*************
It came as no surprise to me to see that my main man Paul Gardner, author of "Soccer-The Simplest Game" and other books on the game of soccer, is criticizing soccer's red card in his article "No More Simply Red" on pages 14-15 in the July 2004 issue of World Soccer magazine. But I was surprised to see a list of five recommend changes to consider, either together or individually, in the same "let's throw a few ideas up against the wall and see what sticks" format which I prefer.
And I was was totally amazed to read that Mr. Gardner wants to soften the impact of the crimson card, so that it doesn't devalue the match from an entertainment point of view. Following is a scan of Paul's ideas:
Image Credit: World Soccer magazine, June 2004, page 15, from article by Paul Gardner entitled "No More Simply Red"
Now here's my quick and dirty response to Mr. Gardner's ideas:
#1 - While my son Marshall agrees with the idea of awarding a PK on a red card, I have watched so many games at the club and high school level which are officiated with the attitude:
"So long as the score is 0-0, a yellow card will only be assigned in the most absolutely grievous fouls."
So in today's reality of excessive 1-0 and 0-0 matches, this is simply so severe that it would further discourage the referee from assigning not only red cards, and would even discourage the assigning of yellow cards. However, open up the game to 5-3 scoring levels, and the PK for a red card idea might have merit. And if you disagree that the yellow card is often withheld excessively, click here to get an expanded education on that subject.
#2 - What's the logic behind this one? Hey, I live in Texas where games are often played in 90 plus degree heat. So a tired player who gets a red card at minute 75 as a result of a bad decision which accompanies dehydration doesn't deserve to be replaced, but at minute 15 it's OK to replace a ruffian who, being of sound mind and body, decides that it's more effective for the long term to block a shot by running straight through his or her opponent instead of simply putting a foot out to block the shot. I don't agree with this! Also at play up in my cranium is the knowledge that different penalties for different periods makes for strategic implications to rules. If rules were in place to soften the impact of the red card in the first half of a match, I can promise you that I wouldn't be the only coach or team mate or soccer parent who says to a player:
"If you're going to issue an 'attitude adjustment' in response to nasty or even brutal play by your opponent, make sure that you do it in the first half, when there's a reasonable chance that you'd be replaced by another player for the rest of the game."
Obviously, I'm against the introduction of this additional strategic consideration into the game of soccer. Make it the same penalty throughout the entire match.
#3 - Only one red card replacement...sounds OK to me.
#4 - Again, I live in Texas where games are often played in 90 plus degree heat. I'm not gonna stand by and let anyone sneak a change into the laws of the game of soccer which reduces substitution of players. I am standing up for the player here, and you need only read my pages "Sub_Email" and "Ultimate Advantage" for clarification as to what's going on between my ears on this one.
#5 - Clearly, this is a concession which must be made in order to win the support of the officiating community. It is what it is, and I fully understand it, as I've had to throw in this little caveat a few times myself.
Personally, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Gardner on his ascension from soccer critic and teacher to soccer innovator.
You'd have to see a few of the e-mails which I receive to understand that today's attitude towards soccer enhancements is as follows:
"...you have the right to criticize but how dare you recommend changes to the sacred laws of the soccer, you ignorant #@%#*..."
So it takes guts for Paul to present real changes to the game, as he has a reputation to consider, and a good job in the sport which offers both prestige and no doubt a little coin as well. Contrast this to my reality, a mere soccer dad with absolutely nothing at stake, working from the comfort of what my good buddy and soccer dad extraordinaire Gary Maxwell calls "a virtual spider hole." Hey, I'm free to present even the most half baked notions, and if they happen to offend the delicate sensitivities of the world's soccer purists...then it's a perk.
Looking at Mr. Gardner's list of 5 recommended changes, it's clear to me that these changes should be the exception and not the rule. In other words, it might be OK to use them in tournament play, but not league play, and definitely not in international friendly play. Why? Because I think the red card isn't penal enough, and I'm not interested in seeing it's impact softened at a time when it seems that the majority of the soccer world is looking for any excuse not to pull it. Pass your mouse over the following image for an example of what I mean, and have the volume of your speakers turned up so you too can retch as the commentator questions the validity of the referee's ruling.
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
Image Credit: Fox Sports World, America's Soccer Channel
And you can save your e-mails which attempt to educate me that the above ruling must be considered in the context of that moment's reality. True, that was the second red card of the match for the poor boys from Team Lille, who were down 0-1 at the time with just a few minutes to go. Look people, no doubt I'm spoiled, but if professional soccer is going to succeed here in America, there must be consistency in the officiating throughout the match, with none of these discussions about:
"...the ref should let them play through almost any foul EARLY in the match, so long as no one is really injured."
or my personal favorite ration of hogwash:
"...the ref should let them play LATE in the match, if the match is tied at the time, and of course, so long as no one is really injured by the foul."
