlie Foley]

I don't like the auto red card somehow.

What about 2 penalties? That would also deter the challenge getting made in the first place.

Do you treat it as a shootout penalty or can you score the rebound?

 

[Pexbo]

Pretty sure that over half the people in here saying "should have been a red" still aren't aware of the new rules and the reason they were brought in.

 

[montpelier]

Do you treat it as a shootout penalty or can you score the rebound?

I think the first one has to be like a shoot-out, 2nd one restarts the game.

 

[Siorac]

Pretty sure that over half the people in here saying "should have been a red" still aren't aware of the new rules and the reason they were brought in.

Or they just disagree with the new rule and/or how it was interpreted in this case. I still maintain that Jorgensen's challenge cannot be called an honest attempt at getting the ball. It was a cynical foul preventing a certain goal and therefore should have been a red. Like Suarez vs Ghana.

 

[montpelier]

And in an added twist, I might only award half a goal for the 2nd penalty if the first is successful. So the maximum punishment is 1 1/2 goals rather than a game-ruining 2.

You have to book the defender too, obviously.

 

[acnumber9]

Pretty sure that over half the people in here saying "should have been a red" still aren't aware of the new rules and the reason they were brought in.

Pretty sure the people saying people don’t understand the rules can’t accept they’re wrong.

 

[TheRedDevil95]

Jørgensen basically told danish media that all that went through his head was to take the croatian down and try to make it look like he went for the ball, which means that he obviously should have been sent off. However, he did get very close to the ball so I can see why the ref decided for a yellow, and when he did they couldn't change the verdict by VAR (if he hadn't given a yellow card yet, they would've been able to, though).

I think the rules are fair. If a player deliberately takes down an opponent in order to deny a clear goal he should be sent off. But it's quite harsh to award a penalty and a red card if it's a genuine attempt to go for the ball. The ref simply misjudged the situation last night.

 

[montpelier]

Equally, whatever anyone says, Denmark player got close enough to suggest a possibility he was trying to reach the ball in some kind of way.

Defenders are entitled to try & defend, whatever the odds against.

It wasn't so reckless as to be a red card just for the tackle either, imo.

 

[Pexbo]

Or they just disagree with the new rule and/or how it was interpreted in this case. I still maintain that Jorgensen's challenge cannot be called an honest attempt at getting the ball. It was a cynical foul preventing a certain goal and therefore should have been a red. Like Suarez vs Ghana.

Pretty sure the people saying people don’t understand the rules can’t accept they’re wrong.

The rule states "clearly not a genuine attempt to play or challenge for the ball" with regards to a red card. In this case, you can't argue that it was "clear" that the defender wasn't challenging for the ball. He made no unnecessary actions to impede the player, his momentum and actions were entirely towards the ball. He actually made very little contact with the player before he got the ball so it was almost a perfect challenge.

Yellow card was the correct decision.

 

[bosnian_red]

Yesterdays situation was a blatant red card, ref pussied out of the decision. I agree with getting rid of the double punishment, but when it's a 1 on 1 and a player gets taken down from behind then it's a blatant red. Even more when it's an open net. Yes he went for the ball, but he also knew it was a last ditch attempt and that he was bringing down the player. That one is a red card every day.

 

[acnumber9]

The rule states "clearly not a genuine attempt to play or challenge for the ball" with regards to a red card. In this case, you can't argue that it was "clear" that the defender wasn't challenging for the ball. He made no unnecessary actions to impede the player, his momentum and actions were entirely towards the ball. He actually made very little contact with the player before he got the ball so it was almost a perfect challenge.

Yellow card was the correct decision.

His action was to clearly go through the player. To get the ball he has to go round the side of the attacker but he couldn’t do that so he just made sure he couldn’t shoot. You can clearly see him trying to pull at the player to make extra sure too. He doesn’t get the ball. The Croatia player does. Yellow card was the wrong decision.

 

[Pexbo]

His action was to clearly go through the player. To get the ball he has to go round the side of the attacker but he couldn’t do that so he just made sure he couldn’t shoot. You can clearly see him trying to pull at the player to make extra sure too. He doesn’t get the ball. The Croatia player does. Yellow card was the wrong decision.

Absolute nonsense.

Firstly, "going around the player" was never an option, there was no way he would ever have time for that so he had to improvise.
Secondly, going through the player's legs is a perfectly legal challenge if you don't make contact. He made contact so it was a foul but his intention was still clearly to play the ball so it wasn't a red card.
Thirdly, I've never seen anyone trying to pull at a player with a completely open and flat hand.
Finally, The rule is that the player must "clearly not a genuine attempt to play the ball", if that was the case, he wouldn't have been stretching through the players leg with his toe pointed towards the ball, he would have just kicked at his back heel or swiped across his ankles. That's why the referee rightly decided to give the player the benefit of the doubt.


