Each week there seems to be some sort of controversy in the realms of the Premier League, whether it be horror challenges, unsporting behaviour or even on-field conduct, there is always something open for debate come Monday morning. However the recurrence of these issues brings to mind the question, do the punishments fit the crimes?
We all have our opinions on each decision in a game of football, and lets be honest that’s why we love the sport so much, as each weekend can throw something up that will have us talking for the whole week. Whether we are for or against some of the punishments and changes to the rulings of the beautiful game, its hard not to question why incidents just keep on occurring.
The two-footed challenge or ‘lunge’ as it has been dubbed, is one of the latest issues to gain almost daily coverage, with week by week, the consistency of refereeing being questioned. But, maybe it’s not the referee’s fault, maybe, just maybe, it’s the players who are in the wrong. Agree with the rule of not, a challenge using excessive force with two feet off of the ground is a red card offense, so why are players still performing such regularly? Yes for a straight dismissal there is a mandatory three-game ban, pending a review in certain cases, but this isn’t really enough for endangering the safety of an opponent. In certain periods of the season, three games can rule a player out for just one week, meaning that a reckless challenge, endangering the safety of a fellow professional results in just seven or eight days out of action, with no serious financial repercussions. It may be unpopular, but an increase in the period of which a guilty player is forced to spend away from first-team could act as a deterrent, forcing them to question their actions in the future. As well as the injured player suffering, his employers are also left at a disadvantage by having to pay the wages of a employee who is unable to perform, as well as paying for his medical treatment. A possible recovery of wages from the offending player or team would once again be a possible deterrent. This may be controversial, and appear to be a little unfair in some cases, but it would likely have an effect on the way in which players conduct themselves on the field of play.
[ad_pod id=’dfp-mpu’ align=’right’]
A similar style of punishment could be introduced to attempt to eradicate the phenomenon of simulation. There is almost a no risk element to the dive now, with match officials rarely reacting to ‘play acting’ which leaves some individuals free to indulge this ‘skill’ on numerous occasions. If for example a player goes down under minimal to no contact, and it is deemed to a fair challenge, then a yellow card should be brandished. We may see a fair few cautions to begin with and have certain players pleading their innocence, but at the end of the day, they will be unable to afford the consistent card and suspensions received.
Dissent is another aspect that should be met with stricter stance, as after all players are role models to youngsters, and games, more often than not, fall before the watershed, in which such language becomes acceptable. It’s not an uncommon sight to see players swearing, and although this can be tolerated in frustration at themselves, directing a foul mouthed tirade at an official should not be accepted. A system of a warning followed booking should be acted upon more ruthlessly, and would eventually reduce such behaviour. Some referees do practice this method, but acceptance from some leads to persistence from most players.
It’s all open to debate and, most likely, opinions will differ, but such acts are having a negative impact on the way in which the game is played. Stricter punishments may be the answer in removing the ugly aspects of the beautiful game.
Agree or Disagree? Have your say by commenting, or follow @Alex_Hams on Twitter
[ffcvideo file=”tfcb5″ type=”mp4″ image_type=”jpg”]