Blue cards? Yes or no

[-westy-]

Can't see how a three card system works.
There might be scope for a two cards where the yellow or blue becomes the sin binning. To be honest there are yellows given for nothing these days like Casemiro's yesterday. Maybe a higher bar to a sin binning is what could be trialled. The yellow car in rugby works quite well most of the time and the potential to upgrade is also a good idea. Football officiating is generally not improved by technology and I'd rather dispense with most of it.

I think I'd like to weigh in here. Literally my first post in the Football section, but bear with me. Hockey is a sport that uses a 3 card system, effectively so. Whilst you may all sit there and state "but it's a completely different sport!" - fair comment. But you're managing players and their behaviour.

I umpire hockey all the way from low club level to international standard - and the 3 card system works well. It comprises of the following:

- Green Card. 2 minutes on the bench for smaller fouls/behaviour. Breaking down play, technical infringements etc.
- Yellow Card. 5 minutes or 10 minutes depending on the foul/behaviour. Repeated offences previously handled under Green Cards. 10 minutes for more intentional fouls/infringements.
- Red Card. Removal from the pitch, minumum 16 day ban. Again for repeated technical infringements, but moreso dangerous behaviour/tackles where someone could genuinely get hurt.

All 3 of these personal penalties are also applied to on field behaviour, such as dissent. We as umpires are coached to apply what're referred to as the "ladder of control" - ie get on top of poor behaviour before it escalates - but if it does, we can "upgrade" any of the above cards to the next higher card. I should add, that you cannot be given a repeated card for the same offence - so if you've received a green card, it would be a subsequent yellow for the same offense.

For example, I've given someone a Green Card (2 minute suspension) for dissent which was upgraded to a yellow card, then onto a Red as there were personal insults thrown.

Another example - the second a player lays a hand on an umpire/referee, they should take no further part in the game, no excuses. There are far too many instances where you see a football player screaming in the face of a match official, to receive a gentle verbal warning. Why? Why is this sort of behaviour acceptable at any level?

Whist I'm not a huge football fan or referee, I think that the introduction of a Blue Card would give another opportunity for referees to control player's behaviour. Yes, it may lead to timewasting to "run out" the player defecit, but it would send the message that any poor behaviour is not acceptable.

 

[fez]

Whist I'm not a huge football fan or referee, I think that the introduction of a Blue Card would give another opportunity for referees to control player's behaviour. Yes, it may lead to timewasting to "run out" the player defecit, but it would send the message that any poor behaviour is not acceptable.

I assume you are talking about what some call "field hockey"? I played hockey from about age 4-26 and they really are completely different games. I played at quite a high level in my youth (county) and as I cared less I played at lower levels so I have experience through all the different levels of hockey and refereeing. Hockey is simply completely different. There was no diving in hockey when I used to play. Dissent towards the ref wasn't a big issue and technical fouls were dealt with generally without people complaining or questioning them.

Football is a game full of cheating, diving and the modern game sits in a place where its borderline contactless....sometimes. Its also a game worth billions vs hockey where you can barely scrape a living as a professional. The behaviour and stakes are completely different.

As with most of these ideas, in isolation and in theory they are all perfectly sane ideas. In reality they would be a mess. The more complex and subjective you make decisions in a game, the harder it is to implement fair punishment. Its already bloody awful a lot of the time and then adding another card into the mix which will hugely affect games just wouldn't work.

They could change the rules around some things like dissent but they have already done that and surprise surprise the same referee acts completely differently to the same dissent 5 minutes apart.

 

[HangTime]

the second a player lays a hand on an umpire/referee, they should take no further part in the game, no excuses. There are far too many instances where you see a football player screaming in the face of a match official, to receive a gentle verbal warning. Why? Why is this sort of behaviour acceptable at any level?

That's something that can be dealt with independently of any blue card introduction I think. If players got sent off for this sort of thing it would be great:

Week 1: 17 red cards for physical / verbal abuse of officials. Big media furore about what's happened to the 'mans game'.
Week 2: 6 red cards.
Week 3: 2 red cards.
Week 4 onwards: 0-1 red cards. The penny has dropped.

 

[BowdonUK]

I'm against the idea. It's going to create more stops in the game.

The yellow and red cards are given for specific reasons. The red isn't just shown because someone as already had a yellow card.

I'm just not sure of the order that someone would warrant a blue card over a yellow/red.

 

[-westy-]

I assume you are talking about what some call "field hockey"? I played hockey from about age 4-26 and they really are completely different games. I played at quite a high level in my youth (county) and as I cared less I played at lower levels so I have experience through all the different levels of hockey and refereeing. Hockey is simply completely different. There was no diving in hockey when I used to play. Dissent towards the ref wasn't a big issue and technical fouls were dealt with generally without people complaining or questioning them.

