- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Lets have a discussion about red cards
Posted on 9/28/12 at 3:18 am
Posted on 9/28/12 at 3:18 am
I was listening to Men in Blazers today and they brought up something I haven't really thought of before.
They maintained that decisions in the first half, especially straight red card decisions, should be evaluated differently than similar decisions in the second half. Their reasoning was that a red card in the first half, particularly early in the first half, is similar to that of a "death sentence," while a red in the second half is more similar to a "10 year jail sentence."
Basically, since the punishment for a red card in the first half is much more harsh than a red in the second, the ref should be much more hesitant to pull the red out of his pocket, effectively judging the decisions differently.
Thoughts? I'm still digesting it and would like to hear some other thoughts. There certainly doesn't seem to be many good alternatives, but they do raise a couple good points.
They maintained that decisions in the first half, especially straight red card decisions, should be evaluated differently than similar decisions in the second half. Their reasoning was that a red card in the first half, particularly early in the first half, is similar to that of a "death sentence," while a red in the second half is more similar to a "10 year jail sentence."
Basically, since the punishment for a red card in the first half is much more harsh than a red in the second, the ref should be much more hesitant to pull the red out of his pocket, effectively judging the decisions differently.
Thoughts? I'm still digesting it and would like to hear some other thoughts. There certainly doesn't seem to be many good alternatives, but they do raise a couple good points.
This post was edited on 9/28/12 at 3:24 am
5
Posted on 9/28/12 at 6:34 am to LSUSOBEAST1
How about this:
Person who gets the Red must sit out two halves--if it's the first half, he simply sits out the rest of the match in which he's currently playing. If it's in the second half, he sits out second half, and then first half of the following match his team plays in the same league (EPL, UEFA CL, FA Cup, etc.). In addition, at no time while the player is serving his suspension, may his team use more than ten players.
How about that for your morning cup of coffee?
_____________________________________
But sticking with your original thought, I don't think it matters. If you earn a Red, you get a Red, no matter when it occurs. 99 times out of 100, a straight Red is so flagrant that it is well-deserved. If it's two Yellows, well, the first Yellow served as a warning to straighten your arse up.
Person who gets the Red must sit out two halves--if it's the first half, he simply sits out the rest of the match in which he's currently playing. If it's in the second half, he sits out second half, and then first half of the following match his team plays in the same league (EPL, UEFA CL, FA Cup, etc.). In addition, at no time while the player is serving his suspension, may his team use more than ten players.
How about that for your morning cup of coffee?
_____________________________________
But sticking with your original thought, I don't think it matters. If you earn a Red, you get a Red, no matter when it occurs. 99 times out of 100, a straight Red is so flagrant that it is well-deserved. If it's two Yellows, well, the first Yellow served as a warning to straighten your arse up.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 6:55 am to LuckySo-n-So
I'm opposed to the general idea of a red card in the first place. If a player gets a red, or two yellows, for a bad tackle, dissent, time wasting etc... I'm all for them getting sent off and suspended if need be. However, I don't think it should result in the team having to play a man down. The only exception would be if the red was for preventing an obvious goal scoring opportunity such a last man from behind tackle or a Suarez like handball off the line. I know no one will probably agree with this but I can't think of any other sport where a rule like this exists.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 7:13 am to RandySavage
It's not for a full game, but hockey penalties are the same way. Of course hockey penalties are called much more frequently that red/yellow cards. Have no issue with red cards
Posted on 9/28/12 at 7:17 am to Tigerfan7218
Pretty huge difference between two minutes and a full game.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 7:42 am to RandySavage
Hmmm, generally speaking I don't like not calling fouls because of where you are on the pitch, example in the box, or in this case not calling something because it would mean sending a player off. It can become a player safety issue. Whats worse, holding back a second yellow because a player would be sent off in a key competitive game or losing a player for the season on the level of a messi or ronaldo to injury?
That said I like when refs try to keep a game 11 v 11, but if a player earns a red they need to be given a red. Now if you want to specify the types of fouls that earn a red we can talk, but if this discussion is more heading in the direction of not giving a player a red card just because its the first half, or some other set of arbitrary circumstances, I have to disagree.
That said I like when refs try to keep a game 11 v 11, but if a player earns a red they need to be given a red. Now if you want to specify the types of fouls that earn a red we can talk, but if this discussion is more heading in the direction of not giving a player a red card just because its the first half, or some other set of arbitrary circumstances, I have to disagree.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 7:42 am to RandySavage
I have no problem with the way red cards are called now. The double-yellows are usually in the second half, so teams aren't killed for those. I think denying a goal-scoring opportunity or committing a violent foul warrants severe punishment for the team regardless of when it happened.
This post was edited on 9/28/12 at 7:43 am
Posted on 9/28/12 at 7:53 am to LSUSOBEAST1
My biggest issue with red cards is that they are far too discretionary. One bad call can completely change the game and unfortunately it happens a lot.
I think they should have a two tier system for red cards. Once a red card is given, it is watched via instant replay and then it's determined which tier the card will be. Tier 1 red, the player is off the pitch, but the team can sub in. Tier 2 red, the player is off and the team cannot sub.
I think they should have a two tier system for red cards. Once a red card is given, it is watched via instant replay and then it's determined which tier the card will be. Tier 1 red, the player is off the pitch, but the team can sub in. Tier 2 red, the player is off and the team cannot sub.
