Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] New blue card and 10 mins in sin-bin



Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,622
I like the idea.

In particular those fouls (which aren't red because there's a covering defender, but are designed to prevent a counter attack) are a blight on the game.

To reduce injury, they can have little exercise bikes on the side of the pitch like they used to have in .... ahem ... rugby.

But I don't get it for dissent. This should just be a straight red. Dunky is the only player I can think of in recent memory has has been sent off for this. Much worse goes completely unpunished. I also think linesmen and fourth officials should be allowed to issue cards, if they are being given abuse.
 








Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,489
Vilamoura, Portugal
A professional foul is already a red.

Dissent should simply be a mandatory yellow, EVERY time. Only the captain should be allowed to speak to the referee. Apply this properly and consistently, and you solve the problem. Eventually the message will sink in, even with these thicko bleach-blonde endlessly tattooed morons, because if they're picking up yellows for gobbing off then they'll soon start missing games. And even these brain-dead cheating dunces will eventually get the message.

Same for divers - do it restrospectively if necessary. When they know the crackdown has arrived, these insufferable pricks will eventually toe the line.

You don't need more different coloured cards. You just need to use the ones we already have more consistently and severely. Why add yet ANOTHER layer of rules, open to confusion and interpretation FFS. Seriously ?
I don't disagree with you except that a professional foul is not a red. A foul that prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity is a red (sometimes).
 














trueblue

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,948
Hove
While this is true, that's not to say that bringing some elements of rugby into football would be useful. As someone pointed out earlier, there used to be some horrendous tackles in the 70s, these have largely been eliminated now - so it is possible to change culture.

And those worried about time-wasting during a sin bin; in rugby the ref stops the clock so the miscreants serve their full ten (in fact, it's generally longer as they can't come back on until there's a break in play). A rugby ref has many more tools at his disposal. Any backchat about a penalty and we move 10m further up the field. Any foul play near a tryline and we can award a converted try.

Last week, I reversed a penalty and gave the kick to the offending team (there had been two offences, so I penalised the first one. The captain said I should have issued a card so I reversed the decision for him trying to ref the game).

On top of that, I have a free hand to issue yellow cards for any backchat. It all keeps nonsense to a minimum.
Each to their own. Firstly, I’m not convinced everyone agrees football is better for the lack of heavy challenges. It’s gone much too far towards being a non-contact sport in my opinion.

Stopping the clock because sin bins encourage time-wasting? Just another way then that the flow of the game can be interrupted for no good reason.

Moving 10 metres further up the field has already been tried and didn’t work as it doesn’t necessarily help the free-kick taker.

Referees reversing decisions - we’re seeing enough of that already with VAR to know it will improve football about 1% of the time but spoil the spectacle far more often.

With 2 cards, strong refs have all the tools they need already to keep control. As we’ve seen, every extra layer of complexity is just something new for fans, players, managers and pundits to have differing opinions about and detract from the game.

Football’s huge advantage over most sports was always its underlying simplicity. Don’t handle the ball, don’t hit anyone TOO hard, get the ball in the net. Apart from the offside law, that was pretty much all people needed to know. Anything that puts refs even more front and centre than they’ve already become - having largely been anonymous in the past - is definitely not a good development.
 


One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 4, 2006
22,979
Worthing
Always feels like committee’s are trying to justify their existence with every rule change.

I think goal line technology and the back pass rule have been welcome additions, but struggling to think of anything else - actually, outlawing the tackle from behind as well was a good move…..
 








TWOCHOICEStom

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2007
10,908
Brighton
Such a strange problem to try to solve with such a fundamental change to the rules.

10 mins on the sideline will result in opposition teams backs against the wall, timewasting and anti-football. It's a no from me*


*Unless they incorporate a light show and call it a POWER PLAY. Then I'm down.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,214
Cumbria
From what I'm reading, a yellow + a blue is still a red. So in the situation where a player already is on a yellow, where the ref might be reticent to issue a second yellow, a blue would effectively be exactly the same.

Although I agree that particular situation (player on a yellow does something that is fairly minor, but should call for a second yellow by the strict rules of the game) would be the perfect situation for a sin bin. IMHO. It seems harsh to send off a player because they kicked the ball away in a moment of frustration while already on a yellow. But telling them to go sit their ass down for 10 minutes seems like a much more proportional punishment.

Of course, I guess maybe the idea is that players know that a ref generally doesn't like to give out a second yellow for anything short or particularly egregious behavior, so they see the first yellow as a "freebie". If that first yellow was blue instead, or at least could potentially be blue, they might think twice about it.
Bit puzzled now. If a player is on a yellow - what would be the benefit of a blue card - if that equals red, the same as a second yellow would? Once booked, the sin bin is no longer a deterrent - as the ref will be just as reticent to show a second yellow.

Like you - I think the only benefit will be when the player isn't on a yellow already. So - the first card could be a blue and the sin bin.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,110
Goldstone
A yellow is enough. They can only do it once and on top of that can not risk anything else for the rest of the game other they are off.

It is definitely worth taking a yellow to stop a dangerous attack, and teams like City take it in turns to 'professionally' foul the opposition. They're also not at much risk of a yellow for other reasons. Them being taken off the pitch for 10 minutes would be a good deterrent .
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,110
Goldstone
From what I'm reading, a yellow + a blue is still a red. So in the situation where a player already is on a yellow, where the ref might be reticent to issue a second yellow, a blue would effectively be exactly the same.


Since a blue is a harsher penalty than a yellow, then if a ref is thinking that a player already on a yellow might deserve a blue, that should be a bit of an indicator to them that they've already gone past the requirement for deserving a yellow, so they should be sent off.
 
Last edited:


dejavuatbtn

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
7,573
Henfield
I’d scrap yellow cards. Blue is a 10 minute sin bin and three points. Another blue in the same game becomes a red and a one match ban. A red card offence is an automatic one game ban unless it’s dangerous play which would merit a three match ban.
Not sure if it would work or not but it might help.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,214
Cumbria
I’d scrap yellow cards. Blue is a 10 minute sin bin and three points. Another blue in the same game becomes a red and a one match ban. A red card offence is an automatic one game ban unless it’s dangerous play which would merit a three match ban.
Not sure if it would work or not but it might help.
Or yellow = sin bin?
 




LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
48,400
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Will we have the sight of a sin bin being large enough for a player to keep ‘warm’ ..to try and mitigate muscle injuries? 🤦‍♂️…where will it be situated? ..2 of them one for each team? ….🤦‍♂️

If this crap ever comes too pass I’ll consider cancelling my ST and start watching rugby which is starting to look an easier game to understand
 


jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,493
This should be solely for dissent. Adding the “tactical foul” aspect is going to really confuse things and muddy the waters.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here