Bottom line, one shouldn't need to actually hear the pop of the ACL tearing to determine if a red card is justified on the above video.
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
Oh yeah, before you move on, pass your mouse over the image box at right to kick off a video of some action which features England defender John Terry. Now, as you listen to the commentator's chastising of the official for assessing the yellow card, ask yourself what could the referee tell Terry that he hasn't been told before. Terry is facing the approaching striker, so he has a clear view of him, and makes the decision to do what is required to stop the attack, even if that means picking up a yellow card. I mean, this is why John Terry is Chelsea's captain, and it's finely honed instincts like these which have enabled Chelsea to go undefeated at home for the whole 2005-06 season. Oh yeah, keep in mind that Terry was awarded "FIFA Man of the Match" for his effort against Ecuador, even after picking up a yellow card (which easily could have been a red!) in the matches 18th minute. That is remarkable! Note that the BBC's match recap doesn't back it up, making it sound like Terry was very close to being "goat of the match" more than once during this incredibly important match.
For further proof that a yellow card scarcely slows down a professional soccer player today, give the following video your undivided attention:
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
It seems to me that playing with a yellow card in no way affected the decisions made by the players, and I'll bet that a case could be made quite easily that assessing a yellow card is an even tougher job for the referee if the player already has a yellow card.
Being the casual sports fan that I am, I can't help but ask myself how similar situations are handled in other sports. The sport of hockey compares most directly to soccer, so let's look over the following article which describes "the wages of sin" after a Dallas Stars player is carded for practicing dentistry on the ice by removing the front teeth of an opponent without the benefit of anesthesia. Ouch!
What you're looking for there is "The Ducks scored twice on the ensuing five-minute power play...". In hockey, you'd better pay attention to the match if you're down a man. In soccer, it's hardly worth mentioning if a player spends 5 minutes on the sidelines walking off the pain of an excessive tackle.
But enough of that. OK, imagine if you will what would happen if soccer was played at such a brutal level that spectators realized that at least 2 players on each team should have been given red cards...by half time. Thanks to the wonder of cable TV, imagination isn't required to view such a ruffian reality. Anyone who has watched more than one match of the Brazilian Professional League Soccer has no doubt contemplated the inadequacies of soccer's red card rule, and the implications of watching not only 10 v. 11, but 10 v. 10 and even 9 v. 9! I watch the replays of the fouls and observe the skill and cleverness with which they are executed by the Brazilian league players, and it's like watching that creature in the Alien movies...I'm amazed and appalled at the same time.
So naturally I'm going to add to Mr. Gardner's little red card enhancement list, but first I'd like to present the simplest and most obvious suggestion which absolutely stays true to the spirit of the old rules, while improving upon them:
"When a red-card is given to a player on team A, the choice is given to team B as to exactly which team A player must leave the field for the rest of that game, and the next game suspension, unless that next game is in international play, in which case the original offending player would sit out the international game. But additional penalties, such as money fines or suspensions for more than one game will go to the original offending player who earned the red card. And if team B would rather use that choice to prevent a player from entering that game via substitution and sitting out the next game**, then they have that right, but then team A remains at full strength."
Simple yet effective. This is the bare minimum change if you are really serious about actually cleaning up the game of soccer. Before every game have each team present to the ref a list of the #1, #2, & #3 players of the opposing teams to be removed in the event of red cards. Then watch the game change when a reckless tackle by a marginal player results in that team's playmaker, say their center-mid, having to sit out the remainder of that game and the next game. And I'm aware that it seems like this is moving away from what Mr. Gardner is trying to achieve, but the fact is that I truly believe that cleaner soccer will undoubtedly be more entertaining soccer and even higher scoring soccer. Problem is that today's red card rule isn't harsh enough.
