Four points. Apologies for the long post.
1) Very simply, red cards are given out when a clear goalscoring opportunity has been denied. Sending off a player for denying a potentially clear goalscoring opportunity isn't the rule. It
has to be a clear goalscoring opportunity when the foul happens. The reasons are clear and they actually make sense. I mean just with us for example, how many times have we had a counter attack with a big numbers advantage and misplaced the final pass? Even though many of these counter attacks it looks very likely we'll score, we end up not getting the chance too.
This is important, because Cox cites the Ramos foul in the CL final in a 1-on-3 (a most extreme of examples). But if he'd let play go through, there's no guarantee it would've developed into a clear goalscoring opportunity. It almost certainly would have, but by the mere fact it wasn't then a clear goalscoring opportunity means it also could have not been such a chance. By the letter of the law it's therefore a booking. Cox needs to respect it's not up to the referee to predict the future, regardless of how obvious it may be. They need to act in the moment and in the moment it's a booking. This is because otherwise the referees would be extremely inconsistent. If you send Ramos for that and not a striker for a clip near the other penalty area then where's the line? He states that the deliberate nature is what the dealbreaker should be here, citing the 'double jeopardy' rule. But within this reasoning he's not respecting or remembering (unusual considering his second paragraph) the reason why that rule exists in the first place (I mean a penalty essentially replaces the 'clear goalscoring opportunity' whereas a freekick wouldn't). That was an extreme example anyway, most cases are nowhere near as blatant.
I remember when Terry was sent off for taking Jo out on the half way line when he was the last man; only for it to be overturned as it wasn't really a clear goalscoring opportunity. Maybe not totally fair, but in all honesty, I think the 'clear goalscoring opportunity' rule is in itself as good as it gets as far as consistency is concerned.
2) Michael Cox is correct in identifying a problem. However his understanding of the problem is naive if not biased (more in point #3), and thus his solution is wrong. As
@aguero93:20 pretty solidly said, this isn't a problem if referees actually do their jobs and book players. I'm personally convinced that the referees are told not to book players early (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) and this is the root cause of the problems we're facing. Including our own experiences with overly dangerous tackles. By not booking players early for whatever it is they do (cynical fouls, handballs, dangerous tackling etc) they set a precedent that it's ok.
"The obvious retort is one of football's familiar cliches: "If you did that, you'd have to send off three players a game."
But this completely misunderstands the basics of crime and punishment, and players would adjust: the same way they adjusted to the back-pass law or the revisions to tackling from behind."
This is correct from Cox, however what surprises me is that he thinks this is limited to red cards. Why not bookings? I mean they lead to red cards and even suspensions from accumalation if you stack them up well enough. Surely if players were booked more readily then they'd be far more cautious with their play? He refers to Hazard getting a kicking off everyone but the fact is they're ALL bookings if the referee does his job. Nothing needs to change on this front except the refereeing. NOT the fouling.
I want to say, I think the problem sits higher than the referees (ie PGMOL). As I wrote earlier I'm not convinced referees are receiving the correct guidance and are forced into fending for themselves over inconsistencies that they've made as a result of said guidances. That's why the only good referees are mentally tough enough to keep a cool head and avoid these poor decisions (a rarity though).
3) Mauricio Pochettino has recently been in the news over his views on diving. I didn't agree with some of what he said but one thing stuck out; The headline.
"Moral fixation on diving is killing the game in the Premier League"
And whilst a bit sensationalist, his point was right. Why do we care so much about diving? It happens extremely rarely and most of the time this season we've seen the referees book them anyway. It would make sense if we cared about EVERY form of cheating. But we don't.
Why is diving any worse than tactical fouling? Which in turn, why is that any worse than timewasting? Or 'leaving your foot in' on a tackle? Or feigning injury? Or shirt tugging on corners? Or pressuring the referee? Or pulling a player down from behind when the ref isn't looking? Or sledging (or whatever the football equivalent is)? Or Crystal Palace not watering their pitch? It's all gamesmanship right!?
Well, we know why we hate diving (Repressed xenophobia). But why tactical fouls? It may have been in operation elsewhere before the PL but never as much as diving. Well, Michael Cox inadvertently answers the question:
"Tactical fouling isn't a new concept. But it's become particularly prevalent over the last couple of years, probably for two reasons. First, due to the increased speed of counter-attacks. Second, more significantly, because of the rise of pressing -- which, if it fails, means midfielders find themselves the wrong side of the ball, and are forced to take drastic action. Ultimately, we are being denied attacks, excitement and goals by football's tolerance of foul play."
Whilst he's trying to illustrate why tactical fouling hasn't been questioned until now, he's actually illuminating a thought process that makes it clear as to why he's brought it up in the first place. Because it's new. Or, because it's
trendy. Because it's easy. Because it's a bandwagon to jump on. That might sound extraordinarily cynical, but it's how people work. Tactical fouling hasn't had a chance like timewasting to become rooted into culture. It's an easy target because it's neither established enough for us to understand it nor for anyone who does to support it.
Combine this, with English football's extreme hatred towards cunning over bravery and it's complete insistence on morality, and you have your next target. Tactical fouling.
I mentioned before Cox may have been biased. It's a hidden bias sure that he might not even be aware about, but this stood out:
"In Chelsea's 1-1 draw at Anfield this season, Eden Hazard was repeatedly fouled by Liverpool players without any punishment, which completely negated Chelsea's attacking strategy and eventually resulted in the Belgian, arguably the Premier League's most exciting player, becoming injured after yet another foul. You want to stop Hazard? Fine. But you have to try and get the ball."
[In context he's talking about how players might respond in the future to receiving red cards for such challenges]
What he's saying here isn't wrong. But what's clear here and throughout the article is his problem is with the tactical fouling itself as opposed to the policing (as such) of said challenges. This might seem indistinct, but think about shirt pulling for a moment. We all hate it, it's as much a tactical foul as any, but nobody brings it up as a problem because for the most part it's well refereed (probably because of how blatant it is).
That's why his conclusion (red cards for everyone) is so extreme; because for whatever reason he's decided that this needs stamping out of the game altogether instead of just better officiating.
4) "
Ultimately, we are being denied attacks, excitement and goals by football's tolerance of foul play."
Then why aren't you writing about the evils of parking the bus, Michael? That's hardly good for flow is it.
I apologise for the long post, but to read an article by someone who I consider to be one of the LEADING thinkers in football; especially in terms of tactics, statistical appreciation and forward thinking; that was ultimately ruined by emotional reasoning and what I'd call fanboyism (over the English game). I posted in another thread the dangers of intelligent writers spewing incorrect hyperbole and this is another example of such. I wonder if Duncan Castles was his ghostwriter?
tl;dr
1) The rules are fine
2) The fouling itself isn't the problem, it's the fact the refereeing has been atrocious.
3) The only reason we're discussing this is because it's a fad. Nobody cared before Duncan Castles brought it up a couple of months ago.
4) It's hypocritical to attack this for ruining the flow of games considering there's so many other things that do the same that go ignored.