Triple Punishment - penalty, red card & suspension revisited

[Con M]

UEFA's Executive will be putting the so-called "triple punishment" (penalty, red card & suspension for players denying an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the penalty area) back on the agenda for Laws Board I.F.A.B. to reconsider at it's next AGM in early 2014.

UEFA's General Secretary wants that situation sanctioned with a penalty and only a yellow card. He said "we need to resolve the issue of 'triple punishment' once and for all".

I hope UEFA is successful. IMO the original intention of a red card for a defender denying an obvious scoring opportunity was aimed at those who fouled a forward clean through on goal OUTSIDE the area. The yellow card and free-kick that used to be given was considered not enough punishment.

Inside the penalty area a penalty & yellow card suffices.

[Glimt I Øyet]

If it's a red card offense outside the box it should be a red card offense in the box.

[jonnomath]

Can't have different punishments for same offense just because it is in the area... Get rid of penalties altogether... Make them free kicks from where the incident occurred.

If the incident us denying a goal then red card but just a free kick... Problem soldered...

Other option if it is denying a goal scoring opp then simply punish the offence with yellow card as you normally would for a normal free kick and pay the goal...

Only two options I see plausible...

[Another Bodø Alias]

Other option if it is denying a goal scoring opp then simply punish the offence with yellow card as you normally would for a normal free kick and pay the goal...

You can't pay a goal if one isn't scored. Mind you, it didn't stop an Azerbaijani linesman doing it in 1966.

[Con M]

I repeat, IMO the original intention of a red card for a defender denying an obvious scoring opportunity was aimed at those who fouled a forward clean through on goal OUTSIDE the area. The yellow card and free-kick that used to be given was considered not enough punishment.

Inside the penalty area a penalty & yellow card suffices.

[Another Bodø Alias]

Inside/outside should make no difference.

[Con M]

Inside/outside should make no difference.

Well World luminaries like Beckenbauer think so. EUFA think so.

Stand by for vigorous debate at the Law Board's AGM in early 2014.

[Con M]

If it's a red card offense offence outside the box it should be a red card offense offence in the box.

Nope. A good recent example of that being over the top and ruining a game was the Boxing day match between Everton & Sunderland. Tim Howard barely clipped the opponent, yet was sent went off.
Everton conceded the penalty & goal, had to play the rest of the match with 10 men AND Howard will have to serve a suspension.

A yellow card and a penalty would have sufficed. If he had rushed out and clipped him OUTSIDE the area, then he would have had to go because a free-kick & yellow would not have been enough punishment.

[Cloister]

Howard barely clipped the opponent

So he did clip his opponent then.
Offense is the american spelling for offence

[Nice One Cyril]

I repeat, IMO the original intention of a red card for a defender denying an obvious scoring opportunity was aimed at those who fouled a forward clean through on goal OUTSIDE the area. The yellow card and free-kick that used to be given was considered not enough punishment.

Inside the penalty area a penalty & yellow card suffices.

You can repeat yourself all you like, in fact you frequently do, but it shouldn't change anything, there should be a consistent application of the Laws inside or outside of the box.

Where they could improve things is in the further sanction that is applied, as at the moment as far as I'm aware, DOGSO fouls attract a single game ban irrespective of the circumstances. There's a vast difference between a defender hacking someone from behind or virtually jumping on their back and a keeper rushing out who makes a genuine attempt at the ball, but mistimes it slightly. I would have no problem if the keeper didn't get a ban for that, just count it as two yellows towards his season total.

At the core of this though, players have a choice whether to make that last ditch tackle and they know the consequences if they get it wrong. If in doubt, don't make a challenge.

[Con M]

Howard barely clipped the opponent

So he did clip his opponent then.
Offense is the american spelling for offence

Yes he did. But again, the punishment was too harsh under the current DOGSO guidelines. A penalty, a send-off requiring an outfield player subbed-out to put on the reserve 'keeper, and a suspension for Howard.

I recall at the time before DOGSO was introduced that the fans, players & teams were frustrated when a forward clean through on goal was illegally stopped outside the box and it only resulted in free-kick and yellow card for the defender. They wanted red for that and it was introduced.

Fans, players & teams were generally satisfied with a penalty and yellow card if DOGSO occurred inside the box.

IMO there is a fair chance this amendment will get through at IFAB's AGM of the 28th February 2014.

[ozzie owl]

Amazing preventing a goal by handball is red card.

Attempting to score a goal by intentional handball is only a yellow.

[Nice One Cyril]

Amazing preventing a goal by handball is red card.

Attempting to score a goal by intentional handball is only a yellow.

It's not a red because it's handball though, it's because it's an offence that DOGSO. You often see handballs in the box only yellow carded, or sometimes not carded at all (which is strange because intentional handball is supposed to be always a card).

[Get In The Car]

You can repeat yourself all you like, in fact you frequently do

[Randoman]

I don't understand how you're denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity if you concede a penalty - there is still a clear goal scoring opportunity.

[Facts and Stats]

not if you are taking the penalty Rando!