Double punishment is necessary

World Cup knock out game, 2 minutes to go, Danish defender blatantly fouls Rebic who is about to score an open goal. Penalty, no red card, only yellow. Penalty is saved - the defender gets basically rewarded for fouling.

Watch Croatia crash out now on penalties.

This is not ok. People complained about 'double punishment', but just a yellow is too little when you deny a certain goal. Just a yellow, with a penalty being potentially saveable, means blatant goal-denying fouling is rewarding.

Did the rules/standards change? Foul on last man is always a red iirc

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Did the rules/standards change? Foul on last man is always a red iirc

I think they softened it somewhat so that's it not always an automatic red. Still, the Columbian defender got a red, no?

They changed the rule so that if there's a "clear attempt to play the ball" it's a yellow. Which tbh I understand. Stuff like the Suarez handball should always be red but it's harsh to effectively sentence a team to defeat because of one mistaken tackle.

I remembered" no red card, only yellow" for double punishment counted just for GK.
In that case I am totally agree on taking away this rule. Not if defender as today.

Cruijf wrote:They changed the rule so that if there's a "clear attempt to play the ball" it's a yellow. Which tbh I understand. Stuff like the Suarez handball should always be red but it's harsh to effectively sentence a team to defeat because of one mistaken tackle.

Yeah I thought so too. The ref simply got it wrong I guess.

Zanka did hit the ball though

Freeza wrote:Zanka did hit the ball though

pls

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Freeza wrote:Zanka did hit the ball though

pls

Pretty sure he did. Can't find a replay though.

Anyways wouldn't really have mattered in the end. Never liked the double penalty.

No one would have complained if David De Gea had been in goal

Nah, it's not needed.

It means defenders can play with less fear.

But how would a red + penalty have changed the outcome? Denmark would be one man down for what, all of 3 more minutes? It could have made a difference...it probably wouldn't have.

I think you have an overall point though. A yellow + penalty to deny a certain goal is definitely a reward for the defense to perform such an action.

The problem is that a red + a penalty is very very harsh. A fair rule change would be a middle ground between the two, but in football such a thing doesn't exist.

The key, then, is to side with the rule that doesn't completely change the outcome of the match quite so drastically. SURE, the yellow + penalty can reward the defense, but given the high conversion rate of penalties, most of the time the outcome won't change, a goal will still be scored, and the defender on a yellow.

However, a red + penalty essentially ends the game as soon as it occurs, unless that team was already ahead by a goal or two.

I think you make a good case, but I think the rule has been changed for the betterment of the sport.

Hapless_Hans wrote:This is not ok. People complained about 'double punishment', but just a yellow is too little when you deny a certain goal. Just a yellow, with a penalty being potentially saveable, means blatant goal-denying fouling is rewarding.

It isn't, though.

A "blatant goal-denying foul" is still punishable with a red card. If the player makes a deliberate attempt to stop someone from scoring, he'll still be sent off.

Last night, the Danish defender did not make make a blatant goal-denying foul. He made what the ref ruled a genuine attempt to win the ball, and I think his reaction after the foul also shows this.

It can't be a black-and-white thing where every last man foul = red card because not every last man foul is made with the intention of stopping a goal. It was always a harsh punishment for defenders making a last-ditch tackle in an honest attempt to stop an attack.

I get the concern that more subjectivity is exploitable but I can't see any defending team thinking that giving away a penalty is an optimal decision over, say, letting an attacker shoot on goal. They're still relying on luck and the ability of their keeper.

The attacking team still gets the reward of a penalty - that hasn't changed at all. All that's changed is that, in some cases, they won't also get the reward of being a man up, which has far greater consequences for the match. The odds are stacked in their favour for what amounts to a single foul that would only be a yellow card if the defender wasn't last man. Doesn't seem balanced to me.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Did the rules/standards change? Foul on last man is always a red iirc

I think they softened it somewhat so that's it not always an automatic red. Still, the Columbian defender got a red, no?

Ghana got PK and Suarez was shown red for his handball in 2014.

CBarca wrote: The problem is that a red + a penalty is very very harsh. A fair rule change would be a middle ground between the two, but in football such a thing doesn't exist.

Right now with these rules there is a arbitrage of sorts in favour of the defending team. Trying to deny a blatant goal scoring chance inside your penalty area should be a "high risk, high reward"-situation where if you get the ball without fouling the player = High reward but if you foul the player = red + penalty.

Yesterday what happened was a "low risk, high reward"-situation. Rebic would have scored without Zanka fouling, giving a penalty & receiving yellow is much better than letting Croatia score for free. Very low risk involved in order of getting a more favorable situation (empty goal vs penalty).

I think there is a middle ground already; Inaction of a player in those situations. You don't foul the player and you will not receive a red. You will concede a goal but the whole game isn't thrown away.

Yesterday Zanka had to make the tackle; if not, they would have only 3 minutes to get a goal back. But yesterday Zanka was also in a situation where he didn't have to think twice about he's decision, regardless of the outcome he didn't have anything to lose for. Double penalty for me is the best system as it does not favour any of the sides because the defending team has a another option; the option of inaction.

I don't like dp.

should do it so you ask the other team what they want. a pen and no red card. or a red card and no pen.

Was it because it was a handball that the red was shown (in the Colombia v Japan game)? It was in the first 3 minutes and he denied a goal scoring opportunity.

In the Croatia game it was in extra time, the attacked had already gotten past the keeper, and was brought down from the back while attempting to score the goal but only a yellow.

