Blue cards or blue in the face: does football have a discipline problem?

A proposal for blue cards and sin bins in professional football has added more fuel to the argument to tackle football’s discipline problem (yes, it has one). As from 1st July 2024, ‘temporary dismissals (sin bins) for all or some cautionable (YC) offences are an option in youth, veterans, disability and grassroots football competitions.’ This comes from football’s lawmakers, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), revised Guidelines for Temporary Dismissals (sin bins).

 

With player behaviour more and more of a talking point, will blue cards improve player behaviour or complicate the decision-making process?

 

Blue cards or blue in the face: does football have a discipline problem?

 

How did we get here?

 

Yellow and red cards were first trialled at the 1970 World Cup in Mexico. Why? To communicate decisions to spectators, media and TV viewers. It was a proposed solution to confusion-related incidents. One very notably game was the quarterfinal between England and Argentina in the 1966 World Cup. The official cautioned both Bobby and Jack Charlton as well as dismissing Argentinian captain Antonio Rattin, for using threatening language. However, the match was nearly abandoned due to widespread confusion as to what was going on. The cards at the 1970 World Cup were deemed a success and were rolled out.

 

Fast forward to 2016-17 season and sin bin trials at grassroots levels in England were introduced to improve player discipline. The implementation of sin bins focuses on two unacceptable traits: disrespect towards referees and tactical infractions e.g., a defensive player deliberately trips or tugs an attacker to thwart a counterattack.

 

 

The sin bin trials in England were a success, showing a 38% reduction in dissent with the majority of players, coaches and referees wanting sin bins to continue. From the 2019-20 season all levels of grassroots football in England introduced temporary dismissals, also referred to as sin bins. Any player committing dissent will be temporarily removed from the field for 10 minutes. The graphic above shows the results of the first and expanded trials and how sin bins work alongside the yellow and red cards.

 

Though it might take some time before top-tier competitions use sin bins, it has been reported that the men’s and women’s 2024-25 FA Cups may be the first competitions at professional level to trial sin bins. In November 2023, the IFAB announced plans to trial sin bins in further leagues. In February 2024, plans to introduce blue cards and a 10-minute sin bin in the professional game for dissent and tactical fouls were announced. After some (typical) knee-jerk criticism from high profiles in the game, the FIFA President ruled out blue cards in elite football.

 

 

Are blue cards doomed?

 

Despite the knee jerk reaction of the FIFA President ruling out blue cards (sin bins) in elite football, there is still support. Chief executive of IFAB, Lukas Brud, said, “Players may not worry so much about getting a yellow card for saying something inappropriate to a referee, but it can make a big difference if they know it means a tenth of the match off the pitch.’

 

He also adds that, ‘Players approaching in an aggressive manner simply cannot be tolerated any longer. We have even seen on a number of occasions where players deliberately go behind a referee with others coming in front of him so he cannot get away.’ Brud also points to keen ambition growing in many stakeholders to improve player behaviour. An often talked about option is that only captains can speak to the referee in a fair way, citing that it has worked well in other sports such as rugby and basketball.

 

With successful trials involving sin bins and support from key stakeholders including key decision makers in the IFAB, the debate whether blue cards and/or sin bins will be used to tackle poor player discipline will continue for some time. This article is split into three sections. The first section looks at player behaviour and why blue cards are needed in football. Section two explores responsibilities for improving the image of the game. Finally, proposed solutions to improve behaviour in. This article is about a 20-minute read.

 

 

Why are blue cards needed in football?

 

In short, to improve player behaviour. More specifically, player behaviour towards referees. For the 2021-22 season, the FA issued 380 bans for grassroots match official attacks.

 

 

As illustrated from the graphic above, referee abuse in England is simply unacceptable. In 2023, the FA published its first Annual Grassroots Disciplinary Review showing the level of abuse referees receive in England at grassroots level. The above stats are shocking, all of them; but two stand out. Firstly, that 40% of referee members say abuse is worse than five years. Secondly, that the number of serious offences against a match official is up from the previous year. These are two trends that cannot be ignored.

 

Whilst these statistics highlight the abuse referees receive in England collectively, for anyone who has read, and/or seen, an official receive abuse individually, it is even more shocking. From an U12’s game: “A parent ran on in my face threatening me. A manager threw a flag at me. Another parent said he’d smash my face and wait for me in the carpark.” This is simply unacceptable. It is also important to remember that match officials work to ensure fair competition in accordance with sport laws and are essential to the provision of sporting competition.

 

Advocates for the respect of referees, like Ant Canavan and Patrick Skene, are calling on the football authorities to stamp this out. In order to highlight the seriousness of abuse football referees receive in England, they ask the football authorities: are they proud that they encourage and promote (referee) child abuse? They go on to say that when a child referee is threatened to be burned alive, the act is criminal and serious action is warranted.

 

Football is not alone. Referee abuse in team sport is so prominent it has sparked an increase in scholarly research as well as given its own acronym: match official abuse (MOA). A meta-analysis of sixty studies from 1999 and 2022 show that MOA has an impact on individuals at all levels of competition and may have a negative impact on officials’ health and performance. It is documented that amateur referees get more abuse.

 

Recent research focusing on physical and nonphysical abuse on football referees show both forms of abuse have an adverse effect on well-being, with nonphysical abuse directly associated with a reduction in well-being. Furthermore, results showed a decline in well-being brought on by referees’ intention to quit. A worrying finding was that referees who experience abuse but have no intention to quite have a reduced well-being. Thus, referees will tolerate abuse at the expense of their own well-being.

 

 

What is being done about referee abuse?

 

As mentioned earlier, in England, sin bins are mandatory for all leagues at step 7 and below. Whilst showing that sin bins helped reduce abuse towards referees by 38% since 2019, research has shown referees believe abuse is worse than it was 5 years ago. Furthermore, the FA’s Annual Grassroots Disciplinary Review in 2023, showed that serious offences had increased. So, despite the somewhat positive impact sin bins have had, more is needed to combat abuse towards match officials.

 

In 2022’s annual general meeting, the IFAB approved football referees to wear body cameras (bodycams) in order to enhance player and coach conduct during games. After a successful first trial that saw zero incidents of abuse across 500 games, the FA decided to expand the trial to encompass eight county associations in 2024. Ref Support UK is a charity that has long advocated for referees to wear bodycams, lobbying the FA and IFAB to implement this trial for some time.

 

With bodycams showing promising results, they appear a crucial tool for stopping/reducing despicable acts in the amateur game. The bodycams do not record the whole game, instead, they capture the previous 30 seconds of footage once the official presses a button, transmitting the video to the FA automatically. Optimism awaits for the results of the expanded trials.

 

The FA’s head of refereeing noted, ‘The players and coaches involved in the trial have said the mere presence of a bodycam has made them rethink their behaviour before saying something or acting in an inappropriate way towards a match official.’ As well as referees feeling safer, players and coaches are experiencing more enjoyment when they play the game. Bodycams are an absolute must for all referees. The fact an adult’s behaviour, i.e., abusing a referee, will be caught on camera is a strong deterrent. Would they [abuser] want their bosses to see them acting that way? Would they want their neighbours seeing them act that way? The answer in nearly all cases is no. They would be ashamed, and there would be consequences.

 

 

So, what else is being done by the footballing authorities? In the professional game, referees were given a directive to clamp down on abusive behaviour. Over the first four months of the 2023-24 season, dissent-related bookings increased by 88%, which resulted in a 37% decrease in player incidents involving referees and a 47% decrease in mass confrontations . At the top end of English football, the number of yellow cards issued for dissent in the Premier League has more than tripled. The numbers are even more striking in the Premier League. In November 2023, Brighton captain Lewis Dunk became the first Premier League player to receive a straight red card for swearing at a referee in over ten years.

 

Despite footballing authorities attempting to clamp down on poor player behaviour, is it enough? Is handing out three times as many yellow cards to dissent offenders really tackling referee abuse? Are blue cards needed after all? Well, with the traditional red-yellow card system appearing to deter dissenters to some degree, perhaps it is more about the implementation rather than the two-card system. It is clear more needs to be done in the amateur and professional game to stop abuse.

 

 

Should blue cards be used for coaches/managers instead?

 

In the heat of a match, managers often let their emotions spill over. Up until 2019, coaches were exempt from the same public punishments of yellow and red cards. Instead, they receive a verbal caution or get sent to the stands. In 2018, the IFAB trialled cards in the Football League with the following season seeing Premier League managers eligible to receive yellow and/or red cards.

 

Acts that show “a lack of respect for the game” are worthy of a yellow card, such as sarcastically clapping; petulantly kicking a water bottle; or “persistently” leaving their team’s dugout. Any behaviour that might be considered “provocative or inflammatory” is grounds for a red card. Prior to the 2023-24 season, IFAB unveiled a new set of sanctions that would result in a booking for the offending party with the Premier League doing something similar called the participant and fan behaviour charter. Referees’ chief Howard Webb explained, “We have too often confused unacceptable behaviour as passion. We’ve turned a blind eye or a deaf ear.”

 

So, have the yellow and red cards improved coaches/managers’ behaviour towards official?

 

 

Doesn’t look like it.

 

As noted above, the 2023-24 season saw an increase in sanctions that managers could be booked for. So, on the one hand, you would expect an increase as managers were not being punished. However, on the other hand, managers have had a couple of seasons to improve conduct towards officials, so may have actually improved behaviour in comparison to previous seasons – without the data, it is hard to say. For the 2023-24 season, football365 listed every card each Premier League manager received and the reason for it. Well not every manager, Rob Edwards (Luton Town) was the only manager not to be shown a card – bravo Mr Edwards.

 

Interestingly, 11 Premier League managers were shown two yellow cards. Why is this interesting? Well, if a manager receives three, they are suspended for one game. So, despite the not so encouraging results, the deterrent of a match ban was enough for the managers on two cards to hold it together, i.e., show more respect to officials. Also, in the previous season there were six red cards shown with only one red card in the 2023-24 season which was given to that Vincent Company (Burnley). A sign that the two-card system is working perhaps…? Well, the amended laws also stated that a manager could not watch the rest of the match from the stands if they were sent off during a game, whether it was for two yellow cards or a straight red.

 

Blue cards or should yellow and red cards stick?

 

What can we deduce from the two-card system to improve a manager’s behaviour towards officials? Firstly, the behaviour is not acceptable and there is effort by lawmakers to improve this. Secondly, whilst some punishment may appear a deterrent, more and stronger deterrents are needed to improve manager behaviour. A top-down approach is needed to tackle poor behaviour from Premier League managers. It could be argued that it is easier to reign in the manager’s behaviour as there are far fewer of them than players.

 

Another notable point to highlight during this period has been the introduction of VAR. There are some suggestions that VAR appears to encourage dissent towards officials at the elite end of the game. Managers tend to be older, having greater experience in the game, however, in the game of 5, 10, 20 years ago conduct and social expectations were different. They may also believe it to be an acceptable part of the game, and/or that such behaviour helped them achieve where they got to.

 

It must be noted that both these points do not excuse any abuse towards match officials but does show the extent to which the FA and IFAB have to improve. Whether the media is to blame or not, it seems there has never been a harder job for the fourth official. You get the impression many people are genuinely unaware that the fourth official’s main responsibility is not to serve as a “buffer.” A fourth official is not a buffer and abuse cannot be accepted as part of the job.

 

 

How does football deal with its discipline problems?

 

Referee abuse cannot continue, and further action is simply needed.

 

 

Solution 1: PUNISHMENTS need to be a stronger deterrent

 

Punishment and stronger deterrent in football do work. We have seen this illustrated throughout the article in terms of sin bins, bodycams and cards for managers having an impact. Further evidence of stronger punishments working in football is in UEFA competitions. Players, and particularly managers, behave differently in UEFA competitions such as the Champions League, Europe League and, now, the Conference League compared to the Premier League.

 

Former Premier League referee Steve Bennett states that, “It comes down to the punishment… They (managers and coaches) don’t take any risks because they know UEFA will be strong.” Bennett adds that it may be easier for UEFA than national associations who are trying to please the ones they are actually sanctioning, whereas UEFA is neutral. For the 2023-24 season, the FA is to hand out harsher penalties, including fines and touchline bans, for managers who directly criticise referees in interviews following games.

 

In the 2023/24 English Premier League (EPL) a player is suspended for one match for receiving five yellow cards in the first 19 matches. A player is suspended for two matches for receiving 10 yellow cards before/including the 32nd game. In EURO 2024, if a player picks up two yellow cards in 5 matches (up to quarter finals), a player is suspended for one match.

 

 

As shown in the table above, in the EPL, a player can be booked in 26.3% of games played before being suspended, increasing to 31.3% for 10 yellow cards. In the EUROS, a player can be booked in 40% of their games before being suspended for one match.

 

Thus, UEFA tolerates yellow cards (poor player behaviour) less than the FA (and most other national governing bodies). Another way to say this, is that the EPL’s threshold for suspension is one yellow card for every 3.8 games played, and every 3.2 games (for 10 yellow cards). The threshold for suspension in EURO Championship is one yellow card for every 2.5 games played.

 

However, it must be noted that whilst UEFA do have stronger punishments, the nature of knockout tournament football carries greater deterrents, especially for players. Missing a knockout game is far more punishing than missing yet another league game. Firstly, there is no guarantee of another match afterwards (their team has to win) whereas all league fixtures need to be completed. Second, missing a match in the EUROs is equivalent to missing 14.2% of the tournament (1 out of 7), compared to only missing 2.6% of the league (1 out of 38). For reference, being suspended for 14.2% of the EPL season equates to 5.4 games.

 

Whilst harsher punishments such as longer bans, more touchline bans and bigger fines have some impact, more immediate punishments are seen to be a solution. One suggestion made during a talkSPORT debate on harsher sanctions for managers who misbehave was to sacrifice a player every time a manager sees red. The idea divided opinions. Former Liverpool midfielder Murphy was in favour, saying , “Some of these ideas are preposterous at times but this one really isn’t because it impacts the game there and then, it punished the behaviour and it would nip it in the bud. I think if you brought that rule in overnight, managers’ behaviour would change more dramatically than anything else you’ve seen in football”.

 

Other more severe punishments such as any abuse towards referees reported to their employees would no doubt see in a change overnight.

 

Solution 2: Change the CULTURE of football (heading 4)

 

Stop making referees scapegoats (heading 5)

 

Football players, coaches and fans have always favoured pointing the finger at the referee to assign blame. Even opposing fans will put their battle swords down to agree on one thing: the referee was biased against their team. Why does this blame game exist?

 

Firstly, for protection. Managers and players – often being paid millions – disguising their own failings and shifting the blame to the most vulnerable person. Fans failing to hold their coach accountable for every poor tactical choice made or every mistake players make that results in a goal given up. Referee decisions must be always respected and managers and players playing the blame game must be taken as shifting the blame from themselves and nothing else.

 

Secondly, football’s obsession with ‘perfect’ refereeing. Mistakes are part of life. And mistakes are part of football. Yet, no matter what, no team will ever be entirely content with the decisions made by the referees. Even IFAB’s acknowledges that the Laws of the Game are ‘subjective’ and ‘some decisions will inevitably be wrong’.

 

 

Yes, VAR has heightened the debate on referee decisions, especially those that have an impact on the game. With the recent vote to scrap VAR in the Premier League turned down, it appears the unbreakable marriage of football and VAR is here to stay. It is not helpful to frame decisions in terms of blame when media pundits obsess over slow motion replays of decisions that may have been made incorrectly but were very difficult to make in real time due to physiological and psychological pressures.

 

Whilst technology has certainly added heat to refereeing decisions, equally it will help shift the blame back to the players and coaches. With data far more prevalent in football, statistics such as expected goals (xG), expected assists (xA) and expected passing % (xP), the real reason(s) why a team failed to outscore their opponents (objective of the game) will come to light. Journalists, pundits and fans can start to ask questions why a player in the 39th minute passed to X instead of Y who had a better expected goal. Or look at the team’s quality of chances created.

 

Change the red card narrative

 

It is true that red cards impact games. A sending-off is said to ‘ruin the game’ because it forces one team to try desperately to waste time. Research estimating the effect of the red card has shown that when a team receives a red card, its scoring intensity decreases by 33% to what it was before the sending off. Conversely, the scoring intensity of the opposing team (the team with one more player) increases by 25% after the sending off.

 

Does this mean less goals are scored after a sending off? Yes and no. The same research concluded that when a weaker team receives a red card, the expected number of goals can either increase or remain the same. Alternatively, when a stronger team receives a red card, the expected number of goals decreases. Thus, a red card doesn’t necessary mean less goals, on the contrary, it means more goals.

 

But what exactly does ‘ruin the game’ mean? In the first instance, it could mean more time wasting. However, since 2023, the EPL is far stricter on time wasting, with significant amounts of added time given. So, whilst time wasting remains an issue (see Stop Clock in Football: Is it time?), the majority of time wasted is now added on. Secondly, it could mean fewer goals and therefore, less entertainment. However, we have seen from the above research this is not necessarily the case. Also, with football being such a low-scoring game, perhaps chances created, or proximity of the ball to the opponent’s goal would be better measurements.

 

Thirdly, it could mean the punishment is too harsh. The “double jeopardy rule” was implemented in recent seasons to avoid penalizing the same offence twice. However, serious foul play should be sanctioned. Remember, the referee is there to implement the rules when they are broken.

 

 

Fourthly, it could mean the game is less competitive, i.e., a close game is influenced to be less close. There is a saying in sport/life that a good game is a close game. In terms of a red card making a game less competitive, that is sometimes true when a weaker team has received a sending off, and the game was close, either drawing or losing by only a goal. However, there will be times when a red card makes the game more competitive. For example, when a stronger team is leading by a goal or two and receives a red card.

 

The red card narrative of ‘ruining the game’ tends to mean ‘the referee ruined the game’. It is true that the referee issued the red card that may or may not have ‘ruined the game’. But that is different to the ‘referee ruining the game’. Did the referee commit the serious foul? No. Did the referee make the players time waste? No. Did the referee make the players miss their chances? No. Did the referee punish too harshly? No. They are implementing the rules. Did the referee make the match less competitive? Perhaps, but equally it could be more competitive (if a player from a stronger team is sent off).

 

The red card narrative needs to change from ‘[the referee] ruined the game’ to ‘red cards change matches.’ They change the tactical elements of the teams, they change the mindset of teams/players/managers, and they may change the players on the pitch. The narrative also needs to shift to the player who broke the rules and/or endangered another players health.

 

Where do blue cards come into this? Would blue cards (sin bins) ‘ruin’ matches any less? Not sure. It is often said that a team that has a player in the sin bin may choose to be more defensive in this period which is often deemed as boring. During this time too, the team may try to use every trick in the book to waste time. Conversely, it could add excitement to a boring match. The team with one more player might see this as a great time to be more aggressive and actually commit more players going forward, resulting in more chances being created than before.

 

Change the no correlation narrative

 

Have you ever wondered how much influence the Premier League has on a seven-year-old? Whilst sharing his own experience with an U11s team, an X user (formerly known as Twitter) by the name Tim Hardwicke uncovered many other ‘imitated’ behaviours from young footballers. From entering and leaving the pitch to goal celebrations youngsters imitate what they see (see below for more examples).

 

 

According to research, kids who grow up watching well-known athletes cheat utilize the same strategies in school sports. Most parents believe that after watching famous athletes break the rules on TV their kids are motivated to cheat. In a survey of more than 1,000 eight- to sixteen-year-olds found that three-quarters believe that if given the opportunity other teammates would cheat.

 

In a new study, researchers found a link between parents’ sideline conduct and athletes’ behaviours. Children were more likely to emulate parental positive behaviour when observing parents enjoying the game, cheering on teammates and praising good play. However, the more a parent misbehaved—for example unduly critical, doubting the referee or screaming abuse—the more this led to a child’s increase in antisocial behaviour.

 

A primary school headteacher in Essex banned children from playing football for a week amid fears youngsters are copying the ‘theatrics’ of professional players during the World Cup. During break-time kickabouts, schoolchildren have been observed diving, fighting, and taking the game “too seriously.” The headteacher said he wants to encourage students play fairly with morals and sportsmanship. “These are 4 to 11-year-olds who are trying to emulate the older players… This was causing a lot of arguments.”

 

Former Premier League referee Peter Walton believes the actions of elite managers and coaches are inciting players to be more aggressive toward officials. “Reid and the other Forest coaches are leaders – they set the tone for the way their players behave. The message he was sending to Forest’s players was: this is how you treat officials when they make decisions you don’t agree with.” Walton also suggested that VAR has intensified the problem, with abuse growing more commonplace in the division.

 

It is a fallacy to argue that the behaviour of professional players, managers and spectators is not copied by youngsters. The no correlation narrative is actually the causation narrative: poor behaviour by footballers seen by children causes children to use it themselves. Yes, players and managers make mistakes, but when they do, serious consequences should follow. Nearly all professional games in England are littered with player antics trying to swindle the referee and showing blatant disrespect to referees following a decision. A top-down approach addressing poor player behaviour should mostly be used.

 

Solution 3: Update and educate about RULES

 

Write new rules

 

Why write new rules? Firstly, football has evolved. Better pitches, artificial pitches, lighter balls and lighter boots, have all had an influence in speeding up the game. Secondly, players have evolved. Professional fouls, cynical fouls, play acting, diving and challenging a referee’s decision. With many players acting dishonestly, it has made it harder for referees to make the ‘correct’ decision. Thirdly, meanings have evolved. Is an ‘excessive force’ 20 years ago the same ‘excessive force’ nowadays? Fourthly, expectations have evolved. Perfect refereeing, legal challenges, VAR, win-at-all-costs and the amount of money in the game, have all influenced the expectations on a referee.

 

Rightly or wrongly, desirable or undesirable, willingly or unwillingly, football rules need constant monitoring and editing with new rules written to ensure football heads down the right path. But more importantly, to ensure football is enjoyed and played fairly and safely. Yes, some rules need to be written reactively, it is inevitable that at times, things will happen that have not been imagined and will be need discussions afterwards. However, lawmakers need to be more proactive as most scenarios can be envisioned. How can this be achieved?

 

By tackling (no pun intended) the interpretation written in the current rules. When deciding whether a foul is committed, the Laws of the Game state, ‘…in a manner considered by the referee…’. Thus, decisions in football are rarely binary: absolute yes or absolute no. They tend to fall on a continuum. It is not uncommon for any debate on a refereeing decision to end ‘could have gone either way.’ Nevertheless, the referee must make a decision one way or the other.

 

One way to reduce interpretation is to rewrite some rules. But which ones are causing the most disagreement? To achieve this, our VAR and Football article, proposed conducting polls on individual incidents watched by fans, referees, players, etc to consider reactions and assess if the rulebook is fit for purpose. This will show how particular incidents are contested. All such incidents can then be compared to show what percentage of decisions have the most contested interpretation. Below is an example that uses fictitious data.

 

 

To illustrate, imagine a poll stating that 52% believe a penalty should have been awarded. This penalty poll (1) would be placed in the <55% category in the middle. To give another example, let’s say another poll was run (3) and that 78% thought a particular incident was not a foul. This would be placed in the 75-89% category on the right-hand side as indicated in the graph. To note, when a particular incident is deemed to be a foul 48%, then the converse is true it being not a foul would be 52% and be placed in the middle. Thus, all incidents with less than a 5% discrepancy are placed in the middle.

 

The purpose of this research is manyfold. First, to identify how different stakeholders (referees, players etc) agree/disagree with the interpretation of the laws. Second, to identify specific incidents that are more contested than others (as a percentage). Incidents would need to be categorised, for example, aerial challenges, slide tackles etc. Thirdly, how VAR influences decisions. Polls could be further broken down by allowing viewers to see the incident once in real and multiple times in slow motion. Finally, polls could be collected by fans of the two teams playing and neutral fans, thus highlighting the likely bias fans have when discussing refereeing decisions.

 

Importantly, it must be noted that just because 99% people think an incident is a foul, does not necessarily mean it is a foul. However, once the correct decision is determined, the aim of this research is for people, in particular referees, to agree more often, so that there is more consistency when applying the laws of the game. As a result, the lawmakers could then rewrite some of the laws or guidance on these particular incidents to help promote consistent decisions, i.e., making the outside columns higher and the middle columns lower.

 

Educate on subjectivity of rules

 

Education. Education. Education.

 

Interpretation is inevitable. As we have seen, the Laws of the Game have interpretation written in them. Even if one hundred neutral referees present, you won’t get a unanimous decision. Refereeing is a difficult task and some suggest that players who are guilty of abusing referees take a course and spend time officiating a grassroots match. It would allow them to see it from a different perspective and enable them to understand the difficulties associated with refereeing.

 

More research and trials needed

 

Simply put, more research and trials are needed.

 

As we have seen in this article, research has shown the extent of referee abuse, helping uncover the extent of the problem. Trials have shown solutions do exist.

 

Interpretation is inextricably entangled within the laws of the game. However, the IFAB need to be more proactive than reactive. More research is required into scenarios / incidents that provide the most disputed decisions and use the data to reduce such interpretation by referees and fans through the provision of well written rules i.e. minimise the potential for dispute.

 

LEARN

 

From other sports

 

As noted earlier, Chief executive of IFAB, Lukas Brud pointed towards learning from sports. “If only the captain can approach the referee, then afterwards he or she can explain to their team-mates what has happened. This has worked well in other sports such as rugby and basketball.” What football needs to make sure when adapting rules from other sports, or any new rule challenging poor player behaviour is that they follow through.

 

Football authorities need to follow through despite the backlash that they will get. The ‘only-the-captain-can-speak-to-the-referee’ rule is not strictly enforced, consequently players still surround and question a referee’s decision. So perhaps, once rules from other sports have been adapted, footballing authorities need to recognise that’s when the hard work starts.

 

On the topic of learning from rugby, one thing that football must do is broadcast the communication between the video assistant referee and the on-field referee. This will have many benefits. Firstly, educate fans on the rule they believe to have been broken. Secondly, educate fans that subjectivity will play a part, and it is the referee’s decision to make. Other changes to the VAR process are required and can be read in VAR and football: the unbreakable marriage (link https://sportsquabble.com/var-and-football/ ).

 

Conclusion: blue cards or blue in the face?

 

Whether blue cards (sin bins) are introduced into the professional game or not, they alone will not be sufficient to tackle poor behaviour from players and coaches. It will take a collection of initiatives, harsher punishments, further research and trials, and most importantly, it will take time. The disrespect towards referees is so ingrained in the sport it will be met with resistance.

 

The Stat Squabbler says:

1. Current levels of referee abuse are completely unacceptable. Association football authorities are not doing enough to protect referees, thus, failing their duty of care towards individuals.
2. Successful trials need to be celebrated, announced, and rolled out nationally, for example, all referees must be given a bodycam. This is a strong deterrent, with offenders not wanting their poor actions to be caught on camera.
3. Youngsters do copy the poor behaviour they see from professionals. Poor behaviour from players needs a greater top-down approach. Professional footballers make mistakes but the constant abuse evident in every single match player is unwanted, undesirable and damaging the game. It must be stamped out.
4. The process of VAR has to change: the conversation between the video assistant referee and the on-field referee must be broadcast.

 

Do you agree / disagree with the Stat Squabble? Are players, coaches and spectators who abuse referees going to be met with strong sanctions or are we going to be fighting this for years until we are blue in the face?

Comment below. 🙂