Football has one rule which is in need of an overhaul, where the penalty far outweighs the crime.
The double blow of a red card and a penalty for last man challenges, regardless of their severity, is something that needs to be reviewed, and Sunday’s match between Sydney FC and Perth Glory provided a perfect case study as to why.
Perth were a team in control of the match for an hour, then one fairly innocuous incident cost them both a player and, essentially, a goal, changing the entire complexion of the match.
There is no disputing that as the rule stands, it was a red card to Steve Pantelidis.
But it was the kind of challenge that, if it had happened elsewhere on the field, would have been a free kick at best, probably not even a yellow card.
Brett Emerton was in a good position, but was by no means a certainty to score. That does beg the question as to why Pantelidis chose to put his arm across the Sydney player’s body, but it was something so simple, with no harm caused to the opposing player, that completely changed the match.
How do you change the rule to make it fairer? If the last man incident happens inside the box, give a penalty and a yellow card. The penalty is punishment enough for the defending team, and the yellow card a personal punishment for the player.
If the incident occurs outside the box, where it will only be a free kick with a far reduced chance of scoring, then the referee should still issue a red card to prevent this change to the rule being abused by cynical play.
If the challenge in question was worthy of a red card, regardless of its status as a last man challenge, then the referee’s interpretation should be different.
Yes, I am a Perth Glory supporter – but this is an issue affecting football worldwide. The Pantelidis incident is one that I believe makes this rule topical, but it is by no means the only time such a scenario has happened in the world.
This piece is not meant as a discussion on Pantelidis’ challenge as a particular isolated incident, or the relative merits of Sydney or Perth to winning that particular match.
It is an overriding and broader issue which, in this instance, robbed the fans of a chance to see a match reach the natural conclusion it would have over 90 minutes of battle, rather than five seconds of technicality.
Nathan of Perth
Roar Rookie
Upheld after a fashion... Yeeaaaah, some ... interesting reasoning.
Peter Wilson
Roar Guru
The A-League match review panel has upheld the sendings off of Pantelidis and Sigmund and exhonerated Geronimo of diving! Not that it necessarily means the referees got it right and that is the end of the arguments. :)
Beardan
Roar Guru
Your comments have some merit but what if they miss the penalty and the team that commited the foul still has 11 men. Although you make some sense this suggestion would never gain any momentum with FIFA, or more importantly, Craig Foster.
cliffclavin
Guest
i think the system they have in hockey (and ice hockey too) is good where they have a green(?) card which is a five minute sin-bin thing. would be good in football - give the fourth official something to do as well - in terms of monitoring the penalty time
Sleemo
Guest
"The ref...basically decides the game there and then" - disagree. If that's the case why did Australia draw with Ghana 1-1 instead of lose after being down to 10 men for 65 minutes? Shouldn't they have lost? Similarly how did Melbourne Victory hold on to draw 2-2 with the Roar this time last year after being down to 10 men for 89 minutes and 9 men for 50 minutes? Shouldn't they have lost too? Shouldn't the Roar have lost against Adelaide two years ago when up 1-0 at 50 mins and having a man sent off, instead of winning 4-0? Your logic is incredibly wrong. "Two players can commit the same offence and receive vastly different penalties...one gets sent off after 5 minutes and one in injury time" - so you're saying that, for example, an horrific studs-up challenge in the fifth minute shouldn't be punished with a red card, but one in injury time should be? Why? If you commit an offence you should be punished the same, regardless of what time in the game it happens. Again your logic is terrible. If that were the case, look out for all the shocking red-card offences in the first ten minutes of the game because it's "unfair" for a team to be disadvantaged for a longer period when one of their players makes a horrible challenge early in the game. Yeah right. "The Kewell one was early which is why a penalty and a yellow card would have been just." - You obviously don't understand the law. What happened there gave the referee two options - play on or stop the game, award a penalty and send Kewell off. He had absolutely no discretion to caution him instead. It was either a penalty and red card or nothing. No referee at that level is going to make up the rules as they go along just because something happened in the game. If the laws said "a red card offence should be punishable only with a yellow card if it occurs in the first half" or similar, it would be a different story.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Agreed on nothing wrong with the rule as it stands.
Brian
Guest
The Kewell one is why the rule is unjust as Iangou said the ref has 2 options and he basically decides the game there and then. The thing in football is that two players can commit the same offence and receive vastly different penalties. One gets sent off after 5 minutes and one in injury time. The Kewell one was early which is why a penalty and a yellow card would have been just.
Minister for Information for the Democratic People's Republic of Football
Guest
LIKE!!!
Jay
Guest
Nothing wrong with the rule as it stands. I'd like to see more severe penalties for it in general play, not just in relation to last man. The grabbing and holding of players as they get a free run past the opposition player is a blight on the game.
Nathan of Perth
Roar Rookie
Would definitely rather Emmo in a one-on-one with Vuko than ADP at the mark against Vuko. Absolutely profoundly frustrating. And yes, you did, although I imagine the eventually circumstances were rather different to what people had envisioned...
