Agree with some of your post. And sometimes even with a serious injury there shouldn't be a red card.IMO 99 times out of 100 that very same tackle would cause no injury whatsoever, the referee might give a caution, and nothing more would be said about it. Should we really punish the 1% case differently because the outcome was different? If a player has an undiagnosed weakness in their tib/fib that means their very next collision will result in a break - does that mean the next player who carelessly trips him gets a red?
SFP should be judged on the merits of the foul itself, not on the consequences.
Endangered is the past tense of the verb "to endanger", surely?@RustyRef The adjective for endanger(ing) would be dangerous which doesn't really work here, endangered means something quite different.
I think I agree, but it’s hard because I would want and to extend this to players pushing other players off the pitch in to advertising boards/ railings.I have no problem with the same principle being applied to football: if a player intentionally fouls an opponent thereby breaking that opponent's leg, surely a serious sanction should follow?
Have, and would continue to do so. Actions (of a coward) have consequences. