Crazy double whammy rule

[rjc_1988]

My point about the rule is not the fact that players and managers should know the rule and the implications of falling foul of it.

It is clear to me every time I watch football highlights that it is impossible for the human eye to make these calls and get them right. These situations happen so quickly that it can take Messrs Shearer and Lineker 3/4 replays to decide if it is a penalty or not. Even then on many occasions after this exhaustive analysis there is no clear conclusion.

In my opinion therefore is that it is totally inappropriate to have a rule that can virtually decide a football match in one fell swoop - and that decision is very often predicated on guesswork by the match official. This guesswork is not in any way dishonest it is simply a fact that a very significant percentage of penalty decisions are wrong.

If you take the Celtic match yesterday there were 3 strong penalty claims yesterday :-

-Refereeing team missed an obvious handball so no penalty and red card
-Award

[Cresswell]

1) To topfitter: I accept that the hand ball was not absolutely on the line but it was pretty close. No, the Celtic replacement goalkeeper should not have been sent off but a penalty should have been awarded against him.
2) To rjc_1988: I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Not one of the penalty decisions at Sunday's game relied on guesswork by the officials. The non-award of a penalty first of all to Celtic and subsequently to ICT were down to human error or perhaps even incompetence and it is simply not possible to legislate against human error. In sports where TV evidence is used it is not unknown for the arbiter to make a mistake. The penalty that was awarded to ICT and the consequential sending off were correct decisions within the current rules.
The referee sees incidents in real time and has to make an almost instantaneous decision: and they do get some decisions wrong. They are not infallible. However, their decision making is not helped by players who chea

[rjc_1988]

Cresswell - my suggestion is to stop the manadory sending off for preventing a goal scoring opportunity.

In the overwhelming majority of cases the award of a penalty creates a much better chsnce of a goal than if the open play had continued.A booking is quite sufficient punishment unless the foul was a particularly dangerous one in which case the red card should be administered.

My view is that a decision which involves - a penalty, a red card and a subsequent suspension needs to be 100% correct. Nothing in life is that simple but there are far too many cases where games are being ruined by referees being forced to apply the triple whammy rule in situations where they cannot possibly have "the perfect view".

A penalty and a yellow is quite sufficient in the vast majority of cases and if they do get the decison wrong (as they do in many instances) at least the defending team is not a man down for the rest of the match.

I am certain that if you took a straw poll of all managers they

[Cresswell]

rjc_1988, I accept without reservation that the customer is entitled to see a competitive match with 11 against 11. The obvious flaw in your suggestion is that players would be more than willing to accept a yellow card and a penalty in the hope that the penalty would be missed - and many are missed. Thus we would be likely to see many more professional fouls rather than fewer. What is wrong with my suggestion of awarding a goal and a yellow card (except where violent conduct us involved)? An alternative to the current red card situation might be to send off the offender but allow a substitute so that we have 11 against 11 and then impose a substantial penalty on the offender: say, a six game suspension. As in life soft justice does not reduce offending it simply increases it.

[rjc_1988]

Cresswell - i favour your suggestion over the current rule as it is simply ruining far too many games.

That said awarding a goal is a big step and to do so i think you would need video evidence .

[Bluehome]

Totally agree. The rule should surely be the following:

If preventing a goalscoring opportunity OUTSIDE the box, punishment = FREE KICK & RED CARD.

If preventing a goalscoring opportunity INSIDE the box, punishment = PENALTY & YELLOW CARD.

Seems too much like common sense though for that idiot Sebb Blatter so doubt it will get sorted anytime soon, unless we get a new FIFA President who can also roll out Video Technology.

Agree with this, but I would give a penalty and red card if a goal was clearly prevented for example by an outfield player punching it off the line.

For fouls in the box preventing a goalscoring opportunity, you get the goalscoring opportunity back by getting a penalty so there is no need for a red card as well.

Fouls outside the box that prevent a goal scoring opportunity deserve a bigger punishment than just a free kick, so they should get a red card.

[rjc_1988]

Went to the Livvy :Hibs match last night.

Yet again game ruined by terrible refereeing display by young Mr Dallas.

He booked Livvy defender Cole for handball when ball hit his arm when NOT in an unnatural position. Offence was actually in the box but he got that wrong as well.

Cole then committed a foul later in first half (admittedly very stupid when on a yellow) and was sent off... Game ruined!!!!

In second half Dallas awarded a penalty when it was clear that Jacobs won the ball as the ball deviated and he was standing a few yards away in a great position.

I am well aware that these errors are easy to make but why not err on the side of caution and give the defenders the benefit of the doubt unless you are absolutely certain that you know what you saw.

Dallas looked to me as he was trying to compete for MOM award rather than apply some commonsense and only make these decisions if they are clear.In short he was guessing in terms of what he thought he saw.


This obsession with

[Cresswell]

Nepotism cannot ever be a satisfactory criterion for appointing referees. How many of you remember Willie Syme and his son David?