There should just be some consistency or at least some clarity on how these calls should go.

Only reason this thread was created is because Modric missed the penalty. If he scores no one would have complained about the new rule. At least now defenders will try to defend instead of watch Rebic walk the ball in. Prefer to watch matches 11v11. I was rooting for Denmark though.

@Falcao
Sanchez Red Card against Japan is given since Handball isn't a honest attempt to win the ball in football.

nasir6371 wrote:Only reason this thread was created is because Modric missed the penalty. If he scores no one would have complained about the new rule. At least now defenders will try to defend instead of watch Rebic walk the ball in. Prefer to watch matches 11v11. I was rooting for Denmark though.

@Falcao
Sanchez Red Card against Japan is given since Handball isn't a honest attempt to win the ball in football.

What kind of logic is that? That is like saying that people shouldn't talk about let's say school shootings if the shooter misses all of its targets...

You should not reward a team playing the situation badly (i.e. letting a clear scoring chance) in the expense of a team playing the situation greatly (i.e. the team that created the goal scoring chance). Yesterday that happened regardless of the outcome.

TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:

CBarca wrote: The problem is that a red + a penalty is very very harsh. A fair rule change would be a middle ground between the two, but in football such a thing doesn't exist.

Right now with these rules there is a arbitrage of sorts in favour of the defending team. Trying to deny a blatant goal scoring chance inside your penalty area should be a "high risk, high reward"-situation where if you get the ball without fouling the player = High reward but if you foul the player = red + penalty.

Yesterday what happened was a "low risk, high reward"-situation. Rebic would have scored without Zanka fouling, giving a penalty & receiving yellow is much better than letting Croatia score for free. Very low risk involved in order of getting a more favorable situation (empty goal vs penalty).

I think there is a middle ground already; Inaction of a player in those situations. You don't foul the player and you will not receive a red. You will concede a goal but the whole game isn't thrown away.

Yesterday Zanka had to make the tackle; if not, they would have only 3 minutes to get a goal back. But yesterday Zanka was also in a situation where he didn't have to think twice about he's decision, regardless of the outcome he didn't have anything to lose for. Double penalty for me is the best system as it does not favour any of the sides because the defending team has a another option; the option of inaction.

I don't really think what you've written is necessarily wrong. You're forgetting something key here, and so is Hans.

Even if double punishment occurred in this situation, it still would have been worth it for the defender to foul.

So the point of this thread, regarding this situation, is on shaky ground. Suarez denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity in 2010. Literally a shot at the goal that Suarez blocked with his hands. He did that DESPITE the double punishment. So we have to accept that there are simply going to be situations where it is within the interest of a team to take advantage of the rules. We accept this because those situations are really, really rare. Double punishment or not, it's going to happen.

The situation in the Croatia game DID NOT happen because of the rule change. It happened because at the end of the game in a win or go home situation, it is always to the advantage of the defender to gamble and take the penalty instead of an open goal.

CBarca wrote:

TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:

CBarca wrote: The problem is that a red + a penalty is very very harsh. A fair rule change would be a middle ground between the two, but in football such a thing doesn't exist.

Right now with these rules there is a arbitrage of sorts in favour of the defending team. Trying to deny a blatant goal scoring chance inside your penalty area should be a "high risk, high reward"-situation where if you get the ball without fouling the player = High reward but if you foul the player = red + penalty.

Yesterday what happened was a "low risk, high reward"-situation. Rebic would have scored without Zanka fouling, giving a penalty & receiving yellow is much better than letting Croatia score for free. Very low risk involved in order of getting a more favorable situation (empty goal vs penalty).

I think there is a middle ground already; Inaction of a player in those situations. You don't foul the player and you will not receive a red. You will concede a goal but the whole game isn't thrown away.

Yesterday Zanka had to make the tackle; if not, they would have only 3 minutes to get a goal back. But yesterday Zanka was also in a situation where he didn't have to think twice about he's decision, regardless of the outcome he didn't have anything to lose for. Double penalty for me is the best system as it does not favour any of the sides because the defending team has a another option; the option of inaction.

I don't really think what you've written is necessarily wrong. You're forgetting something key here, and so is Hans.

Even if double punishment occurred in this situation, it still would have been worth it for the defender to foul.

So the point of this thread, regarding this situation, is on shaky ground. Suarez denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity in 2010. Literally a shot at the goal that Suarez blocked with his hands. He did that DESPITE the double punishment. So we have to accept that there are simply going to be situations where it is within the interest of a team to take advantage of the rules. We accept this because those situations are really, really rare. Double punishment or not, it's going to happen.

The situation in the Croatia game DID NOT happen because of the rule change. It happened because at the end of the game in a win or go home situation, it is always to the advantage of the defender to gamble and take the penalty instead of an open goal.

The point here is not that particular situation, in that situation yes the tackle would have been made despite double punishment, but it also showed how flawed the rule is.

Yes there are going to be those rare situations where tackles will be should be made ten times out of ten even if the player will be sent off. That is a calculated decision where the defending team knows what price they have to pay. That is how it should be and has been before. But right now you only get a yellow and a chance to save a penalty vs conceding a goal with 99,9% certainty. That is so much in favor of the defending team who for some reason gets a reward for making a mistake.

This is not about the Croatia game. Don't you see how flawed this is if it happens in the 54th minute? Or in that particular game but now Denmark is leading?