Le Tissier on the introduction of sin-bins

[Giamlarrahan]

I haven't seen this posted elsewhere but Michel Platini has suggested that he wants to introduce sin-bins to football, replacing yellow cards.

 

I interviewed Le Tiss last night and got his say on the idea:

 

http://winol.co.uk/2013/12/le-tissier-sin-bins-eradicate-cheating-football-7866

[david in sweden]

there really is alot to think about here.

 

Do people get " binned " for a foul.....or a BAD foul......and if so for how long?.......10, 15 mins, 30mins ?

 

will red cards still be applicable for some offences ....and not others?

 

I saw a comment that " red-carding " a goalie ..and then giving a penalty (as well) was a " double-punishment " -which it is of course.

 

AS MLT suggested there is some merit in it, but it will take a lot of consideration if it's to be sensibly (and fairly) applied by referees.

[Wade Garrett]

Platini is a c*nt. Junior Blatter.

[Giamlarrahan]

I think it needs to be for certain offences - sin-binning players for diving would be a good start.

[110_Persaint]

Platini is a c*nt. Junior Blatter.

This.

[Smirking_Saint]

there really is alot to think about here.

 

Do people get " binned " for a foul.....or a BAD foul......and if so for how long?.......10, 15 mins, 30mins ?

 

will red cards still be applicable for some offences ....and not others?

 

I saw a comment that " red-carding " a goalie ..and then giving a penalty (as well) was a " double-punishment " -which it is of course.

 

AS MLT suggested there is some merit in it, but it will take a lot of consideration if it's to be sensibly (and fairly) applied by referees.

 

But of course a penalty and a red card is a double punishment, because thats exactly what it deserves. If I push you over on the way out of the box its a pen but possibly no card.

 

Professional cards and denying a goalscoring opportunity is a red. It should be a red. So I dont see the issue with that particular point.

 

As for sinbins ? No, I just dont get it, Im guessing its to 'fruit' the game up a bit. Other than that I dont get it, missing 10 mins for a third foul etc ?

 

As per diving, it should just be looked at after the games, if it is a dive then its a yellow and IMHO if its a dive in the box that wins a penalty should be a ban. Obviously this only happens if its conclusive

[positivepete]

Blue cards aka sin bins are approved by the FA and used in five a side. It often helps the referee in controlling a game that is threatening to boil over. It does at least mean that the punishment is applied in the match the offence is committed.

[colman1860]

I'm a referee, and spend a lot of time on a refereeing message board on bigsoccer.com, where this was discussed a few days ago. One of the posters, MassachusettsRef, wrote the following, which echoes my views entirely, but is a lot more eloquent than me, and saves me writing an essay. I should point out - it was in response to Platini talking about this(http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25235277), not Le Tissier.

 

Yes, I know, tl;dr.

 

"This is frustrating to read. It shows a complete lack of understanding as to the purpose of cautioning a player. He's basing his reasoning on yellow card accumulation, which is something bureaucrats invented and has--as he implicitly admits--nothing to do with the game. If this is his real concern, then the answer is to get rid of yellow card accumulation penalties. Not that I actually advocate that change wholesale, but accumulation--something invented by the governing bodies--shouldn't be a reason to change how we caution players on the field.

 

A caution, as I was taught long ago, is remedial. It is meant to modify behavior. A send off is punitive. The notion that a caution doesn't "benefit" the opposing team in that game is absurd. It modifies behavior immediately. Or, if it fails to do so, then the player will be sent off soon thereafter and the opposing team will benefit.

 

Why must the opposing team "benefit" in a more tangible way from a caution? Who came up with that idea? We give cautions for a variety of offences. I'm sure some might get on board with the idea that a tactical foul should also have a 10-minute sin binning, because it takes away an attacking chance. But from there it's a slippery slope. Simulation should be a caution and a 10-minute sin bin? Failure to respect the distance should? Dissent?

 

I'd argue that, if this change ever got instituted, it would be a giant step backward for the game. You'd never see anything but clear tactical fouls and obvious reckless fouls getting cautioned. I happened to be watching some video of the other day of some 1970 and 1990 WC matches... the fouls that were allowed to occur without a caution--even by some of the best refs of those eras--were ludicrous. We've come a long way toward cleaning up the game by creating a culture where refs are not afraid to deal appropriately with misconduct. And Platini wants to toss that all away? It's a dumb idea.