Not sure I see your point here. Yes it's a different sport, but - ask yourself why there was no dissent or diving, and how technical fouls were dealt with properly, so no one questioned the decisions?

Football is a game full of cheating, diving and the modern game sits in a place where its borderline contactless....sometimes. Its also a game worth billions vs hockey where you can barely scrape a living as a professional. The behaviour and stakes are completely different.

So it's ok to cheat and dive, scream at match officials because you're paid more? What sort of example does that set?

As with most of these ideas, in isolation and in theory they are all perfectly sane ideas. In reality they would be a mess. The more complex and subjective you make decisions in a game, the harder it is to implement fair punishment. Its already bloody awful a lot of the time and then adding another card into the mix which will hugely affect games just wouldn't work.

I agree, perhaps as a theory a Blue Card would work, however as you say, it may not work in a practical sense. I don't personally believe that a yellow/red system works very effectively, as there's no real punishment for a yellow card during the 90 minutes.

They could change the rules around some things like dissent but they have already done that and surprise surprise the same referee acts completely differently to the same dissent 5 minutes apart.

That's where proper management of match officials comes into play. Any verbal dissent should be dealt with immediately and firmly. No exceptions. There may be some saying "oh but it's a different game, it's much more important etc", but that's all the more reason for setting an example.

 

[-westy-]

That's something that can be dealt with independently of any blue card introduction I think. If players got sent off for this sort of thing it would be great:

Week 1: 17 red cards for physical / verbal abuse of officials. Big media furore about what's happened to the 'mans game'.
Week 2: 6 red cards.
Week 3: 2 red cards.
Week 4 onwards: 0-1 red cards. The penny has dropped.

Yes. Completely agree.

 

[-westy-]

I'm against the idea. It's going to create more stops in the game.

The yellow and red cards are given for specific reasons. The red isn't just shown because someone as already had a yellow card.

I'm just not sure of the order that someone would warrant a blue card over a yellow/red.

That's what I found myself thinking as well - in my head it would be:

1. Yellow - warning
2. Blue - sin bin
3. Red - Off.

 

[ArcticHeron]

The two cards we have now are barely used properly, more specifically the yellow. All this nonsense worrying about handing out second yellows for tackles or behavior that would have almost certainly seen you given a first.

 

[fez]

The two cards we have now are barely used properly, more specifically the yellow. All this nonsense worrying about handing out second yellows for tackles or behavior that would have almost certainly seen you given a first.

That has to be one of the least serious issues in the game right now. We don't want loads of games to end up with red cards. You're also assuming that the first yellow was merited. I swear some people want to incentivise even more cheating from players.

 

[ArcticHeron]

That has to be one of the least serious issues in the game right now. We don't want loads of games to end up with red cards. You're also assuming that the first yellow was merited. I swear some people want to incentivise even more cheating from players.

Then make sure the first yellow is merited? By definition sorting one issue fixes the other.

I'm not saying hand out yellows for every graze to the ankle, I'm just saying lets have some element of consistency.

 

[fez]

Then make sure the first yellow is merited? By definition sorting one issue fixes the other.

I'm not saying hand out yellows for every graze to the ankle, I'm just saying lets have some element of consistency.

Shall we fix all the dozens of other inconsistencies and errors refs make constantly while we are at it? There are loads of things that have no issue in theory but once you actually implement them, humans get involved and they fall apart.

They will not get all yellows right and thats part of the reason they sometimes give players some leeway. Perhaps at half time they had a quick look at a replay and realised that they shouldn't have booked a player. Perhaps in hindsight they regretted it so the next yellow requires a little more. Perhaps they think a tackle was just mis-timed and not malicious. Sometimes sometimes sometimes.

Fans can't agree on some of the most ridiculously obvious decisions going so I don't know how we are expecting refs to be perfect or even close. They could be a damn site better but they will always make mistakes. Giving them the tools to make more numerous and serious mistakes due to human error just isn't a good idea in my books.

 

[ArcticHeron]

You're talking at me as though I'm arguing for more cards or more interference. I'm not. I'm asking for referees to stick by there convictions and make more clearly calculated decisions. I get that's difficult in the moment and no ones expecting them to get it right every time, but I don't agree with the notion that a player should get leeway for what SHOULD be a second yellow just because it was only say 70% of the way there the first time. Yellows are not reds. There's very few instances game to game where a yellows handed out first time and it's not warranted.

 

[fez]

You're talking at me as though I'm arguing for more cards or more interference. I'm not. I'm asking for referees to stick by there convictions and make more clearly calculated decisions.

No I think that what you are saying will result in far more cards. Your intentions are irrelevant if the reality is very different.