The issue here is that people are still entrenched in their views that "last man foul = red card". To earn a red card now, the defender either has to use his hand to stop the ball from going in or for it to be absolutely clear that the player had no intention of playing the ball. As both his momentum and his action of stretching towards the ball indicate that he wanted to play the ball, you can't call it as clear. Yellow card is correct.

 

[Siorac]

Absolute nonsense.

Firstly, "going around the player" was never an option, there was no way he would ever have time for that so he had to improvise.

Exactly. Winning the ball fairly was never an option so he decided to hack the player down from behind.

 

[Pexbo]

Exactly. Winning the ball fairly was never an option so he decided to hack the player down from behind.

So he had to time it between his legs. He failed. Yellow card.

 

[Mcking]

Looking at that, that was a delibrate tackle aimed at bringing down the attacker. There's no way the defender is getting that ball in that situation. Rebic had the ball under control with an open net to aim at, a yellow and penalty is quite unfair to the attacking team.
I think the best thing to do in that situation is to issue a yellow since he attempted to play the ball. Then place the ball for Rebic at the particular spot the incident happened, with all the other players, including the goalkeeper, outside the box and Rebic giving the chance to aim at an open net again. Basically a 'penaltybox' freekick with all the players outside the box and only the victim of the foul inside the box to take the kick.

 

[acnumber9]

Absolute nonsense.

Firstly, "going around the player" was never an option, there was no way he would ever have time for that so he had to improvise.
Secondly, going through the player's legs is a perfectly legal challenge if you don't make contact. He made contact so it was a foul but his intention was still clearly to play the ball so it wasn't a red card.
Thirdly, I've never seen anyone trying to pull at a player with a completely open and flat hand.
Finally, The rule is that the player must "clearly not a genuine attempt to play the ball", if that was the case, he wouldn't have been stretching through the players leg with his toe pointed towards the ball, he would have just kicked at his back heel or swiped across his ankles. That's why the referee rightly decided to give the player the benefit of the doubt.


The issue here is that people are still entrenched in their views that "last man foul = red card". To earn a red card now, the defender either has to use his hand to stop the ball from going in or for it to be absolutely clear that the player had no intention of playing the ball. As both his momentum and his action of stretching towards the ball indicate that he wanted to play the ball, you can't call it as clear. Yellow card is correct.

The issue here is that you refuse to acknowledge that it can be considered to be a deliberate attempt to foul the player. If you can’t win the ball without going through the player then it’s not an attempt to play the ball. You can’t go through the back of a player to get the ball. It’s got nothing to do with being last man. It’s everything to do with deliberately fouling a player with an open net in front of him.

Why has the defender got his hand on the player if not to impede him?

 

[BBRBB]

The law is fine. A penalty is a 80% guaranteed goal and very few situations in football are better than that, yesterday being a rare exception.

I would give the red in this situation though. Considering the tackle as a legitimate attempt at playing the ball is very questionable.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Is it still a red card outside of box? If so, should be red inside too.

 

[Pexbo]

The issue here is that you refuse to acknowledge that it can be considered to be a deliberate attempt to foul the player.

No, what you refuse to acknowledge is that the referee has to judge that no attempt was made to win the ball. As can be clearly seen in that GIF, the player is doing everything he can to win the ball. A red card is for when a player makes no attempt for the ball and just swipes out the player.

If you can’t win the ball without going through the player then it’s not an attempt to play the ball.

It's perfectly possible to win a tackle from behind without fouling the player. It's just incredibly difficult and takes impeccable timing. When your only hope is to make that perfect challenge, you go for it.

You can’t go through the back of a player to get the ball.

You can cleanly go between the player's legs and poke the ball away. That's perfectly legal and not unusual at all, he tried and he failed.

It’s got nothing to do with being last man. It’s everything to do with deliberately fouling a player with an open net in front of him.

It's only a deliberate foul if the player clearly made no attempt for the ball. The rules refer to:

"holding, pulling or pushing, not playing the ball or having no possibility to play the ball, serious foul play, violent conduct or deliberate handball.".

None of these count in this case. He wasn't holding him, pulling him, pusing him, he tried to play the ball and there was a slim chance he could nick it, it wasn't foul play, violet or a handball.

Why has the defender got his hand on the player if not to impede him?

Have you ever played football or watched football in your life? Extending an arm like that in a tackle is literally the most normal thing ever. He doesn't grab him, not does he attempt to so it doesn't matter.

 

[acnumber9]

No, what you refuse to acknowledge is that the referee has to judge that no attempt was made to win the ball. As can be clearly seen in that GIF, the player is doing everything he can to win the ball. A red card is for when a player makes no attempt for the ball and just swipes out the player.