Frankly, I suppose there is a simpler way to handle a red card in professional soccer, one which doesn't include the submission of player lists to the referee. Now understand that I'm not about to let the offending team remain at full strength without paying a price. To my way of thinking, the best way to remove a player's acceleration is to wear out his or her arms and shoulders, and the most equitable and most entertaining exercise which fatigues a players arms and shoulders is the simple pull-up. So, I'd totally support the idea of leaving the offending player on the field, but requiring the entire defensive line (3 or 4 players, depending on formation) to do a certain number of consecutive pull-ups prior to returning to play, and if one of the players can't perform the required number of pull ups, then that player must be substituted with a player who can do the pull-ups, and if the incoming player can't complete the required number of pull-ups, then they must be substituted...with each substitution counting against the substitution limit. Surely the defenders will eventually enjoy say 90% recovery from the added upper body fatigue, but what I'm setting up is a kind of short term 'power play' type condition where one team is at a disadvantage for a few minutes. Oh yeah, let's not forget that within 10 minutes of the start of the team's NEXT match, the team's defenders would be required to do the very same number of consecutive pull ups, with the same consequences if a defender can't complete the required number of consecutive pull-ups...even if the match hasn't yet started. Money penalties, of course, would be the responsibility of the offending player. The only downside to this concept is my fear that on 'highlights' coverage the media will use a totally disproportionate amount of time for the coverage of 'the spectacle of the pull-ups', thereby reducing the time spent showcasing more significant match action, such as after goal dances with the corner flag. Though just a little tongue in cheek, this pullup idea could backfire on me, since it's implementation would not only change the physical requirements of defenders in professional soccer, but night also lessen the strategic implications of the red card. My fear here is that this concept might just re-introduce the 'hardman' back into soccer. Hey, if I was a coach and my defenders could do 40 pull ups once every 45 minutes with very little degradation of their field play, than I'd have little problem if a couple of hardmen on my team abused the opposition's offensive producer, say New England's Twellman or Arsenal's Henry, with the zeal and frequency not seen since the 1970's. Note: I'm NOT in favor of exercises which fatigue the legs for 2 simple reasons:
1. It would encourage running fitness over team strategy practice and skills training. Face it, soccer doesn't need more of that.
2. "Tired legs are easily injured legs", and needless injury only hurts the game.
Next, before I further supplement Mr. Gardner's list, you must understand that there is a school of thought which embraces the belief that if you want higher scoring soccer, then leave the field and goal the same size but simply reduce the number of players on the field to 10 v. 10 or even 9 v. 9. I suppose the logic is that fewer players on the same size field will open the field up and make the double team a lot more difficult. I have personally resisted this for two reasons, with the #2 reason being that in today's world wide soccer downturn which has forced teams to trim personnel cost to the bone in order to survive, I felt that to recommend smaller sides would be the absolute kiss of death for me in the eyes of the American professional soccer players. And while I don't mind if the American Pro soccer players and coaches feel that I'm a weirdo and/or a moron, I don't want them to feel that I'm their enemy. That would be ironic since, while The Buddha suggested that happiness be achieved through clean living and self-denial, all I want for America's soccer stars are all the trappings which accompany being wealthy celebrities, including (but not limited to) opulent cribs, pimped out rides, and Spice Girls.
So, that said, understand that I don't like the following idea, but if fewer players on the field might produce more entertaining and higher scoring soccer, then here goes:
"When a red-card is given to a player on team A, the choice is given to team B as to exactly which team A player must leave the field for the rest of that game, and the next game suspension, unless that next game is in international play, in which case the original offending player would site out the international game. But additional penalties, such as money fines or suspensions for more than one game will go to the original offending player who earned the red card. And if team B would rather use that choice to prevent a player from entering that game via substitution and sitting out the next game, then they have that right, but then team A remains at full strength. Finally, if Team A is required to remove a player, then Team B must also immediately remove a player of their choosing from the field for the remainder of the game."
Total genius...if you feel that smaller sides will produce higher scoring. Offending team A rightfully looses a key player (ouch!), but the game is still balanced because team B sends off their least significant player. Now here comes the strategic aspect to the Kimbrocification of the red card rules...exactly who that 'least significant player' on team B is changes based on whether team B is leading or behind or tied. But just as with my first recommendation, before every game I'd have each team present to the ref a list of the #1, #2, & #3 team A players to be removed in the event of red cards, and also a list of the #1, #2, & #3 team B players which must leave the field as well. Then the coach would have to gamble as to whether they might be ahead or behind if the players were called up. If they are behind, then choosing the team's secondary striker would hurt their chances to mount a come back. Conversely, if they are ahead, then removing the #3 defender might make them vulnerable to attack. And yes, coaches could go to substitutions for adjustments.
But I can hear the commentators discussing the wisdom of putting attacker ________ 'on the bubble' if the team is now behind and needs all the offense they can muster. Conversely, putting defender ________ 'on the bubble' could cost them in any case.
