Players calling for cards - acceptable or not?

[Heron]

Paul Scholes tackle today...it wasn't malicious but very late and ultimately very dangerous. Had a free-kick been given but not a card, do those of you who think it's wrong, believe it would have been, to suggest he should have been sent off?

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ?

 

It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid.

why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ?

 

Very valid point. It's all down to the nature of the game...the people playing it, supporting it, managing it.

 

In my opinion, a lot of decisions are more likely to be wrong/influenced by players when it comes to football, because we don't use replays, etc to our advantage like in other sports. I don't believe in the need for them either, because that's the beauty of the game. Like I've said, niggly little fouls and players calling for bookings is twattery. Yet in the case of something considerably worse, I'd say it's only fair to expect players to rightly be incensed...

[Frazzle]

If a femur was attacked by Paul Scholes it would probably die, tiny little creatures.

[madras]

Paul Scholes tackle today...it wasn't malicious but very late and ultimately very dangerous. Had a free-kick been given but not a card, do those of you who think it's wrong, believe it would have been, to suggest he should have been sent off?

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ?

 

It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid.

why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ?

 

Very valid point. It's all down to the nature of the game...the people playing it, supporting it, managing it.

 

In my opinion, a lot of decisions are more likely to be wrong/influenced by players when it comes to football, because we don't use replays, etc to our advantage like in other sports. I don't believe in the need for them either, because that's the beauty of the game. Like I've said, niggly little fouls and players calling for bookings is twattery. Yet in the case of something considerably worse, I'd say it's only fair to expect players to rightly be incensed...

no, it's down to those playing it and those running it not getting those refereeing it to do it properly. train some rugby union refs up to football rules and let them go.

[Heron]

Paul Scholes tackle today...it wasn't malicious but very late and ultimately very dangerous. Had a free-kick been given but not a card, do those of you who think it's wrong, believe it would have been, to suggest he should have been sent off?

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ?

 

It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid.

why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ?

 

Very valid point. It's all down to the nature of the game...the people playing it, supporting it, managing it.

 

In my opinion, a lot of decisions are more likely to be wrong/influenced by players when it comes to football, because we don't use replays, etc to our advantage like in other sports. I don't believe in the need for them either, because that's the beauty of the game. Like I've said, niggly little fouls and players calling for bookings is twattery. Yet in the case of something considerably worse, I'd say it's only fair to expect players to rightly be incensed...

no, it's down to those playing it and those running it not getting those refereeing it to do it properly. train some rugby union refs up to football rules and let them go.

 

That would obviously help. Football atmospheres are nowt like other sports though, the whole attitude is different, you wouldn't get 60,000 (?) people at Twickenham singing the referees a wanker...

[Heron]

There's no corollary to a card to wave about when you want a foul and play continues.  To me that's the distinction.  "appealing" for a foul is more out of exasperation.  asking for a card is like being greedy, since you've already got a free kick out of it. 

 

re: the scholes thing - dressing up the situation in emotional language and action phrases doesn't mean anything.  your post could have read "it was .. a ... tackle.  I personally think ... players should ... react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid."  And it's wrong. 

 

Okay, sorry boss. You just take from it what you feel is necessary. xxx

[madras]

Paul Scholes tackle today...it wasn't malicious but very late and ultimately very dangerous. Had a free-kick been given but not a card, do those of you who think it's wrong, believe it would have been, to suggest he should have been sent off?

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ?

 

It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid.

why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ?

 

Very valid point. It's all down to the nature of the game...the people playing it, supporting it, managing it.

 

In my opinion, a lot of decisions are more likely to be wrong/influenced by players when it comes to football, because we don't use replays, etc to our advantage like in other sports. I don't believe in the need for them either, because that's the beauty of the game. Like I've said, niggly little fouls and players calling for bookings is twattery. Yet in the case of something considerably worse, I'd say it's only fair to expect players to rightly be incensed...

no, it's down to those playing it and those running it not getting those refereeing it to do it properly. train some rugby union refs up to football rules and let them go.

 

That would obviously help. Football atmospheres are nowt like other sports though, the whole attitude is different, you wouldn't get 60,000 (?) people at Twickenham singing the referees a w*****...

thats always been there, player behaviour towards the officials hasn't always been as twatful as it is now.

