Why dont they just have yellow cards as a 10 min sin bin. Like rugby.
Rather than add a 3rd card.
There seems limited impact in game when the yellow is given
I think it might stop some of these ‘stop the play’ cynical fouls.
Agree. If the penalty does not work fix the penalty - don’t give more options for taking advantage of the rules with new rules…
I think the target is something between yellow and red … the biggest impact of a yellow is the possibility of a second yellow leading to expulsion, or in some leagues an accumulation of yellows leads to a suspension.
It’s adding complexity for me.
Is it yellow or blue
Just combine it if they want to do it. You get a yellow you go off for 10 minutes.
The thinking here is that not all fouls that draw a yellow merit a 10-minute sin bin, since the sending a player to the sin bin of course grants an advantage to the opponent.
Of many factors yet to be examined for how they work out or don’t work out in reality, note that a blue card after about the 84th minute is effectively a second yellow or a red card, though of course it won’t draw the additional punishment of either after the match.
As I commented to a friend who is also a fan of Liverpool, there is a higher priority now to make some minor changes to two laws of the game:
- Offside AND
as well as to eliminate what came to be known as VAR Humbug! during the holidays.
When watching Serie A, UEFA, or Premier League play, I have seen the difference in the quality of the technology with regards to offside rulings, for example.
Why isn’t this technology uniform according to a one minimum standard for display?
The Premier League as the most valuable league, for example, has THE WORST technology for VAR.
Before any implementation of a Blue Card, which I do like for its intent and for which I do agree any combination of two cards yellow or blue equals a red, I want these other three more pressing matters addressed.
Only then would I agree given the additional responsibility for the referee and the other officials, including the VAR official.
But the Blue Card does provide an additional deterrent than the regular yellow for certain very common offences, especially near the end of a half or near the end of a match, for it’s no more simply “walk it off, jabber, force a laugh, nervously shake hands, and waste more time” and the like antics especially in the second half.
Like the idea of a sinbin system but they also have to address this idea of how time is added for “stoppages”.
Or least stop the clock when someone goes down for an “injury”.
To me the easy way to fix the injury bug is if you go down for an injury you sit out six minutes or so. Okay got it you are hurt - get off the pitch and go stand on the sidelines and heal. We acknowledge that you are injured and you need time to heal - sidelines are the place for that to happen.
Listening to the managers pre this weekend’s fixtures and fans on talk shows the blue card hasnt gone down well.
In fact im probably the most in favour of a 10 min sinbin i’ve heard.
Watching Villa and coaching the kids team, btw
Yellow card in the my kids league gets a 8minute sinbin.
These fouls i think warrant 10mins off the pitch.
Just makes it easier for me to say yellow does that than add another card. And it will stop some of the silly fouls on the halfway line.
You make some fine points here. All the same, I don’t agree that what works in a youth league can or should be applied in the same manner in a professional adult league.
The key now is testing of the idea of Blue Card, for as you state the 10-minute sin bin does seem to be a good idea. Otherwise, we won’t know how players will adjust or will not adjust play in light of such threats AFTER the first few violators (who are also usually the most egregious current violators who accumulate bookings and have to sit out a match or more due to accumulation) would have the new book thrown at them.
Most interesting will be what happens after the 80th minute. Yesterday for example, in the 88th minute, top referee Anthony Taylor did not issue a booking for an egregious foul by a player who had already been booked in the match between Nottingham Forest and Newcastle.
Perhaps you have seen some discussion via the media there in the UK on this front already.
As the commentator on NBC here in the US stated for the match in Nottingham, he figured the referee Taylor did not want to send off the player committing the egregious foul with only a few minutes left, and then the other commentator mentioned the blue card system in discussion but the original commenter was already peeved at the idea.
In the first minute right after kickoff of Liverpool’s match against Burnley, coming from behind an opposing player, Jota of Liverpool stomped on the Achilles tendon of a Burnley player to also regain possession of the ball. Whether it was intentional or not is up for debate.
Jota walked it off like nothing happened, and the referee did not issue a booking. THAT sort of reckless play early on should be what the BLUE card is for, as an example, as Jota has a record of such acts from behind players and many such players know they can get away with a free one EARLY in a match as opposed to later in the match.
The BLUE card should be issued in such a situation of a reckless or dangerous play (playing from behind a player yet not clearly playing the ball and playing recklessly with an attempt or act to injure), when any intent is unclear, for example.
Of course if intent to injure is deemed obvious by the referee or the VAR official, it’s supposed to be a straight red like now and that should not change.
And any card can be upgraded to a straight red via review as well, but of course that system is broken also because some fouls look far more egregious in super slow motion than in real time instinctive play.
Obviously with any such new system, the rules for referees must be clearer plus also we must FIX VAR FIRST especially since these blue bookings would be subject to also review by VAR.
Stomping or Stabbing At Opponent With Sole Late or Recklessly = Red Card (Usually)
As cross-linked was in a discussion in the NHL thread about the general argument to judge the intent of a player, such as commonly on a very hard and injurious foul and/or visibly unsafe act.
This is also an area that officiating changes in our football has gotten correct and that I hope does not change much whatever comes of this trial of the Blue Card.
Whatever is done, unless visibly obvious to both the official and the VAR official, which is not something that requires concentration as it’s either there or not for clearly ill intent, the penalty has been and can be the same EVEN when the intent is not clear.
I gave the example from yesterday’s match Lazio against Bayern in which the offending Bayern player was tossed in what is now a rare case of double jeopardy in the goal area.
It was an excellent and correct ruling, and for the non-Bayern critics despite the player’s actual intent being less than clear, though it was most definitely an unsafe act and remains so in the modern game.
Straight red should continue to be the call for such play.
When far more unclear as to attempt to injure and the result is not clearly serious injury, when there is some degree of doubt then a BLUE card would be better as in the example I cited previously for Jota, whose challenge was not late as was the defender’s yesterday who went at the player with the ball with reckless abandon come what may and really stomped his ankle.