I get that's difficult in the moment and no ones expecting them to get it right every time, but I don't agree with the notion that a player should get leeway for what SHOULD be a second yellow just because it was only say 70% of the way there the first time.

Why shouldn't they? If you feel you made a mistake on the first yellow, why shouldn't you give them a little leeway on the second? Refereeing isn't an exact science. They referee games based on the teams playing. Some games can get out of hand if you don't take control of them early and others are much easier. Referees give players a little more leeway near the start of the game and far less towards the end. Keepers waste time all game but when it comes to the last 20 minutes they usually get a yellow for it.

I'm not suggesting all these things are right but I have little issue with most of them.

Yellows are not reds. There's very few instances game to game where a yellows handed out first time and it's not warranted.

I would say there are a very large number of first yellows that are not warranted and I would also say there are plenty that should be given that aren't. And yellows are not reds...but they are half way there. You give a yellow by mistake and that player commits another stone wall yellow card challenge and they are off. There is only so much leeway you can give.

I think you are massively downplaying the effects of yellows on a game. Get a yellow early on and the opposition will target that player. United took Casemiro off yesterday because he was close to a red after a yellow that was very very questionable. Silly yellows lead to silly reds. Yellows mean a player can't take risks anymore in case the opposition player does something unexpected or simply dives and cons the ref.

 

[ArcticHeron]

I do see your point and agree with much of it, but there are certain instances often game to game where I can't help but see certain fouls in a vacuum. It's unjust to me that teams who aren't gaming for an advantage aren't given one just because the ref feels he's made a mistake with the first and refuses to give a second. It's hardly the opposition teams fault. Barkley wasn't gaming Casemiro last night, it was just a crap challenge.

 

[fez]

I do see your point and agree with much of it, but there are certain instances often game to game where I can't help but see certain fouls in a vacuum. It's unjust to me that teams who aren't gaming for an advantage aren't given one just because the ref feels he's made a mistake with the first and refuses to give a second. It's hardly the opposition teams fault. Barkley wasn't gaming Casemiro last night, it was just a crap challenge.

I think I know which challenge you are talking about and that wasn't close to a stonewall yellow in my view. The players crowded the ref and the fans were screaming to get him one purely because he was already on one. If that was a challenge from a player not on a yellow there wouldn't have be any of the reaction. This is part of the problem. People disagree on far too much stuff.

 

[ArcticHeron]

I think I know which challenge you are talking about and that wasn't close to a stonewall yellow in my view. The players crowded the ref and the fans were screaming to get him one purely because he was already on one. If that was a challenge from a player not on a yellow there wouldn't have be any of the reaction. This is part of the problem. People disagree on far too much stuff.

Oh come now, the look on Casemiros face after the challenge said it all. That arguments for the match thread though

 

[SimonRigga]

The two cards we have now are barely used properly, more specifically the yellow. All this nonsense worrying about handing out second yellows for tackles or behavior that would have almost certainly seen you given a first.

It's often because a red is seen as "ruining" the game, and often it does.. instead of an end to end game of football, it becomes a training session of defenders against attackers.

Maybe if the ref had an option, where it was not a red.. but still gave punishment.. then there could be an element of more control.. as the opposition are also wound up where it's an obvious yellow, but the ref doesn't give it as it means a read.

Often the two yellow cards are not deserving of a sending off, two petulant fouls.. that caused no danger, but really should both have been yellows..

Kind of agree with a few other comments, .. there should be no dissent.. say one thing to the ref.. yellow.. say two off..

Anyone other than the captain go around the ref.. auto yellow.. second time off..

No questions.. no but it's a passionate game bs.. stick to it.. not one game.. then get scared and stop..

Football as it stands with the diving and cheating and acceptance as part of the game.. is just wrong.. and it does need change to fix it..

Who knows if a "timeout" card would fix that.. but I certainly think it's worth a try..

R.

 

[fez]

Oh come now, the look on Casemiros face after the challenge said it all. That arguments for the match thread though

Casemiro has an expressive face

 

[SPG]

Retrospective red cards, no right to appeal instant 2 game ban and and 10k fine to the club, the clock is stopped when the ball goes out play, add another ref like that do in ICE hockey. (a proper sport where if you wiggle around on the floor like a girl you lose a tooth shortly after)

 

[fez]

Retrospective red cards, no right to appeal instant 2 game ban and and 10k fine to the club, the clock is stopped when the ball goes out play, add another ref like that do in ICE hockey. (a proper sport where if you wiggle around on the floor like a girl you lose a tooth shortly after)

I assume you want some sort of rules around trying to knock shades of **** out of your opponent and you want clubs to buy players entirely for their ability to try and hurt other players and fight?