Peter Wilson
Roar Guru
If Pantelidis hadn't fouled him, would you take Emmo one on one with Vukovic or ADP in a penalty against Vuko? A close call and Emmo showed us all a few minutes later how he could beat Vuko one on one and win the game. Its a good rule and I like it, a lot of times you see defenders pull out of a dangerous tackle in the box and allow more shots on target, because the red card is in the back of their minds. Trouble is, Pantelidis doesn't have a "back of the mind". Nathan, commiserations on the loss, I was impressed with Perth and they played very well and possibly deserved at least a point. But I did predict last Friday, didn't I, that Pantelidis or Burns would foul in the box and give away a penalty and at least one of them would be sent off. I also predicted SFC would win 2-1.
Dave
Guest
+1 to most of the comments above. Cynical challenges like this one deserve everything they get. I even think the punishment for cynical challenges stopping obvious counter attacks in the midfield (i.e. not the last man) are not harsh enough. In a tight game with few chances and one team has a 4 on 3 or something only to be hauled down deliberately, sometimes a yellow just doesn't cut it.
Evan Askew
Guest
Too bloody right with the article. It used to be that if you were the last man and you hacked a player who was through you just had a free kick given against you. I remember in the 80's it was a standard tactic for defenders to hack players before they got to the box so it was only a free kick given against the defending team and not a penalty. So the English FA then brought in a rule which provided a red card as the punishment for an illegal tackle or a handball which denied a goal scoring opportunity outside the box, the reasoning that if it occured inside the box then the attacking team were not denied a goalscoring opportunity because they were given a penalty. Pure common sense. But then it was either FIFA or UEFA who changed the rule and made it a red card offence irresepctive of where the infringement occured which to me is a bit retarded as it is a double punishment. I have no love for Pantelides but when he bought down Emerton in the box SYdney FC were given another opportunity to score a goal whicch was probably better than the one they had to begin with. So where is the need for the red card?
John Hunt
Guest
It's a great rule, if we had 10 minute penalties or just a yellow card, there would be more dangerous tackles and less goals scored.
Lincoln9
Roar Rookie
Some interesting responses, thanks! To respond to a couple: "every game could have 10 good goal scoring opportunities spoiled by players shoving attackers onto their backside in full knowledge that they’ll only get a caution." I disagree, as I stated - if they shove the player outside the box, it's still a red card. If it's inside the box and a caution, then it's still a penalty. A caution and free kick isn't harsh enough, I agree. A penalty isn't a 50/50 chance for a goalkeeper by any means. If you think a penalty isn't a deterrent for fouling in general, then that's a completely separate issue. Also - "One wonders if this would be raised if Panta had gone in studs raised & chopped down Emmo causing injury so that he(Emmo) could no longer continue? If we followed this line of thought a referee would have to make decisions on the viciousness of the action". If he chopped down Emerton with studs raised, of course that's different. It's a red card challenge in it's own right. And heaven forbid a referee would have to make a decision on the viciousness of an action - isn't that what they're paid to do on virtually every challenge throughout the match?! I'm choosing not to comment on the implication I look like Pantelidis either :)
Robert
Guest
Harry Kewell's against Ghana was a perfect example of why the rule should change.For a minor offence as a hand ball in the penalty box,australia copped a red card to a player,a penalty and Kewell suspended for the next game.Three penalties for something like that -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Sleemo
Guest
"How do you change the rule to make it fairer? If the last man incident happens inside the box, give a penalty and a yellow card. The penalty is punishment enough for the defending team, and the yellow card a personal punishment for the player. If the incident occurs outside the box, where it will only be a free kick with a far reduced chance of scoring, then the referee should still issue a red card to prevent this change to the rule being abused by cynical play." That's one of the law changes - pretty much word for word - which FIFA are considering implementing shortly. I'm against it personally but it would please a lot of people. Somebody said earlier in this thread that defenders might be willing to take the risk as the goalkeeper would have a 50-50 chance of saving the penalty and the defender would still stay on the park. An exceptionally good keeper might have a 50-50 chance against an exceptionally poor penalty taker, but I'd say this would be rare and a more realistic percentage is 15-85 therefore the threat of conceding a penalty will remain a huge deterrent in itself.
langou
Roar Guru
Just on the Kewel decision. There were only two options 1) no free kick and play continues 2) penalty and red card He wasn't sent off for a "deliberate hand ball in the penalty area" as there is no such thing as a accidental handball. He was sent off because the handball denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Matt F
Roar Guru
One mans "5 seconds of technicality" is another mans "5 seconds of cheating." Nobody forced Pantelidis to make that challenge. He knows it's a red card offence, as it should be, but he did it anyway. You say that this article isn't about the specific challenge but the rule in general but I'm not so sure that this article would exist if Emerton had done this to Pantelidis instead...
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Extremely upset by the Kewell decision ... but that's football - players make mistakes, coaches make mistakes, match officials make mistakes. The ref has to make an instantaneous decision and there is absolutely NOTHING that can ever be done to ensure that every human on earth arrives at the same interpretation of the same observable facts. To this day some say Berisha's penalty was unjust; and some say it was just. Some say Grollo's penalty was just; some say the opposite.