FA to trial Sin bins next season

[Kinky Gerbil]

Or the player could just not swear at the ref and they won't get sin binned?

It's acting as a deterrent, not a gimmick.

I'd be interested to see how much it cracks down on it at that level when they inevitably do the analysis at the end of the trial.

Just another gray area isn't it?

Player swears at a ref one week gets sun binned

Says the same the week after doesn't.

If a player swears in the refs face he should be off anyway

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If a player swears in the refs face he should be off anyway

That is the central point, and there should be no 'grey area' about it.

Rooney for one, should be sent off most weeks.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

That is the central point, and there should be no 'grey area' about it.

Rooney for one, should be sent off most weeks.

Stop that and there is no need for this stupid change.

We have the rules in place already

The FA are gutless

 

[The Albion Roar]

Bad idea. Managers would merely by extra cautious for 10 minutes to alleviate the problem, ending the game as a spectacle. Moving the ball forwards 10 yards (like in rugby) made little difference.

The constant comparing of football to rugby leaves me banging my head on the table. They are totally different sports with totally different rules, scoring and set-ups. The only thing football can learn from rugby is the sense of respect (two-way) from referees to players.

You may as well compare football to cricket and change ends every time someone has a shot.

 

[BigGully]

That is the central point, and there should be no 'grey area' about it.

Rooney for one, should be sent off most weeks.

I always thought that swearing at a ref is a straight red, if of course the ref decides to penalise you for it, therefore you you cannot get a yellow for swearing if that is the stated offence in the referees report it must be a red, you can however get a yellow for ungentlemanly conduct, which doesn't necessarily always include swearing.

Or did I dream that ..................

 

[Bold Seagull]

Bad idea. Managers would merely by extra cautious for 10 minutes to alleviate the problem, ending the game as a spectacle. Moving the ball forwards 10 yards (like in rugby) made little difference.

The constant comparing of football to rugby leaves me banging my head on the table. They are totally different sports with totally different rules, scoring and set-ups. The only thing football can learn from rugby is the sense of respect (two-way) from referees to players.

You may as well compare football to cricket and change ends every time someone has a shot.

Hockey has sin bins and is more directly comparable in speed pace and physicality, even movement to our soccer-kick-ball game.

Right now I don't think referees have enough tools at their disposal. In the modern professional game - talking to / yellow card / red card is not enough. Too many games ruined going down to 10 men for bookable offences, but not serious enough to warrant the spectacle being ruined by an early red card.

You mention manager's being cautious for 10mins – what do you think they do for a red card? If its an early one, the game is reduced to defence v attack (unless your Massive of course, go a man up with a penalty to take to go ahead...).

 

[Normal Rob]

I don't see the harm in trialling it - it'll at least provide some real-view insight as to who is right and wrong on this thread!

 

[BigGully]

A mate of mine played in Germany in the 80's in the third tier in Germany and they had this there then, having spoken to him he cannot really recall if there was a change in behaviour or not, he does remember that the Germans were diving all over the place even then something that never really happened back in England in the 80's so thats his abiding memory in terms of the conduct of players.

I suspect that here it will ultimately just shift the play acting and deceit forward to coax the sin bin, rather than be a deterrent it is hoped to deliver.

 

[Stat Brother]

That is the central point, and there should be no 'grey area' about it.

Rooney for one, should be sent off most weeks.

We don't have to look that far for an example.

Dunk for one, should be sent off most weeks, unless the East Stand lino doesn't count.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I always thought that swearing at a ref is a straight red, if of course the ref decides to penalise you for it, therefore you you cannot get a yellow for swearing if that is the stated offence in the referees report it must be a red, you can however get a yellow for ungentlemanly conduct, which doesn't necessarily always include swearing.

Or did I dream that ..................

They book them for showing 'dissent' which of course it IS, but ignore / swerve the 'foul and abusive language' offence, which is a straight red (doesn't have to be 'at' the ref, either).

 

[Gritt23]

If a player swears in the refs face he should be off anyway

I would happily see that trialled. Aggressively swearing in the face of officials is a straight red!

 

[The Albion Roar]

Hockey has sin bins and is more directly comparable in speed pace and physicality, even movement to our soccer-kick-ball game.

MORE comparable - yes. But enough to make it comparable enough? Nah.

The two main differences - tactically - are (a) there are no offsides in hockey and (b) there are rolling substitutes. And hockey is MUCH faster. You can get the ball from one end of the pitch to someone (legally) hanging around in the corner much quicker than you could in football.

You mention manager's being cautious for 10mins – what do you think they do for a red card? If its an early one, the game is reduced to defence v attack (unless your Massive of course, go a man up with a penalty to take to go ahead...).

For a red card, they have no choice.

This is about a yellow card, or rather a temporary red card. For the player, it's a temporary suspension, rather than a permanent suspension from that match PLUS one, two or three of the following matches. I'd rather see a full complement of players, with the tools the referees have at their disposal (and I also disagree with you here - they do have plenty) used more widely. It would soon stop players misbehaving.

 

[Your Mum]

Bad idea. Managers would merely by extra cautious for 10 minutes to alleviate the problem, ending the game as a spectacle. Moving the ball forwards 10 yards (like in rugby) made little difference.

The constant comparing of football to rugby leaves me banging

... your mum

on the table.

You may as well compare football to cricket and change ends every time someone has

...your mum

 

[Bold Seagull]

For a red card, they have no choice.

This is about a yellow card, or rather a temporary red card. I'd rather see a full complement of players.

