you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [B] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

It’s not a bad idea in principle, but it’s just another way for officials to make inconsistent decisions.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not really another way though is it? Or rather, or it's not adding more decisions to be made. Previously it was "Do I give this person a a yellow or nothing for saying that to me" and now it's "Do I give this person an orange or nothing for saying that to me".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [B] 1 point 2 years ago

    In that specific situation you almost feel like the hypothetical orange card for a sin bin could work like so:

    • orange, yellow = off
    • yellow, orange = sin bin
    • orange, orange = sin bin
    • and a third orange is always a red

    This way referees who worry about being blamed for "ruining the game" with an early double yellow might punish players/teams where they'd otherwise find any excuse to avoid the second yellow.

    This really would allow for more inconsistent decisions but it would facilitate punishing behaviours that ought to be punished but which routinely go unpunished.

    The rules ("Laws" I know) keep getting written to be more objective, but the pursuit of objectivity is foolish when a lot of the decisions are always going to be subjective. Increasing the level of subjective discretion could actually make refs feel empowered to make calls they're otherwise hesitant to make because everything is so binary and clashes with the human element. Or it might not, but the situation now definitely needs fixing somehow... all that can go wrong is a different wrong.

  • source
  • parent