[madras]

There's no corollary to a card to wave about when you want a foul and play continues.  To me that's the distinction.  "appealing" for a foul is more out of exasperation.  asking for a card is like being greedy, since you've already got a free kick out of it. 

 

re: the scholes thing - dressing up the situation in emotional language and action phrases doesn't mean anything.  your post could have read "it was .. a ... tackle.  I personally think ... players should ... react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid."  And it's wrong. 

 

Okay, sorry boss. You just take from it what you feel is necessary. xxx

that post could have read "You.........just take it"

[Heron]

There's no corollary to a card to wave about when you want a foul and play continues.  To me that's the distinction.  "appealing" for a foul is more out of exasperation.  asking for a card is like being greedy, since you've already got a free kick out of it.  

 

re: the scholes thing - dressing up the situation in emotional language and action phrases doesn't mean anything.  your post could have read "it was .. a ... tackle.  I personally think ... players should ... react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid."  And it's wrong.  

 

Okay, sorry boss. You just take from it what you feel is necessary. xxx

that post could have read "You.........just take it"

 

...or "What you feel is necessary. xxx"...

 

[Heron]

Paul Scholes tackle today...it wasn't malicious but very late and ultimately very dangerous. Had a free-kick been given but not a card, do those of you who think it's wrong, believe it would have been, to suggest he should have been sent off?

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ?

 

It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid.

why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ?

 

Very valid point. It's all down to the nature of the game...the people playing it, supporting it, managing it.

 

In my opinion, a lot of decisions are more likely to be wrong/influenced by players when it comes to football, because we don't use replays, etc to our advantage like in other sports. I don't believe in the need for them either, because that's the beauty of the game. Like I've said, niggly little fouls and players calling for bookings is twattery. Yet in the case of something considerably worse, I'd say it's only fair to expect players to rightly be incensed...

no, it's down to those playing it and those running it not getting those refereeing it to do it properly. train some rugby union refs up to football rules and let them go.

 

That would obviously help. Football atmospheres are nowt like other sports though, the whole attitude is different, you wouldn't get 60,000 (?) people at Twickenham singing the referees a w*****...

thats always been there, player behaviour towards the officials hasn't always been as twatful as it is now.

 

Possibly due to the continental influence? We have a lot more 'foreign' players playing in the Premier League now and a lot more televised games. This int urn causes children to think they can act this way and get away with it, thus bringing through the diving types?

[Disco]

In theory no but you play to win and a player being carded gives you an advantage so yes. and I know I'd do it if I was playing. I still cringe a little bit at players celebrating winning pelanties though.

[Alberto2005]

Not really important, ultimately it comes down to the referee.

[Zero]

No, such actions actually encourages the player to challange the referee's decision and make it even harder to control the match temper.

[Guest koenji]

Rafa Benitez does it and I find it more annoying for a manager to do it.

 

I do have issue with the lack of preparation also though, why wave imaginary cards? They could bring their own.

 

[madras]

There's no corollary to a card to wave about when you want a foul and play continues.  To me that's the distinction.  "appealing" for a foul is more out of exasperation.  asking for a card is like being greedy, since you've already got a free kick out of it. 

 

re: the scholes thing - dressing up the situation in emotional language and action phrases doesn't mean anything.  your post could have read "it was .. a ... tackle.  I personally think ... players should ... react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid."  And it's wrong. 

 

Okay, sorry boss. You just take from it what you feel is necessary. xxx

that post could have read "You.........just take it"

 

...or "What you feel is necessary. xxx"...

 

[Taylor Swift]

Explain.

for a free kick you get the decision which directly affects the passage of play where as a booking doesn't. also calling for a foul is a lot more instinctive than waving an imaginary card.

 

Calling for a booking is quite instinctive too. If you've just been tackled harshly you instinctively think 'that's a yellow', much the same way a fan says 'that's a penalty', 'that's a red', 'that's a yellow'. Fans are a good gauge of what's instinctive and calling for reds and yellows are very instinctive. I'm also not sure why a booking doesn't affect the passage of play. A booking forces the player to change his game, to be more cautious in marking and in tackling, and thus offers the attackers more opportunity to attack, so of course it affects the passage of play.