I'll have to look at the rules for this in more detail. I thought the sin bin was for a player already on a yellow card, but rather than a red, can be sent to the sin bin i.e. not bad enough to warrant a full sending off 2nd yellow, but enough for the team to be down to 10 for 10 mins.

At the moment, I feel the ref is stuck once he's issued a yellow. For example, how many times have we seen a player sent off for 1 or 2 soft yellow cards? It happens a fair amount. At least the game isn't ruined for the duration if a 10 min spell was introduced rather than the red.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I'll have to look at the rules for this in more detail. I thought the sin bin was for a player already on a yellow card, but rather than a red, can be sent to the sin bin i.e. not bad enough to warrant a full sending off 2nd yellow, but enough for the team to be down to 10 for 10 mins.

At the moment, I feel the ref is stuck once he's issued a yellow. For example, how many times have we seen a player sent off for 1 or 2 soft yellow cards? It happens a fair amount. At least the game isn't ruined for the duration if a 10 min spell was introduced rather than the red.

This Is when the Fa needs to step in and say the Ref has acted correctly rather than stay silent.

The refs act on directives from the FA, yet when it doesn't work they say nothing.

 

[The Albion Roar]

I'll have to look at the rules for this in more detail. I thought the sin bin was for a player already on a yellow card, but rather than a red, can be sent to the sin bin i.e. not bad enough to warrant a full sending off 2nd yellow, but enough for the team to be down to 10 for 10 mins.

At the moment, I feel the ref is stuck once he's issued a yellow. For example, how many times have we seen a player sent off for 1 or 2 soft yellow cards? It happens a fair amount. At least the game isn't ruined for the duration if a 10 min spell was introduced rather than the red.

What's a 'soft' yellow card?

An incorrectly given one? Or does the second yellow have to have a higher level of brutality / culpability than the first?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Good post.
I would also like to see officials be able to explain their decision via interview post match or alternatively via mic to the crowd (like American football).

Imagine Mike Dean or Hoops [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think they should be interviewed personally, easy to twist words.

However they should realise details on the Monday of how they came to the decision.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What's a 'soft' yellow card?

An incorrectly given one? Or does the second yellow have to have a higher level of brutality / culpability than the first?

Exactly, at the moment you have a whole range of offences that are by their nature of varying degrees of foul or unsporting play for which they are all a single punishment; the yellow card, and a whole range of more serious offences that are a straight red card.

If you are happy that all the offences that you can get a yellow card for are of the same degree of impact on the game, then I can see why you don't feel a new rule is necessary.

I for example don't see a player gesturing for another player to be booked, or taking his shirt off to celebrate a goal, as bad as a player that takes out an attacking player intentionally with that classic pundits phrase 'he's taken a booking for the team'. One offence has potentially completely altered the outcome of a game of football (all be it not an outright professional foul), the others are just a bit annoying.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Exactly, at the moment you have a whole range of offences that are by their nature of varying degrees of foul or unsporting play for which they are all a single punishment; the yellow card, and a whole range of more serious offences that are a straight red card.

If you are happy that all the offences that you can get a yellow card for are of the same degree of impact on the game, then I can see why you don't feel a new rule is necessary.

I for example don't see a player gesturing for another player to be booked, or taking his shirt off to celebrate a goal, as bad as a player that takes out an attacking player intentionally with that classic pundits phrase 'he's taken a booking for the team'. One offence has potentially completely altered the outcome of a game of football (all be it not an outright professional foul), the others are just a bit annoying.

I don't believe that the same punishment should be handed out for unsporting behaviour as for more physical behaviour. However, my original point stands that I don't believe that sin bins would alter any given player's behaviour, especially when knowing that they're coming back on.

Therefore, regarding cautions I, on the other hand, would prefer to see a two-tier cautionary system of punishment that doesn't involve getting players sin-binned.

A yellow card for the 'annoying' ones (unsporting behaviour, taking the shirt off etc), and an 'orange' card for the more physical fouls is a possibility. But even then there are other cautionary punishments which are annoying AND could possibly affect the outcome of a game (time-wasting, kicking the ball away, not retreating 10 yards). But we don't want to over-complicate issues.

Two cautions (of whatever colour) would still equal a red, but the severity of the punishment in the form of future bans would be different depending on which colours they received during that game. I'd still prefer to see dirty cloggers given longer bans, you see.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't believe that the same punishment should be handed out for unsporting behaviour as for more physical behaviour. However, my original point stands that I don't believe that sin bins would alter any given player's behaviour, especially when knowing that they're coming back on.

Therefore, regarding cautions I, on the other hand, would prefer to see a two-tier cautionary system of punishment that doesn't involve getting players sin-binned.

A yellow card for the 'annoying' ones (unsporting behaviour, taking the shirt off etc), and an 'orange' card for the more physical fouls is a possibility. But even then there are other cautionary punishments which are annoying AND could possibly affect the outcome of a game (time-wasting, kicking the ball away, not retreating 10 yards). But we don't want to over-complicate issues.

Two cautions (of whatever colour) would still equal a red, but the severity of the punishment in the form of future bans would be different depending on which colours they received during that game. I'd still prefer to see dirty *******s given longer bans, you see.

Okay, I don't necessarily disagree with any of that.

The problem with I have with bans is that it doesn't impact on the result of the game in which the infringement took place. Someone else benefits from the punishment. Big clubs with huge squads also are much less affected by bans than a smaller club is. Chelsea lose Pedro to a ban and they are bringing Willian in - they just treat it as squad rotation / rest. We lose Knockeart to a ban and Skalak comes in.... I'm not sure bans are always an equitable way of punishing offences, they are necessary, but they don't benefit the team on the end of the actual offences.