The mancityfans.net football forum

Following the thread on the michael turner sending off against us last weekend and the obvious other threads over the weeks, months and years.

This 4 match ban does nothing but benefit all our rivals. therefore I would love to come up with an alternative that will ensure the teams think about the penalties levied against them.

For example.

Sunderland should play against city with 10 men for the new 4 games that they face city.

or

Sunderlands michael turner will face a 4 match ban, 3 matches against the following 3 teams plus 1 game against man city with 10 men

or

When sunderland play against city next time, city must pick 1 player from the sunderland starting 11 who will not play in the game.

In short, what I dont want is all the other teams to have an advantage because of something that happened in our game. This will be fair for all sendings off in all games for all teams! Surely there must be something that can be sorted out that benefits the right teams in the right way.

Yeh that is a good point tbh, are sunderland playing anyone in the top 10 for next four games?

It's punishment for the player, not compensation for us. That's why you go to jail for crimes instead of having to work for your victim's benefit.

In some ways, I'd be in favour of having suspensions served in the return fixture, where possible. So if you get a red card in an away match one of the matches you're banned for is the home fixture if that occurs. Other matches missed are immediate. It would certainly clean up derbies.

Otherwise you could piss off to some other league to avoid having to serve a suspension.

Wonderwall wrote:Following the thread on the michael turner sending off against us last weekend and the obvious other threads over the weeks, months and years.

This 4 match ban does nothing but benefit all our rivals. therefore I would love to come up with an alternative that will ensure the teams think about the penalties levied against them.

For example.

Sunderland should play against city with 10 men for the new 4 games that they face city.

or

Sunderlands michael turner will face a 4 match ban, 3 matches against the following 3 teams plus 1 game against man city with 10 men

or

When sunderland play against city next time, city must pick 1 player from the sunderland starting 11 who will not play in the game.

In short, what I dont want is all the other teams to have an advantage because of something that happened in our game. This will be fair for all sendings off in all games for all teams! Surely there must be something that can be sorted out that benefits the right teams in the right way.

WW you are probably one of the most sensible posters on mcf.net but I think you've been hanging round Garry Cook too long...either that or you've been at the christmas port too early

Perhaps...in some utopian alternative society which runs parallel to our time continuum this theory might be common place...where teams play 11 against 10 from the kick off and the opposition get to pick who to leave out...but here in our time pocket that's just plain bonkers and only reserved for Sepp Blatter type winos to ramble under their breath about ;-)

wasn't foe banned for his next two games but he fucked off abroad then came to us and we appealed it ?? when he was at west ham?

ok, how about the following.

ther are 6 thirds 0-15, 15-30, 30-45+, 45-60, 60-75, 75-90+.

Example:- Turner gets sent off against city at eastlands in the 90+ minute, then they will know that the next game against city will mean they will be a player down from the 75th minute as their player was sent off in that section of the game. Also, to make it much more tastier, the opposition coach (i.e.mancini) would choose which sunderland player to be removed on the 75th minute.

Sounds fair to me.

The only problem is relegated teams and that will have a holding time of 3 years.

Wonderwall wrote:ok, how about the following.

ther are 6 thirds 0-15, 15-30, 30-45+, 45-60, 60-75, 75-90+.

Example:- Turner gets sent off against city at eastlands in the 90+ minute, then they will know that the next game against city will mean they will be a player down from the 75th minute as their player was sent off in that section of the game. Also, to make it much more tastier, the opposition coach (i.e.mancini) would choose which sunderland player to be removed on the 75th minute.

Sounds fair to me.

The only problem is relegated teams and that will have a holding time of 3 years.

Quite frankly, sir, I think you have too much time on your hands.

Wonderwall wrote:Following the thread on the michael turner sending off against us last weekend and the obvious other threads over the weeks, months and years.

This 4 match ban does nothing but benefit all our rivals. therefore I would love to come up with an alternative that will ensure the teams think about the penalties levied against them.

For example.

Sunderland should play against city with 10 men for the new 4 games that they face city.

or

Sunderlands michael turner will face a 4 match ban, 3 matches against the following 3 teams plus 1 game against man city with 10 men

or

When sunderland play against city next time, city must pick 1 player from the sunderland starting 11 who will not play in the game.

In short, what I dont want is all the other teams to have an advantage because of something that happened in our game. This will be fair for all sendings off in all games for all teams! Surely there must be something that can be sorted out that benefits the right teams in the right way.

How about he is now suspended for his next 4 games against City or the offended team (us) can pick who he is suspended against? Just two 'out of the box' ideas.

What about if it was us and them in a relegation dog fight with 4 games left, would you not want it to be immediate then or risk it being null and void for the next season?

So many scenarios can be found to support or oppose any system, let's nit go for radical change that could as many if not more flaws.

Wonderwall wrote:Following the thread on the michael turner sending off against us last weekend and the obvious other threads over the weeks, months and years.

This 4 match ban does nothing but benefit all our rivals. therefore I would love to come up with an alternative that will ensure the teams think about the penalties levied against them.

For example.

Sunderland should play against city with 10 men for the new 4 games that they face city.

or

Sunderlands michael turner will face a 4 match ban, 3 matches against the following 3 teams plus 1 game against man city with 10 men

or

When sunderland play against city next time, city must pick 1 player from the sunderland starting 11 who will not play in the game.

In short, what I dont want is all the other teams to have an advantage because of something that happened in our game. This will be fair for all sendings off in all games for all teams! Surely there must be something that can be sorted out that benefits the right teams in the right way.

You thieving bastard, I told you this very idea a couple of years ago....couple of twists, but YOU THIEVING BASTARD.

The ban needs to be instant. If you were bottom of the league and about to conceed a goal you would commit a profesional foul if you felt the suspension would not kick in till next season. More complications of player moving club, retiring, club being relegated etc would make this idea impossible. To make for an instant benefit to the club that was fouled, maybe for a red card incident outside of the penalty area there should be a one against one challange. So the attacking team nominate 1 player to take on just the goalie for 10 seconds, with all other players then coming in to play after the 10 second whistle. This would make the profesional foul a waste as the attacker would be back in a one against one situation. If it is the goalie who comits the foul, then a goal should be awarded

Too much thinking WW, far too much thinking. Get the wine out and relax!

john@staustell wrote:Too much thinking WW, far too much thinking. Get the wine out and relax!

I think too much wine may be the problem mate ;-)

Some good ideas there but i dont think the fa would agree to bringing in new rules like that tbf.

er WW, have you been at the Christmas spirit already?

The changes you propose would be completely unworkable, it would result in even more running to the courts than we already see creeping into the game. "Why should we be punished this season for the indiscretion of a player we sold in the summer", "He knew he could get away with a handball in the final minute and only get sent off cos it meant we'd get relegated and don't have the resources to get back so would never have to play them again in the league". There's nothing wrong with the rules as they stand, the deterrent is that the player will miss games immediately, not in 6-12 months time when his club has had ample time to plan for the absence

All these extra penalties that result from red or yellow cards would place far too much emphasis on the referees, they would hugely increase the risk of corruption and would result in vast amounts being spent on appeals to higher and higher courts. The implications would be like Tevez and Sheff Utd all over again but every couple of weeks.

Slim wrote:You thieving bastard, I told you this very idea a couple of years ago....couple of twists, but YOU THIEVING BASTARD.

it was probably me that told you! If you think I can remember that far back, you are giving me wayyy too much credit. My memory is shot to shit.

Wow I have a hangover, dont remember posting that last night ;-S Good idea though i principal. Why do others benefit from something that happened against us.

Never mind the Christmas spirit, I think WW has been hitting the christmas crack-pipe!