For, just as Manchester United learned in the Spring of 2004, there is simply no such thing as a 'least significant' defender. And now we come to the primary reason why I haven't supported the idea of converting to a 10 v. 10 or a 9 v. 9. The possibility that soccer coaches would feel that more wins would come with the continued employment of defensive oriented formations and strategies. There will still be pin heads out there who will continue to reason that a draw is a reasonable conclusion to a soccer match and that you only need to be up one point to win a match, so what's the point in playing attacking soccer? Such thinking will further the employment of the 4-4-1 formation (in 10 v. 10) instead of the more offensive oriented 3-4-2. Or in a 9 v. 9 game, the coaches would opt for the 3-4-1 formation over the more offensive minded 3-3-2. So long as Italian style soccer is winning soccer, certain coaches will embrace it.
The reason I don't worry so much about this with reduced sides as a results of red cards is that I'm hoping that the confusion and uncertainty resulting from lowering numbers during the game might just favor the offense. And as with any rules changes, they would have to be evaluated in Championship determining conditions, say the semi-finals and finals of important tournaments, in order to be truly tested.
And hey Mr. Gardner, it's so good to see that you're stepping your game up to the next level.
Mike 'Keep It Clean' Kimbro
To return, it's better to hit your BACK ARROW button,
or Visualize Higher Scoring Soccer or Kimbro's Home Page or A Celebration of The Professional Foul
** The thought of exercising the option of forbidding the introduction of a player onto the field is not so bizarre as you might think. I have seen the effect that the second half introduction of a talented player with a fresh set of legs can have on a game. In a recent EPL match between Arsenal and Middlesbrough, Robert Pires was subbed into the match early in the second half, and the explosive runs he was able to make against a battle worn Middlesbrough defense helped facilitate the 4 goals scored after his arrival, providing the real difference in Arsenal's 5-3 victory. You have to be amazed at Arsenal's depth, being able to hold back Pires, one of the game's best midfielders, at a time when superstars Patrick Vieira and Sol Campbell were both sitting out the match due to injury and other commitments. Click here for more on this, my all-time favorite match.
Photo credit: World Soccer Magazine, July 2004 issue, page 57
PS - It's time to consider a case study which illustrates the bigger problem. I know it's hard for many of my to conceive, but what if the coach is has announced to his players that since this is an away match and his team is 3-0-1 against the opponent for the year, winning this single match is not as important as making absolutely sure that the opponent's primary offensive threat is not only held scoreless, but is not allowed to regain his or her confidence. The order is given to constantly frustrate the playmaker or striker with physical play at the very limits of what the referee will allow.
So, you're thinking that this is just too much of a stretch to apply to the real world of professional soccer? Consider the following documenting a month in the life of MLS team FC Dallas:
Now here's the story on Houston's US Open Cup over FC Dallas. Note that Carlos Ruiz picked up a yellow card for diving, and that Houston's defender Eddie Robinson picked up a yellow card for tackling from behind, and also scored the match's winning goal. Also note that Dallas player Marcel Saragoza picked up 2 yellows resulting in a 74th minute ejection.
Now let's jump ahead 10 days for a look at the big confrontation between Ruiz and Robinson:
With Robinson fouling Dallas' highest paid player and key offensive threat twice in a matter of a couple minutes, I'm thinking that this is an instance which firmly backs up the red card rule as it now exists. If Houston's coach had issued the order to shut down and frustrate Ruiz in every fashion possible to the very limits of the sacred rules of the game, which I'll bet did happen, then I'm thinking that the last words the "red card replacement" defender would hear whispered by the head coach would be:
"Remember the game plan, this first red card was part of our strategy to insure that Ruiz leaves this match more frustrated than ever before. Foul him if you need to, but make damn sure that you shut him down! Now don't get a red card, but if you do your job right, and Dallas doesn't start Ruiz in their next MLS match, I'll personally see that you immediately get that big $5,000 salary bump you've been requesting. Now get in there and make it happen."
And how long might we have to wait for a striker regain his scoring touch?
Read this:
Sadly, this isn't some fantasy world that I'm outlining for you. This is professional soccer as we know it, and it's a chess match where the coaches aren't so concerned about the entertainment value of a match as they are planning that this match results in a shutout so they can capture some contrived rivalry cup (Brimstone Cup, etc.) which is meaningless to everyone except the management.
I just don't see keeping the offending TEAM at full strength after a red card as any kind of true solution, so long as a markedly inferior team can almost insure a 1-0 or 1-1 or 0-0 result by simply playing defensively.
** If you are curious how the remainder of that day's NHL matches finished, check out the following:
8 NHL Matches
Average Score:
5.2 - 2.8
Or
8.00 Goals/Match