 

And for the people who say that the ref would show a card if a yellow is merited then there isn't really any harm to the player appealing for it then, since his appeal would not cause the referee to change his decision. If you really believe that refs give a yellow for a every tackle that deserves a yellow then it shouldn't matter what the players do at all because their actions can't influence the referee's decisions. That's obviously wrong, as we've seen many times. Refs fuck up constantly and many incidents which merit a harsher punishment than a free-kick aren't punished as they should be. That means that if you want the outcome of games to be reflect the events in the match, then players should definitely appeal for yellows if they feel that it is right.

 

Imagine a player persistently fouling when on a yellow and the referee just not realising it because of other factors (dealing with other shit, pace of the game too fast etc.), then this player - who should not be on the pitch - scoring the winner. I'd say the outcome of the match doesn't reflect the events in the game, and the win is not deserved. That's not what I want to see. Luck is another matter but it's something that no player or team can control. However, yellow and red cards not being given as such are clearly things that the referee decides. I want to see penalties being called penalties, reds and yellows given out for red and yellow-card offences and if it means that a player has to appeal for this to happen, so be it as long as the outcome reflects the events in the game.

 

How many times have you seen a player score and instinctively say 'he shouldn't be on the pitch'. How many times has Rooney - this season - escaped being sent off only to contribute to Man Utd scoring a goal? And this is only one player playing for one team. Shit like this happens every weekend and teams gets points that they don't deserve every weekend. That's the nature of the game now and the myth that it all evens out in a season is exactly that: a myth.

[Taylor Swift]

Paul Scholes tackle today...it wasn't malicious but very late and ultimately very dangerous. Had a free-kick been given but not a card, do those of you who think it's wrong, believe it would have been, to suggest he should have been sent off?

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ?

 

It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid.

why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ?

 

With the exception of rugby, there isn't a sport in the world that the people who play the game leave the referee to decide everything. Tennis, for one, has an appeal system that was only instituted to correct 'wrong' calls that the umpire and line judges make because they wanted to make sure that tennis players won points that they deserved. So now there isn't much appealing to the umpire, they go through the video review process which is much more objective and thus produces a much better outcome.

 

In basketball players appeal all the time, some appeal and complain too much that they get called with technical fouls (they're only allowed two per game - so it's sort of like being given a yellow), but they appeal almost every foul that the refs call. That's because the standard of refereeing is very low and a lot of phantom fouls are given, but players appealing are just a reflection of the standard of refereeing. Basketballers certainly don't let the refs decide then get on with the game. And actually, referees can issue retrospective technical fouls during halfs or after games if they feel it is merited as well. That is certainly a route that football should explore.

 

Baseball is a sport in which there are official ways to appeal, like asking an umpire situated elsewhere to confirm whether you've swung the bat or not, but currently the baseball authorities are planning to implement more video review to eliminate umpire mistakes which have changed the course of many important playoff games over the past years.

 

The NFL has a similar video review option that negates the need to appeal for things, and they have a post-match review process that is very thorough, and this again negates the need to appeal.

 

Again, football can explore this route and at the same time outlaw all appeals. That is certainly something that I believe many people would be for, but the situation we have right now are authorities who don't realise how refereeing mistakes can actually ruin the game and the authorities insist on not instituting video technology to assist referees precisely because they believe it would ruin the game. That means it's necessary for players to appeal for things that they feel they deserve, and I certainly don't see what's so wrong about that. Like I've said before, appealing for yellows and appealing for free-kicks have differences in degrees; they're on the same spectrum. Wherever you draw the line is completely arbitrary and whatever argument you make to defend your position will be invalid.

 

The problem comes from players appealing for yellows for the sake of them benefitting from the yellow, even if the yellow isn't deserved. I'm not sure how we deal with that problem but to outlaw all appeals for yellow cards seems to be like punishing the innocent to make sure that everyone's who guilty is punished as well. I don't think that's the way that football should go.

