Penalty and red card.

[Blue Since 76]

The only problem with a penalty and yellow for a foul inside the box is then keepers will clatter into strikers in one on one situations and then hope to save the penalty!

If they're attempting to get the ball, then so be it. If you just take the player out, it's serious foul play, so still red and penalty

[Bridge'srightfoot]

The only problem with a penalty and yellow for a foul inside the box is then keepers will clatter into strikers in one on one situations and then hope to save the penalty!

Not if you were to judge the foul on its merit as I suggested ie; a genuine attempt= yellow card, a blatant foul=red.

To flip the debate a bit, Rooney is an expert at knocking the ball 15 yards past the keeper, often straight out of play and then purposely clattering into the keeper, looking for contact.

That imo is not that much better than diving.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

I don't like the rule one bit. If it's in the box it's a yellow and a penalty, if it's outside the box it's a red. Both a red and a penalty doesn't make any sense (for me at least) and I felt the same when Spurs got Rose sent off when played them last time. It's just too much.

OD's suggestion is not bad either and any of the clearly immoral effects like counter attacks etc could clearly be avoided if play was stopped after the penalty has been saved or converted. Then the card is handed out appropriately and the game goes to kick off or goal kick, depending on the result of the penalty.

Surely though that would in certain situations create an incentive to miss the penalty on purpose, or for a keeper to purposely let it in?
For example say it happens in the first minute at the Nou Camp, I'd almost rather play Barca with them having ten men for the entire game then us going 1-0 up 11 v 11. Also their keeper may prefer them to go 1 down with 11 on the pitch then 0-0 with 10.

Also what happens if it's the keeper whose given away the penalty?

[Ted Hughes]

The only problem with a penalty and yellow for a foul inside the box is then keepers will clatter into strikers in one on one situations and then hope to save the penalty!

Not if you were to judge the foul on its merit as I suggested ie; a genuine attempt= yellow card, a blatant foul=red.

To flip the debate a bit, Rooney is an expert at knocking the ball 15 yards past the keeper, often straight out of play and then purposely clattering into the keeper, looking for contact.

That imo is not that much better than diving.

Well that's another thing they could deal with at the same time; people found to be abusing it get punished after the game; huge suspensions etc, even red cards at the time if it's obvious.

It should be the job of a player to try to play football, not go down because there is 'contact'. A foul is a foul, 'contact' isn't.

[Hazy2]

The only problem with a penalty and yellow for a foul inside the box is then keepers will clatter into strikers in one on one situations and then hope to save the penalty!

Not if you were to judge the foul on its merit as I suggested ie; a genuine attempt= yellow card, a blatant foul=red.

To flip the debate a bit, Rooney is an expert at knocking the ball 15 yards past the keeper, often straight out of play and then purposely clattering into the keeper, looking for contact.

That imo is not that much better than diving.

Well that's another thing they could deal with at the same time; people found to be abusing it get punished after the game; huge suspensions etc, even red cards at the time if it's obvious.

It should be the job of a player to try to play football, not go down because there is 'contact'. A foul is a foul, 'contact' isn't.

Judging the ref by her his flashing of Yellows The challenge on Ferny has been missed, That twat Mascherano did him.

[Original Dub]

What if the keeper saves it and the ball bounces back to the culprit? Is he allowed to clear the ball or not touch it? When does he leave the pitch...when the ball next goes out of play? What if the ball never goes out of play for the rest of the game? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure it's as easy that.

What if he saves it and they starts counter attack? What if he saves it and the player in question comes to clear? Lots isn't there. Clearly a rule that won't work.

Same when people say we need to bring in video replays for penalty decisions. It just can't work.

Say a team was allowed '1 challenge' per game to a ref's decision. A player for Team A goes down in the box but the ref doesn't give a penalty. Team B then goes on a counter-attack. Team A thinks it was a penalty so challenge the decision, stopping Team B's attack. Video replay shows the ref was right and so Team B should have been allowed to continue their attack and possibly score, but they didn't get that opportunity. Not to mention a system like this could be tactically used to manipulate a game, say in the last few minutes if you're hanging on to a lead.

The current system isn't perfect as human error is always a risk, but changing the system to something I've just described would be much worse.

I see the point about the culprit interfering with play, but as mentioned, he could be sidelined for the penalty and remain there if it's missed.

On another point, I can't see any team choosing to blast the ball over the bar so that they could play against ten men.

Really, if a defender stops a probable goal, it is that probable goal that should be repaid. The fact that the foul wasn't dangerous has to be taken into account.

We all know that goals change games - can you imagine how different the defeat to Chelsea would have been had we scored against them first? They would have had to change everything and played right into our hands.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

What if the keeper saves it and the ball bounces back to the culprit? Is he allowed to clear the ball or not touch it? When does he leave the pitch...when the ball next goes out of play? What if the ball never goes out of play for the rest of the game? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure it's as easy that.

