https://news.sky.com/story/footballs-rulemakers-set-to-introduce-blue-cards-for-sin-bins-13066916
All I see are more problems, controversies, and confusion. So we have red cards, yellow cards, blue cards, some of which will be reviewable by VAR and some of which won’t? Many thought VAR would improve the game, yet most complaints are about VAR. I’m not sure how this will be any different. Sure there will be obvious scenarios where a sin bin foul occurs, but there will be many, many more that are in a gray area, and how the referee interprets it likely will determine the outcome of the game.
You go to the chair, you know. Ten minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know. And then you get free.
What, you think 3 colors is too much for people to keep track of? NFL refs have like 40 hand signals to give, intended as a guide to the audience about what the hell is going on. Soccer audiences just have to learn 3 colors and like 5 hand gestures. Suck it up.
I wonder if the team down a man for 10 minutes will try some delay tactics, and if that could get added to the penalty time?
What happens if multiple players on the same team get a blue card within 10 mins?
The proposed rule treats blue cards the same as yellow for the purposes of ejections/suspensions, so two blues, or a blue and a yellow, has the same effect as two yellows, so if they were reluctant to show a yellow for a cynical foul before, this proposal doesn’t change that, since it has the same effect as a yellow plus the 10 minute sin bin time.
yeah that's not how I'd design it. Two blues should be equal to a yellow. Refs should be willing to give out blue cards like candy. Having a timeout penalty be treated as more than the last-warning penalty will just disincentivize its use, as you said. Treating it like what we call an "orange card", like a bad foul that isn't quite bad enough to be a straight red.
Why would two blue equal a yellow? A 10 minute penalty is harsher than a free kick. This is clearly designed to be in between a yellow and red.
Agreed. At first this sounded like a lessor penalty than a yellow, but seeing that two equals a red, it is a harsher penalty
I’m including a clip below just for a point of conversation. If you skip ahead to the 11:05ish mark you see Iñaki Williams being grabbed cynically by a Barcelona defender. Is this the type of foul that is a “blue card”?
It's designed that way, yes, but imo it shouldn't be. I think the real value is in giving a player a penalty that isn't a halfway house to a full sending-off. Right now if a player is on a yellow the ref is more hesitant than they should be to give them additional penalties, and a lesser blue card would be one they could give without unbalancing the rest of the game. We've seen how crazy players can get with crowding the ref or making a scene and giving them 10 minutes off, while also not preventing them from getting a normal yellow in the course of play in the rest of the game, gives them something proportionate to the crime. Players could get more than one 10-minute penalty in a game if deserved, with the game still able to return to 11v11 after that.
Yeah that's a cynical foul to stop a fast break, exactly the kind of thing I want to see eliminated. Of course, with 116' elapsed, there's so little time remaining that a defender would probably accept getting sent off over giving up a high-percentage chance that would put the game away, so it's a bit of an edge case. Certainly worth a 10 minute penalty, although at that point it's tantamount to a red.
Hell, what happens when the GK gets sent to the sin bin? Does an outfield player go in net for 10 minutes?
Really? What day was that? I've seen them going back for decades and never seen a non violent tactical foul get a straight red.
At least in Scotland if you had a player fly past you and you stretched out your leg to trip him you were off. No attempt to get the ball and risking the player getting injured. Of course there was still a gray area of interpretation. I was sent off myself for a professional foul. Straight red. On the other side of the coin many tackles went unpunished that would get you arrested today.
Yes. We already argue about two cards. What will happen if we add a 3rd?
Here a yellow is too blunt and a blue is a lesser card, but here:
On the foul on Willams a yellow isn’t “blunt” enough and now the lesser blue becomes a harsher punishment? Take the foul by Christensen on the Athletic striker at 1:45. In the referee’s report a yellow was given because he took into account the space behind Christensen and that the tackle prevent a break by Athletic. Is this also a blue card (even though I’m not sure it was even much of a foul)? You’ll also note how quickly a yellow is given to Xavi for dissent, which is common in Spain. Are Barca to play a man down for ten minutes for what the ref thought was a cynical foul but likely was not? There is jus too much interpretation and too big of a punishment imo. I also don’t want to get into the dissent conversation when we have players speaking different languages and referees hearing what they want to hear or think they hear. A butcher only needs so many tools…
Not to put words i @InstaFace‘s mouth but I think he’s talking about grabbing the upper body of a player before he pulls away, not a dangerous tackle.
In what world is playing 11v10 for 10 minutes a "lesser" penalty than a yellow card?
Great sponsor opportunity. The Sin Bin, brought to you by Dave Fishwick's MinibusesJust sitting on the sidelines, waiting for a player to drop in...
But dissent is a blue card. If you take a hard foul and dissent, is that two blue cards? 20 minutes off the pitch? Perhaps a yellow should be 20 minutes off the pitch
Yeah if a yellow came with a steeper penalty, then fine.
