Isn't a yellow, and then a red card supposed to be the deterrent?
My radical solution to most problems around the laws of the game. Apply the existing ones consistently throughout the games (whistle to whistle) and the season. No "it's too early to book someone", no "it's not a penalty but it would have been a free kick on the half way line", no "first foul for free if its deserving of a card", no early season clamp-down on whatever only to ease off in October. There is little point bringing in even more if you can't use those you already have!
Absolutely this, I think the ref has all the tools he needs to manage the game currently, what they need is the backing of the various powers of the game (such as the leagues, the players associations and the clubs) to apply them properly without those people getting their panties in such a bunch and threatening legal action or some sort of anti-ref media campaign when things don't go their way.
We have 9 or 10 minutes of added time nowadays? Why? Because the clubs and players incessantly waste time throughout the game. This isn't the refs fault, it's the clubs and the players and then they have the absolute temerity to moan about it afterwards. Hortin did exactly this in his latest interview with Skubala, praising him for "game management" and then expressing surprise at the 9 minutes of added time?
We have endless scrums at set pieces that aren't called as penalties? Why? Because clubs and players are determined to make sure that the ref can't call them every time otherwise each game would end up 21-20 on penalties.
If the leagues backed the refs and allowed them to referee to the rules, rather than some kind of ridiculous perceived "consensus" that players and coaching staff have come to about what constitutes an infringement then the game would be a lot better off.
You know who I mainly blame? Managers, and those twats of ex-professionals making a living out of spouting bollocks on TV about things they know very little.
"Was that a foul Clive, Roy, Geoff?" "Not for me Ray", who gives a fuck what someone like you thinks, you barely know the laws of the game. It's like asking a 5 year old who was at fault in a traffic accident.
There was one glorious moment on Match of the Day many years ago when Alan Hansen was asked about a penalty once, when the word "intent" was still in the laws. Jimmy Hill took him to task about what the law actually said and therefore how Hansen's interpretation was completely wrong. Hansen simply didn't acknowledge he didn't know what he was talking about but just announced the "law was wrong", no attempt to stop blaming the ref, no attempt to come to understand why the law was the way it was, just a bull-headed refusal to realise he had no idea what he was talking about.
And these kind of pundits and managers bleat endlessly about consistency, consistency, consistency and yet they mangle their interpretations of the rules to endlessly back their own ignorant positions.
And what do our authorities do in response? Endlessly twiddle with the laws of the game introducing more and more complicated, edge case interpretations in an attempt to fix a problem that only exists because everyone involved in football would rather blame the ref than take a good, long hard look at themselves and their pathetic, childish conduct.
! Discuss...