What if he saves it and they starts counter attack? What if he saves it and the player in question comes to clear? Lots isn't there. Clearly a rule that won't work.

Same when people say we need to bring in video replays for penalty decisions. It just can't work.

Say a team was allowed '1 challenge' per game to a ref's decision. A player for Team A goes down in the box but the ref doesn't give a penalty. Team B then goes on a counter-attack. Team A thinks it was a penalty so challenge the decision, stopping Team B's attack. Video replay shows the ref was right and so Team B should have been allowed to continue their attack and possibly score, but they didn't get that opportunity. Not to mention a system like this could be tactically used to manipulate a game, say in the last few minutes if you're hanging on to a lead.

The current system isn't perfect as human error is always a risk, but changing the system to something I've just described would be much worse.

I see the point about the culprit interfering with play, but as mentioned, he could be sidelined for the penalty and remain there if it's missed.

On another point, I can't see any team choosing to blast the ball over the bar so that they could play against ten men.

Really, if a defender stops a probable goal, it is that probable goal that should be repaid. The fact that the foul wasn't dangerous has to be taken into account.

We all know that goals change games - can you imagine how different the defeat to Chelsea would have been had we scored against them first? They would have had to change everything and played right into our hands.

I think though there are occasions when players and teams would almost want to miss the penalty. Say for example it was Messi who made the last ditch challenge 3 minutes into the game on Tuesday. Playing against 10 men for 87 minutes and then having him suspended for the return leg would be better imo then having a 1-0 lead.
It's a nice idea in theory but in reality would get abused.

[Original Dub]

Mate, it's not going to be the Messis and Ronaldos making the last ditch challenges for starters....

I do agree you would have to look at other elements, like such a red card only being applicable to that game, as opposed to receiving another game ban.

Like with all rules, it would need to be massaged. Not that it will happen anyway, but it's what I'd like to see most.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

Excellent article in the Guardian.

Why football should scrap the 'triple punishment' rule over penalties

Manchester City and Arsenal had to defend penalties with 10 men after their players mistimed tackles in the box. Is punishing a foul with a penalty, a red card and a suspension too harsh?



You spend two months waiting for some Champions League football, then the laws of the game ruin two matches in as many days. After Manchester City lost 2-0 to Barcelona on Tuesday night, Samir Nasri said City could still go through but, as Roy Keane might put it, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The game was up for Nasri, his team-mates and everyone watching as soon as the referee pointed to the spot and waved a red card at Martín Demichelis.

These matches are won and lost by finest of margins but a law that reduces a team to 10 men and then makes them face a penalty is extremely harsh. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Demichelis made an error of judgement and mistimed a tackle on the edge of the box. He didn't endanger his opponent's safety; he just tripped Lionel Messi, who was able to pick himself up, walk a few yards closer to the goal, place the ball on the spot and kick it past Joe Hart to give Barcelona a crucial away goal.

That should have been enough punishment for City but the laws dictate that Demichelis had to be sent off for denying Messi a goalscoring opportunity. The penalty was a just reward for the foul but the red card altered the whole spirit of the tie.

Manuel Pellegrini was forced to make a double substitution and reorganise his players into a solid defensive block for the rest of the game. A match that had been genuinely exciting in the buildup and opening stages became a battle of attack versus defence. City's only consolation is that this triple punishment rule has a final layer of judgement: Demichelis will be suspended for the return leg.

Arsenal suffered a similar fate against Bayern Munich on Wednesday night. David Alaba may have sent his penalty off the post and wide but the referee's decision to send off Arsenal's keeper robbed us of Santi Cazorla and a decent contest between two teams aspiring to win the match.

What started as a fascinating, end-to-end Champions League encounter became a slog for spectators. Arsenal had 12% of the possession in the second half, completing only 62 passes to Bayern's 508. The game looked more like a Sunday League walkover than a high-end meeting in Europe's premier club competition. It was nearly enough to make viewers turn over and watch the Brits.

There must be a way to fix this. How about limiting the punishment for players who concede penalties to yellow cards (unless they're guilty of violent conduct)? Perhaps the defending team should be given the choice of losing the guilty player or conceding a penalty goal. Anything that would stop games from becoming unwatchably one-sided would be welcome. What do you think: are the laws fair and could they be improved?

[mr_nool]

How about reserving the red card for reckless challenges, violent conduct and that such, and instead award a penalty for denying an opponent a goalscoring opportunity, no matter if the infringement happens in the penalty box or not?
Yellow card and a penalty seems like a fair punishment no matter if a player free on goal gets tripped in the box or a few yards out ...

[Cocacolajojo1]

What if the keeper saves it and the ball bounces back to the culprit? Is he allowed to clear the ball or not touch it? When does he leave the pitch...when the ball next goes out of play? What if the ball never goes out of play for the rest of the game? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure it's as easy that.