It's perfectly possible to win a tackle from behind without fouling the player. It's just incredibly difficult and takes impeccable timing. When your only hope is to make that perfect challenge, you go for it.



You can cleanly go between the player's legs and poke the ball away. That's perfectly legal and not unusual at all, he tried and he failed.



It's only a deliberate foul if the player clearly made no attempt for the ball. The rules refer to:

"holding, pulling or pushing, not playing the ball or having no possibility to play the ball, serious foul play, violent conduct or deliberate handball.".

None of these count in this case. He wasn't holding him, pulling him, pusing him, he tried to play the ball and there was a slim chance he could nick it, it wasn't foul play, violet or a handball.



Have you ever played football or watched football in your life? Extending an arm like that in a tackle is literally the most normal thing ever. He doesn't grab him, not does he attempt to so it doesn't matter.

I hope you’ve done something in life to earn this arrogance. Yes I’ve played football and no I’ve never had to put my hand on a player to make a lunging tackle.

 

[James Peril]

Some strange comments on here, talking about two penalties and yellow/red card based on the penalty going in. All I can say is, it sounds like a lot haven’t played a lot of football before. A defender will always go for the ball in desperation, and no, the defender isn’t chanceless in this case. He isn’t that far away from hitting the ball with some luck, which he doesn’t do of course.

In this case I’m closer to a red card than not, but I also think he’s entitled to go for it. Suddenly he slides between his leg and wipes the ball out for a corner. It’s not a classic taking out the leg just to get the player down (in my opinion)

 

[FootballHQ]

Surprised more hasn't been added to this thread after the Swiss guy got sent off in the Sweden game.

Thought it was interesting with intepretation of the new rule that he was more likely to be sent off if it was free kick on edge of the box rather than penalty. Yet Ref gave a penalty and sent him off before consulting VAR and reversing the penalty call.

Really don't understand how that can be a red and the Denmark one wasn't.

The best example I think is Rojo taking out Mbappe. Foul and penalty but Mbappe going away from goal and there was still a keeper to beat so yellow was completely the correct decision.

Ref should be allowed discretion to weigh up decision but guess at this stage they all want to ref the final so will follow FIFA's rules to the T.

 

[Tomuś]

Adds another grey area to an already often ambiguous 'clear goal-scoring opportunity' that we discuss on here almost week in, week out.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

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.

I agree with this.
I know its not something that traditionalists tend to support, but I think this offers the best long term solution to several problems. Right now the yellow/red card system is not quite enough in giving the refs the tools they need to give the right punishments and control matches. The sin bin idea is tool that can be used to incentivize players to stop doing certain things - like making a cynical dangerous tackle to prevent a goal or even the diving and exaggeration. Its a good way to control games and prevent when games get out of hand like Colombia-England at certain points or that disaster of a match Por-Hol in 2006. I do think it has to be combined with VAR and punishment for faking as well to balance everything out.

 

[Snow]

Rule is fine. Jorgensen didn't make a legimate tackle for the ball. He was behind the player with no access to the ball and was clearly just trying to stop him from scoring. His reactions even show as much if the tackle itself wasn't obvious.

Awful refereeing imo, could easily have used VAR if he wanted to. There was essentially no punishment for him to take away the goal there. Some serious common sense lacking from the referee.

 

[AgentP]

This is a clear red. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the rules. The interpretation of the rule by the ref is what went wrong here.

 

[POF]

I agree with this.
I know its not something that traditionalists tend to support, but I think this offers the best long term solution to several problems. Right now the yellow/red card system is not quite enough in giving the refs the tools they need to give the right punishments and control matches. The sin bin idea is tool that can be used to incentivize players to stop doing certain things - like making a cynical dangerous tackle to prevent a goal or even the diving and exaggeration. Its a good way to control games and prevent when games get out of hand like Colombia-England at certain points or that disaster of a match Por-Hol in 2006. I do think it has to be combined with VAR and punishment for faking as well to balance everything out.

The problem with the current rule is that there are too many variables. It is up to the referee's discretion whether the foul is deliberate or not and there is a different outcome depending on whether it is inside or outside the box. When that is the case, you get inconsistency of decisions.

The sin bin allows the same consequence if a goal scoring opportunity is prevented by foul play and isn't too harsh or lenient.

The issue with extending it for diving or dissent is that it relies on referees implementing it really well. Unfortunately, football referees will make incorrect decisions and the arrogant ones will use a sin bin for innocuous dissent and it will have a huge impact on the outcome of the game.

For example, if the ref in the England vs Colombia game had been less gullible and spotted Kane's dive for the penalty, a sin bin would have been far too harsh and may have decided the game.

 

[Denis' cuff]

As often the case, not black + white. Up to the refs discretion but definitely lean towards a red card unless certain it was a genuine attempt.