[Heron]

In theory no but you play to win and a player being carded gives you an advantage so yes. and I know I'd do it if I was playing. I still cringe a little bit at players celebrating winning pelanties though.

:lol:

 

 

 

[Wullie]

Depends on the situation. If someone's appealing for cards for simple trips left, right and centre, then that's a bit of a twat's thing to do.

 

However, if Kevin Nolan's clean through just outside the area and someone kicks his legs from underneath him then too bloody right I'd want our players to appeal for a red card.

[Taylor Swift]

Yup

 

It's about context, which is why singling out appeals for cards is wrong. It's the same as appealing for offsides, free-kicks, corners, penalties, whatever really; the difference is in degrees, like I've said. The way to solve the problems that are caused by frivolous appeals - whether they are appeals for cards, corners, penalties, free-kicks etc. - have to be figured out, but outlawing all appeals - whether they are legitimate and with merit or not - is certainly not the best way to handle a complex problem.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Voted yes - Personally I don't agree with it, but the way football is at the moment then it is acceptable unfortunately.

 

Goals not give, leg breaking tackles unpunished, blatent targetting of a player going unpunished, The FA bottling post game punishments, perceived homeism/bigteamism from referees

 

Thats just 5 examples of what goes on in football, from which it is understandable if players have little faith in referees and feel justified in appealing for fouls/cards/corners/throw ins et even if they know the decision should go against what they are claiming for.

 

I'd rather have players making a tit of themselves waving imaginary cards than have a sterile game - hence my vote

[Colocho]

Depends on the situation. If someone's appealing for cards for simple trips left, right and centre, then that's a bit of a twat's thing to do.

 

However, if Kevin Nolan's clean through just outside the area and someone kicks his legs from underneath him then too bloody right I'd want our players to appeal for a red card.

 

This, basically.

[madras]

Paul Scholes tackle today...it wasn't malicious but very late and ultimately very dangerous. Had a free-kick been given but not a card, do those of you who think it's wrong, believe it would have been, to suggest he should have been sent off?

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ?

 

It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid.

why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ?

 

With the exception of rugby, there isn't a sport in the world that the people who play the game leave the referee to decide everything. Tennis, for one, has an appeal system that was only instituted to correct 'wrong' calls that the umpire and line judges make because they wanted to make sure that tennis players won points that they deserved. So now there isn't much appealing to the umpire, they go through the video review process which is much more objective and thus produces a much better outcome.

 

In basketball players appeal all the time, some appeal and complain too much that they get called with technical fouls (they're only allowed two per game - so it's sort of like being given a yellow), but they appeal almost every foul that the refs call. That's because the standard of refereeing is very low and a lot of phantom fouls are given, but players appealing are just a reflection of the standard of refereeing. Basketballers certainly don't let the refs decide then get on with the game. And actually, referees can issue retrospective technical fouls during halfs or after games if they feel it is merited as well. That is certainly a route that football should explore.

 

Baseball is a sport in which there are official ways to appeal, like asking an umpire situated elsewhere to confirm whether you've swung the bat or not, but currently the baseball authorities are planning to implement more video review to eliminate umpire mistakes which have changed the course of many important playoff games over the past years.

 

The NFL has a similar video review option that negates the need to appeal for things, and they have a post-match review process that is very thorough, and this again negates the need to appeal.

 

Again, football can explore this route and at the same time outlaw all appeals. That is certainly something that I believe many people would be for, but the situation we have right now are authorities who don't realise how refereeing mistakes can actually ruin the game and the authorities insist on not instituting video technology to assist referees precisely because they believe it would ruin the game. That means it's necessary for players to appeal for things that they feel they deserve, and I certainly don't see what's so wrong about that. Like I've said before, appealing for yellows and appealing for free-kicks have differences in degrees; they're on the same spectrum. Wherever you draw the line is completely arbitrary and whatever argument you make to defend your position will be invalid.