 

Not to mention, take a look at rugby and the frequency of yellow cards. Has there ever been a World Cup Rugby match with more than 3 cautions? The average number of cards, I would bet, is below 1.00 per game. There have only been 16 red cards total over seven World Cup Rugby tournaments. Cards do not happen a lot in rugby. They are a much more major event than they are in soccer, which is why their system works. A rare 15 v 14 over an 80 minute game is fine. Anyone want to watch La Liga when each team is playing down a man on 4-5 occasions per match?

 

Perhaps worse, does anyone want to see refs reluctant to give obvious yellow cards because a team is already down a man? Let's say a team loses a player via DOGSO 44 minutes in. Then they pick up a card for a reckless foul to start to the second half. It's 11 v 9 for nine minutes... there will be situations where it's free reign for players to commit misconduct because not many refs are going to want to put a team down 11 v 8 in the middle of the match due to, let's say, a shirt pull. Oh, and you could probably eliminate Persistent Infringement from the Law book because it would never get called again.

 

Just a horrible idea."

[Chewy]

I have long supported the idea of the sin bin, the above response makes little sense to me. The principle of punishing the player in the game where the offence takes place is clearly just. It would be the biggest positive step in dealing with dissent in years, would osvaldo and lambert have got themselves booked on Wednesday if it meant being off the pitch (maybe not the best example as it was the end of the game, but I mean this type of situation)? And how many games see a litany of yellow cards for fouls and time wasting at the end of a game by the team that's winning? It would eradicate these offences because coaches would tell players not to do it - better to keep 11 players on the pitch. I do get that referees might be more reluctant to issue cards, but am not sure that's a bad thing, and is also balanced by the fact that players would be more reluctant to commit the offence in the first place. And it would be the best tool in the box for the 'respect' campaign. Refs are reluctant to deal with dissent by issuing red cards as it's too severe, but giving the yellow an immediate, if lesser, consequence would allow refs to manage and control this far more effectively. Just my opinion.

[Smirking_Saint]

I have long supported the idea of the sin bin, the above response makes little sense to me. The principle of punishing the player in the game where the offence takes place is clearly just. It would be the biggest positive step in dealing with dissent in years, would osvaldo and lambert have got themselves booked on Wednesday if it meant being off the pitch (maybe not the best example as it was the end of the game, but I mean this type of situation)? And how many games see a litany of yellow cards for fouls and time wasting at the end of a game by the team that's winning? It would eradicate these offences because coaches would tell players not to do it - better to keep 11 players on the pitch. I do get that referees might be more reluctant to issue cards, but am not sure that's a bad thing, and is also balanced by the fact that players would be more reluctant to commit the offence in the first place. And it would be the best tool in the box for the 'respect' campaign. Refs are reluctant to deal with dissent by issuing red cards as it's too severe, but giving the yellow an immediate, if lesser, consequence would allow refs to manage and control this far more effectively. Just my opinion.

 

Dissent could be easily eradicated if the governing body just released instructions to keep the offence and card issueing procedure consistant. All they need to say is that the ref is correct and the only man on the field able to converse with the ref on a decisions POV is the captains.

 

Refs will not change their minds no matter how much you berate them on the field and generally they will end up being more punitive to a player giving him '****' then he would a player thats not been as critical of his decisions. Its easy really, if your players pick up yellows everytime they get in the refs face or everytime they go too far in their criticism then it will have the same effect as coaches will tell their players to accept it.

 

Sin bins just arent needed IMO

[colman1860]

Refs are reluctant to deal with dissent by issuing red cards as it's too severe, but giving the yellow an immediate, if lesser, consequence would allow refs to manage and control this far more effectively. Just my opinion.

 

Dissent is a cautionable offense, not dismissable. I think realistically what would happen is we would see even fewer cautions for dissent. Referees wouldn't want to affect the game is such a significant way by issuing cards for something which can often (though not always) be managed without cards. This would lead to dissent becoming an even greater problem.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Sin bins, bigger goals, extra officials, messing about with the offside law ... there is seldom any shortage of suggestions for reforming the game. But a fan has to ask himself sometimes why does the game need reforming?

