Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Manifest
I find myself persuaded by the argument being made that you shouldn't get more leniency after being booked once. This is certainly true based on the letter of the law. Yellows are all created equal theoretically, and a yellow is yellow no matter when, where, or under what circumstances it occurs.
But refs manage the game differently. Why?
Rules and punishments should start with what they are intended to accomplish. Would you all agree that we want to protect the safety of the players while encouraging a free-flowing game devoid of fouls? If that's the case, I'm not sure what purpose is served by sending off Giroud for yelling + clumsiness. We want a safe, free-flowing match, but what we've done has effectively made Arsenal park the bus and pour cement on the game.
This answers the "why". Refs believe it isn't in the sport's interest to reduce a team to ten men if they can finesse their way around it And because many refs see it this way, there is very often no recompense for the team that has been wronged. The ref has the choice to (A) fundamentally alter the natural flow of the match, or (B) do nothing.
I just wonder if we could get the same deterrent using a punishment that the refs aren't afraid to implement. Because the way it is now, a team like Chelsea usually gets absolutely no recompense for the repeated tactical fouling of Can and Lucas, and Liverpool gets zero recompense for Costa's endangering of their player's health. Might it not be more equitable, and more practically useful, to have punishment that fits the crime in the eyes of the ref, that they are therefore not so hesitant to implement? The ten-minute sin bin is one possibility. A forced substitution would be another (punish the player in the same way as a red; weaken the team but not destroy it; and preserve the free-flowing nature of the match). I'd even rather award a penalty and let the player stay. A goal often is just what a game needs, whereas a sending off his the exact opposite effect.
Just thinking out loud...
You're waaaaaaaaay over-thinking it.
Often yellow vs. not-yellow is a borderline call. If a first YC is given to a player on a borderline call, then I see no problem in letting it go on a second borderline call. He might then be warned he's on thin ice and another borderline call might not go in his favour under the principle of "totting up". No problem with this either.
I don't see how more rules and more punishments to choose from will lead to greater consistency. I'm sure it'll lead to more confusion and more disruption to the flow of a game, though. IMO you have to allow the referee plenty of discretion to apply the rules in a manner that is fair in the context of the game he is refereeing. Occasionally this throws the Asperger crowd into a tizzy when similar situations in different games yield different decisions but it's the lesser of the possible evils. And if you think you can eliminate all possible evils here, you're completely misguided.