"Diving" Panel Named For Next Season

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
18,128
#41
That's just the way it works. A player can pick up a series of cards but won't necessarily play against any of the teams he picked up the cards against during his ban. Seems more unfair when those teams could be direct rivals.
It’s why I’ve thought for a long while now that a yellow card should be accompanied by a 5 minute (or longer) sin bin style disadvantage.

Would love to see that in football personally. All those “took one for the team” yellow cards when a player drags down someone going past him as he knows he can’t stop him would be properly punished, rather than just giving away a free kick in the middle of the pitch and allowing the defenders to regroup.
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
5,497
#42
It’s why I’ve thought for a long while now that a yellow card should be accompanied by a 5 minute (or longer) sin bin style disadvantage.
.
They added that option for grassroots football in the most recent laws of the game. I wouldn't mind seeing it brought into the professional game.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#43
It’s why I’ve thought for a long while now that a yellow card should be accompanied by a 5 minute (or longer) sin bin style disadvantage.

Would love to see that in football personally. All those “took one for the team” yellow cards when a player drags down someone going past him as he knows he can’t stop him would be properly punished, rather than just giving away a free kick in the middle of the pitch and allowing the defenders to regroup.
I'd back that too. If there's going to be any kind of sin binning in football that's exactly the sort of thing it should be for. Although I do wonder if an increased punishment might also see a decrease in offences actually penalised. Against Arsenal at 0-0 the ref refused to book Xhaka for a rugby tackle on Sissoko who was counter attacking through the middle with few defenders back. If he wasn't prepared to give such a blatant yellow card he'd be even less likely to do so if there was a 5-10 minute period off the pitch as well.
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
18,128
#44
I'd back that too. If there's going to be any kind of sin binning in football that's exactly the sort of thing it should be for. Although I do wonder if an increased punishment might also see a decrease in offences actually penalised. Against Arsenal at 0-0 the ref refused to book Xhaka for a rugby tackle on Sissoko who was counter attacking through the middle with few defenders back. If he wasn't prepared to give such a blatant yellow card he'd be even less likely to do so if there was a 5-10 minute period off the pitch as well.
I agree - I should’ve said that the sin bin element would be optional for the ref. Plenty of tackles get yellow cards just for being clumsy or badly timed so they don’t need any extra punishment, but for years football has been talking about an extra level between the yellow and red card.

The sin bin element could either apply as the ref see’s fit or for specific types of punishment - those deliberate attack-stopping tackles, repeated time wasting etc - I bet Foster wouldn’t have wasted so much time on Saturday if he knew the yellow card might have seen him off the pitch for five/ten minutes. As it is the yellow card he did get was literally no punishment at all - he knew full well it would have absolutely no effect on him, his team or the result. In cases like that the yellow card is totally and utterly ineffective.

It might need to go hand-in-hand with a revamped substitution system - realistically you can’t leave a team without a goalkeeper, so in the Foster case perhaps teams would always have the option of making a temporary substitution - bringing on a replacement keeper for an outfield player instead, or nominating an outfield player to go off whilst letting the keeper stay on?

I’m sure it could be done and done well, but we all know football is behind every other sport in addressing its problems, so realistically it’ll never happen.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#46
I agree - I should’ve said that the sin bin element would be optional for the ref. Plenty of tackles get yellow cards just for being clumsy or badly timed so they don’t need any extra punishment, but for years football has been talking about an extra level between the yellow and red card.

The sin bin element could either apply as the ref see’s fit or for specific types of punishment - those deliberate attack-stopping tackles, repeated time wasting etc - I bet Foster wouldn’t have wasted so much time on Saturday if he knew the yellow card might have seen him off the pitch for five/ten minutes. As it is the yellow card he did get was literally no punishment at all - he knew full well it would have absolutely no effect on him, his team or the result. In cases like that the yellow card is totally and utterly ineffective.

It might need to go hand-in-hand with a revamped substitution system - realistically you can’t leave a team without a goalkeeper, so in the Foster case perhaps teams would always have the option of making a temporary substitution - bringing on a replacement keeper for an outfield player instead, or nominating an outfield player to go off whilst letting the keeper stay on?