 

It seems to me Association Football has proved to be hugely successful just as it is thank you very much, and if you want to change it then the onus is very much on you to make a bloody good case as to why that should happen.

 

I've not seen anything so far that persuades me that our game needs a gimmick like 'sin bins' introduced frankly.

[Bearsy]

Professional cards and denying a goalscoring opportunity is a red. It should be a red. So I dont see the issue with that particular point.

 

I don't like it cos games get less interesting contest when player is sent off. I dont think professional foul should be red card, it should be a penalty tho even if it occurs outside the box.

[Smirking_Saint]

I don't like it cos games get less interesting contest when player is sent off. I dont think professional foul should be red card, it should be a penalty tho even if it occurs outside the box.

 

True but it is classed as say Gross misconduct as its blatent cheating basically. I see your point bear, but it is what it is, take the red away and itll happen more often.

 

Also Refs dont want to give pens anyway, noway they'll give one outside the box. Its like when the pundits say that line that annoys me so much 'its definately a foul in the box but not enough for a penalty' ....... Eh ?

[Chewy]

True but it is classed as say Gross misconduct as its blatent cheating basically. I see your point bear, but it is what it is, take the red away and itll happen more often.

 

Also Refs dont want to give pens anyway, noway they'll give one outside the box. Its like when the pundits say that line that annoys me so much 'its definately a foul in the box but not enough for a penalty' ....... Eh ?

 

True, never makes sense to me. Bearsy makes a valid point about not liking ten men, but when it's blatant cheating its fine by me, which is why sin bins for professional fouls that aren't reds seems fair to me, stops cheating. Still, would be difficult to have sin bins for only some kind of yellows. I'd prefer it for all but looks like I'm well in the minority there.

 

Nothing wrong with discussing rule changes though. Many suggestions are daft, but the back-pass rule change has definitely improved the game immeasurably. Remember red star and steaua wining the european cups on pens after playing no football for 120 mins?

[Stoozer]

IMHO, all we really need is consistent refereeing standards and more "clear cut" laws involving the accepted "sins" of the game (shirt pulling, feigning injury, time wasting etc...) that are sometimes punished and sometimes ignored. It would also be useful if there was a method for a referee's decisions to be explained or made public. I like the fact that when watching rugby I can hear what the referee is saying for example.

[david in sweden]

there are many offences that can command a yellow card, some of which really need to be reviewed.

 

Arguing with the ref.....is an obvious one, especially if the player feels harshly treated.

I recall that Anders Svensson (in his Saints' days collected more cards for that than anything.) He's still playing in Sweden and hasn't changed much in that respect.

 

Cautions for "goal celebrations " is something I deplore. It was first introduced because players used it to Advertise a product /service not authorised by the club who had other shirt sponsors, what we have now is a ridiculous situation. I fail to see why players must remove their shirts ?,

.....but at the same time.....does anyone expect the goalscorer to stand and wait for his team mates to come over, shake hands and pat him on the back, and say " well done, old chap?"

IF any of us scored a goal ...in a Prem.game........would we just stand there and take the applause and cheering ? ...I think not. If refs had played the game I'm sure they'd celebrate a goal, too.

 

Seems to me that "shirt stripping " is the very least of the problem for players who get surrounded, jumped on and sometimes even injured by enthusiastic team mates.

 

Several very good points by the ref. on #8, but I can't agree with the comparison with rugby, which is a much more physical game, where bodily contact/tackling is very much harder and denying someone a scoring opportunity is part of the game.

 

Alos the "double punishment " of goalie send-off AND penalty is unfair as looking at the ratio of shots on /off target .....there's no guarantee the striker would have scored, even if he got past the keeper.

[teamsaint]

there are times when the sanctionsa available to the ref are not really right for the offence.

 

Sin bins could , if used properly, be a useful addition to the game.

[Monk]

Horrific idea.

 

Platini & Blatter need shooting.

[badgerx16]

So does that mean a foul in the 89th minute would result in a 1 minute binning, or are 9 minutes carried forward to the next game ?