Red Card Law

[Kmcalpin]

Whilst the decision to send off Oscar Priestman was technically correct, I think that the law desperately needs changed in the interests of fairness. Had the incident taken place inside the box then he would have been yellow carded and a penalty awarded.  Thats an inconsistency to start with.  However, I believe that accidental slips or Louis Laing type stumbles should not be punished in the same way. A free kick or, at worst, a free kick and yellow card should suffice. 

This unfair law has the potential to ruin games for the paying public. 

[joewarkfanclub]

Totally agree.

It may have been the correct decision based on the laws of the game.

But the law is an ass in those circumstances.

[Lobey_Dosser]

Without getting too caught up in the detail of the guidelines, I do think recent decisions relating to ‘obvious’ goalscoring opportunities have been influenced by the VAR call to red card Trusty at Tynecastle and the fallout from the rejected appeal. 

The Falkirk one against Dundee Utd at the weekend was another example of trying to be consistent with the Trusty decision and appropriateness for VAR intervention. 

[numpty]

Making referees decide what is an accidental slip or stumble versus a player pretending to slip or stumble (or not even trying to pretend but getting away with it anyway) sounds like it would result in even more controversial decisions. At least with the current rules they don't have another judgement call to make.

[joewarkfanclub]

51 minutes ago, numpty said:

Making referees decide what is an accidental slip or stumble versus a player pretending to slip or stumble (or not even trying to pretend but getting away with it anyway) sounds like it would result in even more controversial decisions. At least with the current rules they don't have another judgement call to make.

Its not really in the spirit of the game though is it?

An early bath for something you had absolutely no control over whatsoever?

Its harsh.........

Edit: to add, I dont think Liam Gordon's challenge is a red card under the current laws of the game. But, much like Souttar's challenge in the Rangers game, it should be.

A very deliberate act.......

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, numpty said:

Making referees decide what is an accidental slip or stumble versus a player pretending to slip or stumble (or not even trying to pretend but getting away with it anyway) sounds like it would result in even more controversial decisions. At least with the current rules they don't have another judgement call to make.

Referees are the problem, incompetent poor officials, who know they will face no sanctions irrespective of how they perform, they struggle with the normal rules of the game, so judgememt calls will be no different.

Theve always been poor but VAR has made it worse its ruining football as we all saw last night, the whole set up is not fit for purpose.

[stv]

He slipped on the pitch alright but in doing so he carried on and fouled the attacker who was in a goalscoring position so its a red.

Changing rules to suit a slip will open a can of worms. Players claiming they slipped, faking stumbles, slipping and carrying on ito the attacker deliberately etc. Professional game is full of fake,injury playacting,  trying to get an advantage etc. If it was other way about we would want the opposition player sent off for stopping us scoring.

Keep it simple no interpretation by ref or var what caused it  a foul is a foul.

[Orinoco]

Laughable thing is the Aberdeen player in his own box took a tumble and knocked our player over. No foul given. VAR and officials have extremely short memories. Would be good for an explanation by those in charge to justify the non foul compared to Priestman.

[wellfan]

30 minutes ago, Orinoco said:

Laughable thing is the Aberdeen player in his own box took a tumble and knocked our player over. No foul given. VAR and officials have extremely short memories. Would be good for an explanation by those in charge to justify the non foul compared to Priestman.

The explanation is useless bastards. 

[wellon]

20 hours ago, stv said:

He slipped on the pitch alright but in doing so he carried on and fouled the attacker who was in a goalscoring position so its a red.

Changing rules to suit a slip will open a can of worms. Players claiming they slipped, faking stumbles, slipping and carrying on ito the attacker deliberately etc. Professional game is full of fake,injury playacting,  trying to get an advantage etc. If it was other way about we would want the opposition player sent off for stopping us scoring.

Keep it simple no interpretation by ref or var what caused it  a foul is a foul.

Agree with you re the fact that players might try it on but no way could OP control where his body was going with that one. 

[weeyin]

It all goes back to competence of referees and their ability to understand the game and the context of the game.

IFAB have tried remove the need for referees to figure out intent, which is why we ended up with the ridiculous handball rules. The same goes for the situation for Priestman where the rules have tried to create absolutes rather than taking context into account.

If the refs could be trusted to understand and appreciate footballing situations, we could let them apply common sense. Sadly, I don't see that changing any time soon.

On a slightly different note, regarding "ruining games for the paying public", I completely agree with that. I've often wondered if it wouldn't be better to allow a red-carded player to be replaced with, perhaps, harsher punishments for those that are red carded. In a sport that has tried many things to be more entertaining, a team going down to 10 men early in a game can spoil the spectacle for both sets of fans.

I know things like sin-bins have been trialled, but maybe that would another option for the Priestman situation. 15 minutes off the pitch. Or instead of a red card, always book the player and award a penalty even if it wasn't inside the box.

There must be a better option, even if it's not perfect.

[claretband]

Very good point Weeyin re them trying to take complexity out. Ive often thought for unintentional handball in the box why not just give an indirect? But then they’d have to decide re intent so back to square 1…for them…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wellfan]

46 minutes ago, weeyin said:

There must be a better option, even if it's not perfect.

There is a better option: a full overhaul. Move to full-time officials who are subject to promotion and demotion, with oversight from independent, ideally foreign or remotely based officials rather than retired SFA refs. They must be properly held accountable for their performances. If the current crop don’t like that, they can leave. We must demand better. It’s ruining our game as it stands.

[purestate]

The interpretation aspect will almost always come into play in whatever circumstances occur.  
eg if Priestman is a red because of clear goal scoring opportunity the why not award goal and not send player off.  Would almost certainly discourage deliberate fouls as potential for striker to miss/goalie to save is higher. 
but what about Gordon situation. He definitely deliberately brought player down but surely he, along with pretty much all except Var official, thought it was a yellow and nowhere near being a clear goal scoring opportunity.   Rule would then be faced with specifying how far out, how many players closer to goal, whether a shaved beard increased SoDs aerodynamic interception sprint speed etc.  

Sin bins to remove absolutes in a game might be closest to trying to avoid ruining spectacle.  May even make the 10/15 mins more exciting as team with advantage try and press it. 
 

id be quite happy if Gogic and few StM bruisers were shown early reds right enough.