Severity of injuries caused to be taken into account for player suspensions

[dww]

• Bans can be increased or reduced based on several factors
• Yellow card amnesty date also brought forward
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 August 2009 12.22 BST

The Football Association has announced that disciplinary chiefs will be able to take into account the severity of injuries caused by fouls when dealing with red card offences from now on. Bans can now be increased – or reduced – by the regulatory commissions who will "take account of a number of important specified factors including intent, force and injury".

The change follows a number of serious injuries suffered by players in recent seasons where the perpetrators were red-carded and received a standard three-match ban. The Newcastle midfielder Danny Guthrie was one example last season when he broke the leg of Hull's Craig Fagan with a reckless challenge, and Birmingham's Martin Taylor also received a three-game ban for his foul on the Arsenal striker Eduardo da Silva in February 2008.

"Clubs can now seek a reduction in the standard punishment for dismissal offences where they feel the punishment is clearly excessive," read an FA statement. "The standard punishment will remain appropriate in the vast majority of cases as this change will only cater for the truly exceptional cases. It is not intended for this policy to encourage or lead to the systematic, regular review of standard punishments.

"When considering such cases, independent regulatory commissions will take account of a number of important specified factors including intent, force and injury."

Clubs will not be allowed to simultaneously claim for wrongful dismissal and also seek to reduce the sanction as an alternative. Another change will ensure any bans from red cards shown in pre-season friendlies will not apply to competitive first-team games.

The yellow card amnesty cut-off date will also be brought forward to 31 December. Previously, players who collected five yellow cards before the final day in February were given a one-match suspension. This will now only apply if a player reaches five yellow cards before 31 December.

[dww]

Don't really see that this makes a lot of sense. Intent and force seem reasonable if a bit subjective and prone to being subject to the problems of things often looking worse in slow motion, the bit about the level of injury seems to just add an element of complete luck really.

I can't help but feel that this allowing of appeals from standard punishments is going to be abused - I honestly can't think of an instance where it could be argued the punishment should reasonably be reduced for a single offense. I guess there are a lot of instances where losing a player for two yellows for a large part of a match might be deemed sufficient but that hardly seems a "truly exceptional" case.

[Neil Young]

Don't really see that this makes a lot of sense. Intent and force seem reasonable if a bit subjective and prone to being subject to the problems of things often looking worse in slow motion, the bit about the level of injury seems to just add an element of complete luck really.

I can't help but feel that this allowing of appeals from standard punishments is going to be abused - I honestly can't think of an instance where it could be argued the punishment should reasonably be reduced for a single offense. I guess there are a lot of instances where losing a player for two yellows for a large part of a match might be deemed sufficient but that hardly seems a "truly exceptional" case.

I agree, it's nonsense.

The yellow card cutoff is also silly. I don't see why they can't institute a system whereby a yellow card 'expires' after a certain number of games afterwards.

[Mono]

I don't see why they can't institute a system whereby a yellow card 'expires' after a certain number of games afterwards.

I presume you mean if you go like 5 games without a yellow card then the last one expires..... yeah not a bad idea that.

Self-discipline is a skill or attribute of the game that goes mostly unacknowledged. That would be one way of capturing it.

[Matt]

Complicating the rules again.

Why the hell do the FA feel like they have to keep meddling? In the most severe cases bans already extend beyond 3 games.

[DannyMan2006]

I think it's a great idea if used correctly. My only worry is that it will not turn out to be a fair system. I feel there will be a lot of random decisions.

[Darkon]

The idea is good, but how do you control it?

Clubs can make injuries seem worse than they are giving a longer ban and then having a very fast recovery all of a sudden.

There is already a system for longer bans, perhaps that just needs to be adjusted a bit instead.

[dww]

I don't see why people think it is a good idea. A horrific tackle is a horrific tackle whether or not the player tackled has their leg planted in such a way that it gets broken.

[Vermilion]

I don't see why people think it is a good idea. A horrific tackle is a horrific tackle whether or not the player tackled has their leg planted in such a way that it gets broken.

Exactly, base it on the tackle not the injury ffs, if a player makes a reckless malicious tackle then by all means increase the ban to 5-6 games or whatever, but basing it on how long the injured player is out is just down to luck.

If Gerrard tackles some fringe player of Fergusons that results in a minor injury, Fergie would have that player out injured for ages if he thought it would deny us our Captain for longer, it's open to calculated abuse.

[Parm]

Don't really see that this makes a lot of sense. Intent and force seem reasonable if a bit subjective and prone to being subject to the problems of things often looking worse in slow motion, the bit about the level of injury seems to just add an element of complete luck really.

I can't help but feel that this allowing of appeals from standard punishments is going to be abused - I honestly can't think of an instance where it could be argued the punishment should reasonably be reduced for a single offense. I guess there are a lot of instances where losing a player for two yellows for a large part of a match might be deemed sufficient but that hardly seems a "truly exceptional" case.

totally agree with you mate, not sure how they will be able to judge how one tackle is worse than another

[Neil Young]

I presume you mean if you go like 5 games without a yellow card then the last one expires..... yeah not a bad idea that.

Self-discipline is a skill or attribute of the game that goes mostly unacknowledged. That would be one way of capturing it.

That's a nice way of expressing it.

[Neil Young]

I don't see why people think it is a good idea. A horrific tackle is a horrific tackle whether or not the player tackled has their leg planted in such a way that it gets broken.

That's the heart of the matter.

[Exiled_red]

I don't see why people think it is a good idea. A horrific tackle is a horrific tackle whether or not the player tackled has their leg planted in such a way that it gets broken.

I think they should just consider the challenge itself not the injury, a player could be more badly injured because of a previous injury in the same part of the body that doesn't make the challenge any worse than on someone who doesn't get as badly injured. That's if they are going to give extended bans at all I can see the reasoning behind the idea but I can just see it leading to more controvercy, who decides which challenge is worse, how do you distinguish between a 3 game ban challenge and a 4 game ban challenge. I can see this leading to all kinds of additional problems.