Steelymark
New Member
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 2
How about the person who has fouled and injured a player being banned for the same time until that player is back in action be it 2 weeks , 3 months or year if necessary .
Retrospective review of potential red-card fouls endangering the health of players needs to be part of the P/L review process - whether or not, the referee, during the game, awarded a penalty/yellow card or not.How about the person who has fouled and injured a player being banned for the same time until that player is back in action be it 2 weeks , 3 months or year if necessary .
Retrospective review of potential red-card fouls endangering the health of players needs to be part of the P/L review process - whether or not, the referee, during the game, awarded a penalty/yellow card or not.
Currently, if a player receives a yellow, it's a get-out-of-jail-free card. Which is totally wrong - referees are hesitant to produce red cards unless absolutely necessary and clear cut - if a potential red-card foul is seen, frequently it happens so quickly that the full extent of the foul isn't picked up. VAR (best - as sending off happens immediately if warranted) or retrospective review (far worse as the offending team may be punished but not in the game at hand) needs to severely punish fouls that endanger a player's career.
agree that the rules preventing 're refereeing' of yellow card tackles needs to be looked at. it needs to be as simple as any act of serious foul play / violent conduct can be reviewed post match and upgraded to a red card if deemed appropriate, no matter what the ref has given.
dont agree with players being banned while the person they injured is out. think back to how james mccarthy broke his leg last month in a totally unintentional clash with solamon rondon, seems unfair to ban him for a year for that.
Good shout.How about an orange card, meaning the player stays on the pitch but the ref thinks maybe it needs looking at in retrospect.