This post was edited on 9/28/12 at 7:55 am
Posted on 9/28/12 at 8:09 am to rsande2
quote:
Whats worse, holding back a second yellow because a player would be sent off in a key competitive game or losing a player for the season on the level of a messi or ronaldo to injury?
The odds of this happening are so minimal though. To me, you shouldn't make rules based on worst case scenario. Common sense needs to come into play. No other sport has this level of punishment for fouls/penalties and it's not like star players are getting hurt for the season all the time, and if they do it's often from non-contact injuries.
Also, I agree with Ocean. For something so impactful on the game a snap judgement by the ref shouldn't be the final decision. I mean I'm no Arsenal apologist, or RVP, but how absurd is what happened to them in the CL two years ago? That kind of stuff can't happen. That was 100x worse than anything that happened under the watch of the replacement refs and all we heard about was how they were destroying the integrity of the game.
This post was edited on 9/28/12 at 8:12 am
Posted on 9/28/12 at 8:46 am to LSUSOBEAST1
quote:
They maintained that decisions in the first half, especially straight red card decisions, should be evaluated differently than similar decisions in the second half. Their reasoning was that a red card in the first half, particularly early in the first half, is similar to that of a "death sentence," while a red in the second half is more similar to a "10 year jail sentence."
Basically, since the punishment for a red card in the first half is much more harsh than a red in the second, the ref should be much more hesitant to pull the red out of his pocket, effectively judging the decisions differently.
I disagree. To further your analogy.... "Do the crime, do the time."
A shitty, dangerous tackle (or any red-card worthy foul) should be judged the same, without regard to time or place.
I've probably played 500+ refereed matches in my lifetime, and in general, I'm a real bastard on the field..... and I've never been red carded. Know your boundaries, know a ref's boundaries. If you're too stupid to stay behind the boundary, that's on you and you alone.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 9:12 am to RandySavage
quote:
The odds of this happening are so minimal though. To me, you shouldn't make rules based on worst case scenario. Common sense needs to come into play.
Agreed, the point though was player safety in general, I just emphasized the point I was making.
quote:
For something so impactful on the game a snap judgement by the ref shouldn't be the final decision.
Careful here, slippery slope, goal line technology is fine, but you start using instant replay and the fluidity of the game is compromised. I enjoy soccer because there are no timeouts, reviews ect. and would rather not take that away. I would say reform the way we train our refs first.
quote:
That was 100x worse than anything that happened under the watch of the replacement refs and all we heard about was how they were destroying the integrity of the game.
The Green Bay Packers disagree.....
Posted on 9/28/12 at 9:21 am to rsande2
quote:
but you start using instant replay and the fluidity of the game is compromised.
Like I said I'm not in favor of the idea of red cards at all but if you have to have them then something other than a snap judgement needs to come into play. Nobody likes timeouts etc... but the integrity of the game is more important than the fluidity. Plus, again this is only something that would even need to come up more than once every 5 games or so so it's not like they would be reviewing things all the time.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 9:21 am to LSUSOBEAST1
I must have missed this part. I had to do something at the bank and that must have come on during that time. It's not like refs are handing out reds for fun especially in the first half. The MiB come up with all sorts of scenarios like this and sometimes it's hard to tell if they are serious.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 9:27 am to Bho
The terrible red against Liverpool which ruined the game Sunday probably started the conversation.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 9:57 am to rsande2
quote:
slippery slope
Ah the slippery slope
Usually stated when you don't have a better argument
Can you make the argument that messing up the "fluidity" of the game for 2-3 minutes is greater than the potential for the ref to ruin the game w/ a red card?
Posted on 9/28/12 at 1:55 pm to TheOcean
quote:
Can you make the argument that messing up the "fluidity" of the game for 2-3 minutes is greater than the potential for the ref to ruin the game w/ a red card?
Yup, I can. Are you Sure you understand the argument of a slippery slope? Your reponse doesn't make it sound as if you do.
I thought the red in the liverpool game was the right call though.
Posted on 9/28/12 at 1:56 pm to RandySavage
quote:
The terrible red against Liverpool which ruined the game Sunday probably started the conversation.
Shelvey earned that red man, sorry........
Posted on 9/28/12 at 2:11 pm to rsande2
I dunno, I think the current system works... I just ask, within the case of the game at hand, the ref be consistent...
For whatever reason, that isn't always the case and it pisses me off...
For whatever reason, that isn't always the case and it pisses me off...
This post was edited on 9/28/12 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 9/28/12 at 2:16 pm to rsande2
The stoppage during a red card situation lasts 2-4 minutes anyways and they already confer with other refs before their final decision is made. Not sure how having an assistant upstairs looking at the replay would affect the fluidity of the game.
I've been against dual red card and PK punishments for awhile. I think that's far too harsh a penalty. I would at least listen to any suggestions on how to improve the red card system as it is currently set up.
I've been against dual red card and PK punishments for awhile. I think that's far too harsh a penalty. I would at least listen to any suggestions on how to improve the red card system as it is currently set up.
This post was edited on 9/28/12 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 9/28/12 at 2:18 pm to TFTC
quote:
I dunno, I think the current system works... I just ask, within the case of the game at hand, the ref be consistent...
This is the correct answer.
quote:
For whatever reason, that isn't always the case and it pisses me off...
Agreed
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News