I am one of those who thinks that a red card can be too harsh, and the rule could be changed.
Giles' suggestions could never work - as somebody suggested, we'd have situations where the keeper would not want to save penalties, or takers didn't want to score.
I don't really agree with arguments that the player's intention is relevant, as that doesn't mean much to the team denied a chance. The chance is gone either way, whether it was a mistimed tackle or a cynical foul.
Imo, the issue is whether the punishment fits the crime. It's not about what a player intended to do, it is a question of whether or not the opportunity denied the attacking team merits a certain punishment.
For me, any obvious goal-scoring opportunity denied by a foul outside the area should be punished by a red card, as the resulting free-kick isn't as a good a chance as the chance the foul denied them. But for fouls where penalties are given, I think that there are situations where the double-whammy of a red card also is too harsh.
The only thing I can think of is to come up with terminology to change (or add to) 'clear goal-scoring opportunity' or whatever the wording is. Perhaps something like 'denying an inevitable goal' being deemed a red-card offense, to cater for the Suarez handball situations or similar.
The argument that 'the players know the rules' is pretty empty by itself too. Players are always aware of the rules, but rules are changed if it is believed a change will improve the game. Offside rules, backpass rule, are examples of this.
Bookmarks