 

The problem comes from players appealing for yellows for the sake of them benefitting from the yellow, even if the yellow isn't deserved. I'm not sure how we deal with that problem but to outlaw all appeals for yellow cards seems to be like punishing the innocent to make sure that everyone's who guilty is punished as well. I don't think that's the way that football should go.

those appeals are all within the laws of the game, in football there is no rule allowing the player to try and influence the officials, there are rules against it. also all those sports are very stop/start so there is scope to do it without breaking the flow of the game, football isn't. i'd pretty much stop going if after 40 secs the game was pulled back for a foul as it would happen every minute and corners and free kicks to the box would take half an hour to work out

[Taylor Swift]

They are only within the laws of the game because the authorities instituted those rules. Those official appeals didn't exist prior to the rules being instituted. You had to accept whatever call the umpire made on a tennis court but they reached a point where enough was enough with bad calls that influenced big matches so now they have a system that works much better than before and eliminates the need for McEnroe-like 'are you serious?' comments by players. A similar system used in football for certain incidents will eliminate the need for players surrounding refs and trying to bully them into giving decisions as well.

 

I'm not sure why the football authorities can't give out yellow cards retrospectively for diving. Do it a few times/weekend and it's inevitable that diving will become so much rarer within a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why we can't have video technology for goal-line decisions, and I'm not sure why we can't do something like cricket, the NFL or tennis does with their review process for penalties. Say give one review chance to each team to appeal for penalty decisions given against them. The appeal process would be a 4th official in a booth upstairs taking about 30 seconds to one minute to review the decision. It'd eliminate all this needless encircling of the ref after every dodgy penalty decision is given because it'd be up to the 4th official. The time you save there is the time you use to review the decision and we'd actually have penalties being given correctly. If a team successfully appeals then they get one more appeal. If they are unsuccessful then they don't have that chance anymore. Same as in cricket, tennis and the NFL.

 

I know this departs from the main topic about appealing for yellows and reds but like I've said, they're all different things but on the same spectrum. The referees obviously need assistance because their task is difficult. I'm not a big fan of saying 'this ref's shit' because their task is incredibly difficult and they definitely need more assistance that they currently receive. Football currently operates with a system that leaves too much discretion to the ref, who has too many things to control and watch and thus - quite inevitably - fails to do an adequate job. That's why players appeal for decisions, and that's why I think that it isn't wrong.

[madras]

They are only within the laws of the game because the authorities instituted those rules. Those official appeals didn't exist prior to the rules being instituted. You had to accept whatever call the umpire made on a tennis court but they reached a point where enough was enough with bad calls that influenced big matches so now they have a system that works much better than before and eliminates the need for McEnroe-like 'are you serious?' comments by players. A similar system used in football for certain incidents will eliminate the need for players surrounding refs and trying to bully them into giving decisions as well.

 

I'm not sure why the football authorities can't give out yellow cards retrospectively for diving. Do it a few times/weekend and it's inevitable that diving will become so much rarer within a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why we can't have video technology for goal-line decisions, and I'm not sure why we can't do something like cricket, the NFL or tennis does with their review process for penalties. Say give one review chance to each team to appeal for penalty decisions given against them. The appeal process would be a 4th official in a booth upstairs taking about 30 seconds to one minute to review the decision. It'd eliminate all this needless encircling of the ref after every dodgy penalty decision is given because it'd be up to the 4th official. The time you save there is the time you use to review the decision and we'd actually have penalties being given correctly. If a team successfully appeals then they get one more appeal. If they are unsuccessful then they don't have that chance anymore. Same as in cricket, tennis and the NFL.

 

I know this departs from the main topic about appealing for yellows and reds but like I've said, they're all different things but on the same spectrum. The referees obviously need assistance because their task is difficult. I'm not a big fan of saying 'this ref's s***' because their task is incredibly difficult and they definitely need more assistance that they currently receive. Football currently operates with a system that leaves too much discretion to the ref, who has too many things to control and watch and thus - quite inevitably - fails to do an adequate job. That's why players appeal for decisions, and that's why I think that it isn't wrong.

like i say, for penalties, every corner would take half an hours scrutiny.

[Heron]

It's fine the way it is. The only thing that needs changing is dissent. By all means appeal, but don't abuse the referee - address him with Sir and don't swear at him. Players who have actively dived, red cards should be issued. Then leave 'appealing' for decisions alone you fucking bullies.