I’m sure it could be done and done well, but we all know football is behind every other sport in addressing its problems, so realistically it’ll never happen.
It would have to be a set punishment for particular offences - the second you leave further punishments to referees' discretion you open up a whole load of doggy ground as there would absolutely be instances where an Arsenal or Liverpool player gets just a yellow for one of those take-one-for-the-team fouls but a Burnley or Brighton player is sin binned against Man Utd or Chelsea for it.

The problem with Foster wasn't so much the lack of options for punishment available for what he was doing, just that the ref had absolutely no interest in doing anything about it bar the pointless token booking with five minutes left. I watched him signal to Foster to hurry up six or seven times in the first half alone but never even spoke to him, which confirmed in Foster's mind that he was free to carry on wasting a shit load of time at every opportunity. What point would there be having a sin bin option when a ref has no intention of using it?
 

TheChosenOne

The only way is up
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
32,362
#47
How about an separate timekeeper up in the stands .. Who is a designated official and stops the clock when the ball is not in actual play.

The Ref is then free to officiate and fuck up in other ways instead.
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
18,128
#48
It would have to be a set punishment for particular offences - the second you leave further punishments to referees' discretion you open up a whole load of doggy ground as there would absolutely be instances where an Arsenal or Liverpool player gets just a yellow for one of those take-one-for-the-team fouls but a Burnley or Brighton player is sin binned against Man Utd or Chelsea for it.

The problem with Foster wasn't so much the lack of options for punishment available for what he was doing, just that the ref had absolutely no interest in doing anything about it bar the pointless token booking with five minutes left. I watched him signal to Foster to hurry up six or seven times in the first half alone but never even spoke to him, which confirmed in Foster's mind that he was free to carry on wasting a shit load of time at every opportunity. What point would there be having a sin bin option when a ref has no intention of using it?
But Foster was never, ever going to get sent off for time wasting, and he and everyone else knew it. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd been booked in the first minute, it would just never happen. Thus he knew the booking, whenever it came, would be completely inconsequential, he knew the ref only had the one tool at his disposal and that tool was powerless. So he just continued to time waste.

Having an additional level of punishment available to the ref would've at least have had Foster in fear that he might have to go off the pitch for a period of time - which would've seriously damaged his teams chances. He wouldn't have been able to risk the continued time wasting and so, even if the ref hadn't chosen to sin bin him in the end, the threat would've been enough to stop Foster doing what he was doing.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
3,095
#49
How about an separate timekeeper up in the stands .. Who is a designated official and stops the clock when the ball is not in actual play.

The Ref is then free to officiate and fuck up in other ways instead.
That's been banded around for a while but it unpopular because it would mean games took much longer to play. I think it's something like just over 60 mins that the ball is actually in play on average, so stopping the clock would mean it took basically 50% longer to play the game. One idea that I heard suggested was to stop the clock but reduce the halfs to 30 mins each, that way it would take roughly the same amount of time as a game does now and you'd still have the same amount of time that the ball was actually in play even though it seems counter-intuitive

The other criticism of it is that it would pave the way for adverts in the middle of games like you have on american TV
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#51
Lanzini charged with diving, De Bruyne isn't. We all knew when this was introduced that certain teams would be exempt from punishment, and so it's proven.
 

Marty

Resident Nog
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
18,443
#52
Lanzini charged with diving, De Bruyne isn't. We all knew when this was introduced that certain teams would be exempt from punishment, and so it's proven.
Is there something in the rules that means because the penalty was missed the offending diver can't be charged as he hasn't technically changed the outcome of the game?

Not that I'd think they'd have the balls to charge him anyway.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#53
Is there something in the rules that means because the penalty was missed the offending diver can't be charged as he hasn't technically changed the outcome of the game?

Not that I'd think they'd have the balls to charge him anyway.
No, the term is 'deception of a match official' so as long as a penalty is awarded (or a player is sent off) the diver can be banned regardless of whether it is scored. But not if they play for one of the FA's favourite teams.
 

sbrustad

SC Supporter
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,797
#58
Which rule says that?
I guess you could say Law 12 at a stretch;

"If the player acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game" and furthermore;

"A player who is guilty of dissent by protesting (verbally or non-verbally) against a referee's decision must be cautioned"

I guess whether it's a protest or not is up for discussion, as I guess in most cases it's a case of trying to influence the referee. Either way, I don't like it. It undermines the referees authority and should be a bookable offence.
 
Top