Hi boblardo,
I firmly believe that football SHOULD have a zero tolerance approach. And when I say zero, I don't mean 'stricter than what we are now'. I mean, zero.
Problem is, it needs to be universal. Go out there as an individual and you're likely cause more problems than you solve.
Watch rugby union - do players say anything to the referee at all? Of course not!
There is no sport on this planet that tolerates as much abuse as this one does. I would go so far as to argue that the extreme leniency at all levels doesn't just tolerate it - it condones it, even encourages it. Referees are active supporters of their own abuse!
We (the sport as a whole, referees included) like to come up with excuses. 'Oh it's a passionate game' and so forth. That's utter nonsense. Every game is passionate.
We then like to blame the referees for abuse - 'we should be managing the players'. No, we shouldn't - we've just backed ourselves into a corner requiring this approach because as a whole we can't be bothered fixing it.
Then there's the idea that the game is 'about the players, not the referee'. Yet there is no sport on this planet where players and spectators are as concerned about the referee as this one. So clearly the way we approach the game actually has the exact opposite effect. I would argue that stricter refereeing would make it less about the refereeing as mandatory laws put the responsibility back onto the player to do the right thing, not onto the referee to not make a subjective decision and 'manage' the supposedly grown and professional adult.
Rant aside, let me talk about an example:
I recently watched a friend's ice hockey semi final. Ice hockey isn't big in Australia, but he plays at a fairly high level. Fairly aggressive, emotional sport, right? He was sinbinned for something. Now, the number of games I've watched I could count on one hand and I thought it was the wrong decision because I could see that the referee thought he saw, didn't actually happen. Talking to him after the match confirmed it. So, sinbinned over a blatantly wrong decision in a semi final. Pretty big.
I was talking to my friend afterwards and said 'I can't believe that there was no argument whatsoever from anybody' (even my friend left the ice without hesitation). He said 'that's because everybody knows that if they said anything they'd be joining me!'
Zero tolerance is applied.
The outcome? Players aren't thinking about the referee. Aren't abusing them, aren't talking about them, aren't blaming them. Everybody is much, much happier.
Compare that to our game - send off a player and that player almost seems obligated to hang around on the pitch for a minute or two, arguing with the referee, whinging to his teammates/opponents, arguing with the referee a bit more, then slowly wander off the pitch. I'd love to see a mandatory suspension increase for ANY delay. And there's no reason why we can't do it.
There is no reason why we cannot implement true ZERO tolerance in this sport. The sport just chooses not to because the administration (including referee), top-down, don't understand the game as much as they think they do. Zero tolerance will make it less about the referee and more about the game. It will mean there are fewer games when the managers, spectators and pundits are ranting about the referee decisions and just getting on with it - and it will mean that play isn't held up for several minutes every time the referee makes a decision while players pointlessly mob the referee. Win-win.
