Thanks for a (mostly) decent post.
If it were anybody other than Tarian posting this nonsense I'd suspect a wind up. But you know what? I reckon he's for real!
It fits in with his Gradgrindian way of interpreting the world; the 'guilty' player would be retrospectively punished for his 'crime', and the 'innocent' supporters don't get 'punished' by having to watch a game played between two teams with unequal numbers. It's certainly a radical suggestion but it is also a shit suggestion.
(Not sure why you feel the need to add "Gradgrind...")
But "spot on" with:
...so "
Innocent supporters don't get punished."
We've paid for a "proper" game between two equally matched sides.
Please explain why it is "shit" ....(
rather than "on balance, no")
He fails to recognise (or chooses to ignore) the emotional aspect of a sending off. Whether it be a player on your team or an opposition player who gets the red card, the emotional response is usually intense. Sometimes you'll feel angry, other times you'll feel jubilant. Sometimes the sending off will inspire confidence that your team can now turn things around or more easily hold into a lead, other times it will induce fear that a lead will be lost or that any hope of winning has evaporated now your team is down to ten men.
I do not "
fail to recognise the emotional aspect of sending off".
I just happen to think the associated "emotions" are bad for the game and the spectators.
"
Feeling jubilant ?" (presumably an Oppo red card) ... that doesn't strike me as an honourable "emotion".....
....esp. if for a soft / arguable 2nd yellow.
Mostly one-way traffic is hardly "entertainment".
"
Backs to the wall" only has attraction if we are winning - but can be very frustrating to watch.
For a sending off is quite a big deal. It doesn't happen in every game, or even in most, but when it does it often (but not always) changes the game. Although not always in the way you'd expect it to. How many times have we seen the team with ten men push on and then win a game from the position of apparent disadvantage?.
It mostly changes a game for the worse.
As for "winning with 10 men" ...,perhaps you could answer your own question.
(I'd say "rarely")
..... if it is an exceptional offence (such as the Cantona kung-fu kick .....or Luis Suarez biting an opponent) a much longer suspension can be imposed.
But the biggest and most immediate punishment is the reduction of the team numbers during the remainder of that particular game. Every player knows this and knows that if they lose their cool they could cost their team the game.
Currently every player knows that they can "get away with" stuff not seen by the Referee....
....So make retrospective - and longer punishments less "exceptional".
"
Every player.... (should) know...... that if they lose their cool they could cost...." themselves their place for the next 2, 3 or more months and a sh!tload of money.
And that of course, leads onto the other random factor, the referee. Sometimes his decision will be a bad one, occasionally so bad that it is later overturned and the suspension lifted.
But this can effect teams and supporters in a negative or a positive manner and just so long as the referee is always impartial then such poor decisions will sometimes favour your team and other times go against your team, such is the random factor. Of course, sometimes the supporters might be able to influence the referee's decision but that too, I think, is an important aspect of the game.
Now we get to the substance.... poor or inconsistent decision-making by Referees.
What good is it to have a red card overturned after the game (and opportunity) has gone ?
In what socially just world can "
poor decisions will sometimes favour your team and other times go against your team" be acceptable?
It is fanciful to think that red cards "even out".
Statistically it is more likely that one red card has a small effect while another a significant effect.
Which one do "we" get ?
Which one affects Promotion or Relegation - and which mid-table mediocrity ?
Football will
always have "random factors". That's why it's the "Beautiful Game".
But how is adding a random bad refereeing mistake "OK" ?
I think in Tarian's world everything would be exact and precise and there would be little, if any, room for emotion and/or imagination. And without those things there is no beauty. Football is the beautiful game but proposals (such as VAR and Tarian's suggestion), though they might be made with an honourable intention of removing injustice from the game, simply remove some of the beauty.
Again. Spot on ! (about "precision")
But why assume a binary choice ....i.e. that correct decisions - or 11 v 11 - remove all "
emotion and/or imagination" ?
What's wrong with replacing negative emotions with better ones ?
What "beauty" exists in either:
a) 10 v 11
b) a poor Refereeing decision ?
VAR has helped make correct decisions.
Bad decisions have been made even with VAR.
Surely the former is an improvement (
just not helped by slowness) ?
The bad decisions are even more exposed. We can only hope "
lessons will be learned".
Again.... where is the "beauty" in a wrong decision ?
