Red Card AND a Penalty?
Discussion
Is it fair that a red card can be issued as well as a penalty kick awarded for the same offence?
A typical scenario is a cynical foul in the box. The immediate decision is that a penalty kick is awarded. The chances are, that kick is as good as a goal (in most circumstances, or just look at the way such a decision is often celebrated). But does the situation also call for the offending player to be sent off too?
Going a goal down after a penalty is one thing, but to then see out the rest of the game with the further disadvantage of being a man down can potentially kill that team off. Take the recent Carling Cup tie between Aston Villa and Blackburn Rovers for example. Villa ran out (eventually) as 6-4 winners on the day (7-4 on aggregate). This was a cracking game - end-to-end stuff - and it was set for an interesting finish after Blackburn took the lead with two goals. Villa fought back with two of their own; one of these goals came from a penalty kick after Blackburn's Samba was sent off for the same offence.
One offence; two punishments
There was plenty of argument over the red card, but had he not been sent off, the game could still have been balanced after the spot kick. Despite the sending off, Blackburn still managed to score another two goals but how different would this fightback have been with all eleven players?
I think conceding a penalty (rightly or wrongly) and subsequently giving away a goal pegged them back as the 'offending' team, but to then have Samba sent off as part of the same punishment also meant that the task would be even harder to overcome for two reasons instead of one.
Isn't one punishment enough? Wouldn't it be fair to dish out one or the other instead of both?
A typical scenario is a cynical foul in the box. The immediate decision is that a penalty kick is awarded. The chances are, that kick is as good as a goal (in most circumstances, or just look at the way such a decision is often celebrated). But does the situation also call for the offending player to be sent off too?
Going a goal down after a penalty is one thing, but to then see out the rest of the game with the further disadvantage of being a man down can potentially kill that team off. Take the recent Carling Cup tie between Aston Villa and Blackburn Rovers for example. Villa ran out (eventually) as 6-4 winners on the day (7-4 on aggregate). This was a cracking game - end-to-end stuff - and it was set for an interesting finish after Blackburn took the lead with two goals. Villa fought back with two of their own; one of these goals came from a penalty kick after Blackburn's Samba was sent off for the same offence.
One offence; two punishments
There was plenty of argument over the red card, but had he not been sent off, the game could still have been balanced after the spot kick. Despite the sending off, Blackburn still managed to score another two goals but how different would this fightback have been with all eleven players?
I think conceding a penalty (rightly or wrongly) and subsequently giving away a goal pegged them back as the 'offending' team, but to then have Samba sent off as part of the same punishment also meant that the task would be even harder to overcome for two reasons instead of one.
Isn't one punishment enough? Wouldn't it be fair to dish out one or the other instead of both?
No. But if players (and supporters) celebrate the awarding of a penalty, they clearly feel it's as good as a goal.
The team fighting to claw that goal back have their work cut out for 'em and it usually makes for an exciting game, but to do this against a team who also have a player advantage just seems too harsh at times.
The team fighting to claw that goal back have their work cut out for 'em and it usually makes for an exciting game, but to do this against a team who also have a player advantage just seems too harsh at times.
yes its fair
robbbing a team of a legit goal scoring opportunity is not on, giving away the penalty would probably only lead to a goal that wuld (possibly) have been scored)
there needs to be a harsh punishment to stop it happening as a matter of course and players cynically fouling and giving away penalties when letting the player run on past may have ended in a goal anyway.
robbbing a team of a legit goal scoring opportunity is not on, giving away the penalty would probably only lead to a goal that wuld (possibly) have been scored)
there needs to be a harsh punishment to stop it happening as a matter of course and players cynically fouling and giving away penalties when letting the player run on past may have ended in a goal anyway.
if the foul would warrant a red card elsewhere on the pitch, then it should be be shown in the penalty area too. thats the point of the penalty area is it not? otherwise you would get people making very malicious and deliberate fouls in the box knowing that the ref can only do one of two things, send them off or award a penalty and awarding a penalty is by no means a given that the striker will score hence there is no advantage* whereas reducing a team to ten men is.
- also, a penalty is quite artificial and gives time for the keeper/striker to compose themselves/get nervous. in normal game play conidtions, those nerves have no time to surface..
I think if its a truly violent tackle or violent play then the player goes and there would be a penalty, but that is kind of irrelevant.
But I also do agree with the OP that in some cases players are sent off and a penalty awarded when the referee is hamstrung by the rules and I do think in some cases its a double penalty. Maybe there could be some classes of foul, i.e deliberate hand ball on the line stopping a goal, where the attacking team captain has a choice - they can have the penalty but the oppossing team stays at 11 men or they choose for the opposition to go to 10 men but no penalty.
I do think its something that could be worked through as the the double penalty is a overly zealous penalty in some cases.
But I also do agree with the OP that in some cases players are sent off and a penalty awarded when the referee is hamstrung by the rules and I do think in some cases its a double penalty. Maybe there could be some classes of foul, i.e deliberate hand ball on the line stopping a goal, where the attacking team captain has a choice - they can have the penalty but the oppossing team stays at 11 men or they choose for the opposition to go to 10 men but no penalty.
I do think its something that could be worked through as the the double penalty is a overly zealous penalty in some cases.
Edited by Twit on Tuesday 16th February 10:10
You need both measures, not specifically for the offense itself, but to stop it being policy to deliberately foul when a player is running in on goal.
It does make it harsh where the offense is not deliberate, but the last defender knows what the consequences of mistiming the tackle are before he makes it.
The measure wouldn't be necessary if professional football players were gentlemen and sportsmen, but...
It does make it harsh where the offense is not deliberate, but the last defender knows what the consequences of mistiming the tackle are before he makes it.
The measure wouldn't be necessary if professional football players were gentlemen and sportsmen, but...
it's a TRIPLE punishment, because that player will also be suspended for the next game
currently, the 'professional foul' and 'denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity' are classed as serious foul play and are red-card offences on its own, if it's in the box it's a penalty too - there is no real leeway in the rules
quite right too, i reckon
currently, the 'professional foul' and 'denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity' are classed as serious foul play and are red-card offences on its own, if it's in the box it's a penalty too - there is no real leeway in the rules
quite right too, i reckon
It's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, just so happens that if you do it in the penalty box then the free kick is a penalty.
Are you suggesting that outside the box should be a red card only and not a free kick. Do you play on until the ball goes out of play or a non-card free kick is awarded? What happens if the player who commits the red card offence scores a goal before play is stopped to give him the red card?
Are you suggesting that outside the box should be a red card only and not a free kick. Do you play on until the ball goes out of play or a non-card free kick is awarded? What happens if the player who commits the red card offence scores a goal before play is stopped to give him the red card?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff