Red Card Rule relaxed !! Before we go further into this topic, or for that matter, even start with such a topic, let us go into the depths of what value does the DOGSO hold in football.
Why are fouls made? The answer is simple,because they are aimed at stopping the opposition’s transition to attack, and more often aimed at a particular player very valuable to the opponent.
When such fouls deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity, in short, DOGSO , they are termed PROFESSIONAL Fouls.
Under the Laws of the Game, what constitutes an obvious goal scoring opportunity is left for the referee to decide, however, several criteria are given to help referees decide. Those are; 1. the distance between the offence and the goal, 2. the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball, 3. the direction of the play, 4. the location and the number of defenders. Depending upon these factors,the foul can or cannot be rendered professional.
The ‘triple punishment’ rule, whereby a player concedes a penalty, is sent off for denying a clear scoring chance and serves an automatic suspension. In other words, it is the consequence of the DOGSO.
Many stand against this rule because they feel its too harsh on the player as well as the team to burden the player with three heavy punishments which give the rule its name.
However, the rule isn’t really wrong. The penalty restores the goal scoring opportunity while the red card is supposed to provide the disincentive. If this rule is removed, then it makes sense for the player to foul and concede the penalty as it might give their side more of a chance of preventing the goal than they would have had in open play.
In other words, calling off the rule would only encourage the defender for committing more fouls, because from his perspective, a penalty is still giving the team a chance of preventing a goal, and at the same time, the rules changing the triple punishment rule, will make it all easier for him, because he wouldn’t care about being sent off at all, giving him a reason to make more and more fouls of such manner.
An attacking side having a near-certain goal denied simply by the opposing goalkeeper’s honest mistake is still extremely unfair. Goalkeepers, for example, only accidentally take out strikers because of defensive errors or overly aggressive goalkeeping. In either case, if they lose the keeper over it, they brought it on themselves.The player is accountable for his mistakes, whether intentional or unintentional, it still did thwart a goal scoring opportunity.
Defenders and keepers make these fouls precisely because they are trying to stop the opponent scoring and to take their chances with a penalty and seeing out the remainder of the match with 10 men. Not every penalty is scored therefore by making the foul defenders are in that split second, whether consciously or not, making this calculation. Without the disincentive of a red, then these things would likely occur more frequently.
The removal of such a rule would just mean more encouragement for defenders to take out the opposition attackers. Red cards would at least stop the player in his tracks and make him think.
However, players committing accidental fouls that deny a goal scoring chance will now be cautioned instead. The change has been ratified by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) – a body made up of the four British football associations and FIFA – which decides on changes to the Laws of the Game.
In any case, this rule shouldn’t be removed. They should perhaps and can relax the part about suspensions, but the red card rule should hold.