What if he saves it and they starts counter attack? What if he saves it and the player in question comes to clear? Lots isn't there. Clearly a rule that won't work.

Same when people say we need to bring in video replays for penalty decisions. It just can't work.

Say a team was allowed '1 challenge' per game to a ref's decision. A player for Team A goes down in the box but the ref doesn't give a penalty. Team B then goes on a counter-attack. Team A thinks it was a penalty so challenge the decision, stopping Team B's attack. Video replay shows the ref was right and so Team B should have been allowed to continue their attack and possibly score, but they didn't get that opportunity. Not to mention a system like this could be tactically used to manipulate a game, say in the last few minutes if you're hanging on to a lead.

The current system isn't perfect as human error is always a risk, but changing the system to something I've just described would be much worse.

I see the point about the culprit interfering with play, but as mentioned, he could be sidelined for the penalty and remain there if it's missed.

On another point, I can't see any team choosing to blast the ball over the bar so that they could play against ten men.

Really, if a defender stops a probable goal, it is that probable goal that should be repaid. The fact that the foul wasn't dangerous has to be taken into account.

We all know that goals change games - can you imagine how different the defeat to Chelsea would have been had we scored against them first? They would have had to change everything and played right into our hands.

I think though there are occasions when players and teams would almost want to miss the penalty. Say for example it was Messi who made the last ditch challenge 3 minutes into the game on Tuesday. Playing against 10 men for 87 minutes and then having him suspended for the return leg would be better imo then having a 1-0 lead.
It's a nice idea in theory but in reality would get abused.

But it wouldn't be an abuse of the rules if that is indeed an option. It's a scenario accomodated by the rules and the team with the culprit would be punished in a way chosen by the opposing team. Problem solved. What you would not get though is for say Barca to play against another team with one more man for 87 minutes AND a 1 goal lead. It makes the game more exciting also, which strategy is the team going to choose. Plus the keeper might not choose to save it. Imagine all the spin the pundits can get out of these choices? "Moyes cooly opts for one man more in the last quarter of the game and wins the game with 3-0, master class". Or "Pellegrini bottled it, he's just an idiot, I don't like him".

if you add Noolies suggestion of a "red card or penalty goal"-option for every situation when there's a clear chance of a goal scoring opportunity even it takes place outside the penalty area, you've created a new set of rules that makes the game even more intense. Or more easy to manipulate if you have the money, but I wouldn't say that there's that much more of an increase compared with how the rules are nowadays.

[nottsblue]

What about a 10 minute sinbin rather than a straight red?

[Bridge'srightfoot]

What about a 10 minute sinbin rather than a straight red?

I like this idea more than the others tbh.

[Hutch's Shoulder]

What about a 10 minute sinbin rather than a straight red?

Sin bin should be in the commentary box with the pundits. That would soon stop offending. Sit with Owen and tyler and co for ten minutes? No thank you.

[nottsblue]

Sin bin should be in the commentary box with the pundits. That would soon stop offending. Sit with Owen and tyler and co for ten minutes? No thank you.

Fuck. Thats harsh. Thats slit your wrists time!

[PeterParker]

This is so twisted that i actually like it. I feel like in ancient times. Let the Gods decide his fate!

Imagine cup final and a Peno is given early. The team purposely skies it in order to put the oppo down to ten for the remainder of the match.

Not sure if people would do this. Probably.

That would be terrible and hilarious at the same time.

[Cocacolajojo1]

What about a 10 minute sinbin rather than a straight red?

Sin bin should be in the commentary box with the pundits. That would soon stop offending. Sit with Owen and tyler and co for ten minutes? No thank you.[/quote

Great idea :).

[Im_Spartacus]

Should be that the culprit stays on the pitch while the penalty is taken. If the ball goes in the net, he stays on the pitch with a yellow.

If the peno taker misses, the culprit walks.

Easy.

Hmm, then you could easily have a situation where the gk chooses not to contest the penalty (eg if early in the game and we are losing Kompany, you would concede the goal and take your chances with 11 men)

It's a reasonable shout, but could turn penalties into a bit of a farce. I'd much rather see the rugby approach where the captain is given the option of how to punish the encroachment, with the options being a 15 minute sin bin, or a penalty. Or even a mandatory sin bin and penalty as a milder double jeapordy......but certainly no ban unless its violent conduct.

In my opinion the red card is too harsh excluding a player from the remainder of the game and giving a permanent advantage to the opposition, when in fact only 1 goal scoring opportunity has been denied, and the purpose of the rules should be to even up the disadvantage created by the foul play, not to give a permanent advantage to one side which can be exploited by bent referees and / or perhaps more pertinently dives.

BUT you are right in that the punishment would be proportional. It's also disproportionate that when a player is sent off for an offence against team a, particularly when it's late in the game, it is generally team b,c,d who get the advantage from that sending off due to the suspension, hence mourinho's shit stirring for a retrospective red card in the game before we played them the other week.