Change in disciplinary punishments

[Rob_the_Ram]

Plenty has changed in football laws and associated off field referee support lately.
Do you think the fundamental Yellow Card / Red Card punishments still work and are fair?

With Pep’s comments on the lack of protection of players in the news backed up with Sterling chipping in, where does that leave tackling / defending in the game?

It does seem to me that the severity of a straight red needs the ref to be absolutely certain of the recklessness and / or intent of tackler. But when you have Sane running at you full pelt as the last man, what do we expect the defender to do?

Tough tackling and making the opposition know they are in a match is one of the few levellers available when you are simply outclassed by a more skillful team. A fancy dan winger may not keep on with his piddle taking nutmegs and stepovers if he receives a tough tackle on him.

I’ve seen plenty of shots of the player who tackled Sane freeze framed with Sane’s ankle cranked over. Looks horrific but is that not the risk associated with fast dribbling players and having to tackle a player who is running at speed?

Centre back / centre forward play has two big lads jumping and heading (head butting) towards the ball. Every so often, they come together and the stitches come out. Should players be protected against such (maybe life threatening) risks or is it an acceptable part of the game.

On the plus side, if the rules were even the same as now, Leeds wouldn’t have won a penny piece!!

What do you think?
More VAR driven after the even punishments?
Orange cards when the severity of the foul warrants more than a yellow but not a red - maybe leading to a sin bin penalty?
Leave things as is and remind Pep it is a mans game and his 75 million winger may be clipped by the 2 million CB?

[Romanis]

I believe there's a new rule for goalkeepers too if they bring down a striker in the box. No red card but penalty, no double jeopardy it seems.

[DerbyDaDream]

Diving has become a real issue the rules should state that if a person dives to alter the course of the game in their favour, they should get a straight red card no questions asked for plain and simple cheating.

[Romanis]

Diving has become a real issue the rules should state that if a person dives to alter the course of the game in their favour, they should get a straight red card no questions asked for plain and simple cheating.

I would agree with you in principle, but as a former referee myself, this is extremely hard to police. And then you have different degrees, tolerance levels. How can a referee be certain 100% of the time it's dive, how does he judge intent in a matter of seconds.
I think a yellow card is sufficient penalty, although perhaps you could designate it as 1 of the more severe forms of yellow just short red.
2 similar yellows and a 3 match ban with a hefty fine?
DDD what do you know about this new interpretation about red cards for goalies? I've forgotten how it's to implemented. I know if the defender still brings him down and this denies him a scoring chance, it's red and penalty but this has been tweaked to offer some respite to goalies. Any facts? A bot of googling perhaps, your favourite fetish...

[DerbyDaDream]

I would agree with you in principle, but as a former referee myself, this is extremely hard to police. And then you have different degrees, tolerance levels. How can a referee be certain 100% of the time it's dive, how does he judge intent in a matter of seconds.
I think a yellow card is sufficient penalty, although perhaps you could designate it as 1 of the more severe forms of yellow just short red.
2 similar yellows and a 3 match ban with a hefty fine?
DDD what do you know about this new interpretation about red cards for goalies? I've forgotten how it's to implemented. I know if the defender still brings him down and this denies him a scoring chance, it's red and penalty but this has been tweaked to offer some respite to goalies. Any facts? A bot of googling perhaps, your favourite fetish...

Cameron Jerome wasn’t a dive and he got booked for a dive when he was in clear view of it, so most all referees nowadays are old pensioners who are past their sell by date and should go in a retirement home and let some younger referees take charge who have a better whit about them.

[Romanis]

Cameron Jerome wasn’t a dive and he got booked for a dive when he was in clear view of it, so most all referees nowadays are old pensioners who are past their sell by date and should go in a retirement home and let some younger referees take charge who have a better whit about them.

Hmmm, you're contradicting yourself there. you want younger referees because they know a little bit?
I guess most people prefer experience and knowledge with a sharp mind. But you prefer dim-wits?
Oh I get it, you're talking about yourself! The Twit Whit!

(PS: you may want to google the meaning of whit, if as expected, you fail to understand, a common trend with you)

[DerbyDaDream]

Hmmm, you're contradicting yourself there. you want younger referees because they know a little bit?
I guess most people prefer experience and knowledge with a sharp mind. But you prefer dim-wits?
Oh I get it, you're talking about yourself! The Twit Whit!

(PS: you may want to google the meaning of whit, if as expected, you fail to understand, a common trend with you)

Whit is got a bit going in them then the older referees they have more life in them a better understanding how the game is played, the best referee I have seen was Mark Clattenburg no one even comes close to him when it comes to making drastic decisions.

[roger_ramjet]

Diving has become a real issue the rules should state that if a person dives to alter the course of the game in their favour, they should get a straight red card no questions asked for plain and simple cheating.

So Cameron Jerome should have been sent off vs Brizzle City?

[roger_ramjet]

Whit: small bit, tiny amount? Cannot conceptualise its use above.

Jerome did dive for effect although he was clipped. Yellow should stand but penalty should have been given.

[Romanis]

Whit: small bit, tiny amount? Cannot conceptualise its use above.

.

Indeed, and thus describes himself to a T (or tea in his lingo). He wants referees to be like him.

And I have to agree with him about Clattenburg making drastic decisions, he always tends to make drastic decisions, although I fail to see how that makes him the best referee. Rather the opposite. Referees are not there to make drastic decisions that effect the outcome of games, they are there to ensure the games flows and the rules are applied uniformly and fairly. And certainly not to make drastic decisions.
But I suppose when some one talks about lacking complacency being an attribute and 0-0s being wins, then it's no surprise he favours drastic decision making as the hallmark of a good referee. Every village has its idiot, I suppose.

(PS: Roger, I think we should let the global thingy slide for a bit, since his return, he's trying his darnest to provide us with untold amounts of humour with the daftest possible explanations, all at his expense. Never has a user sacrificed so much for the benefit of others. At least until we tire of him)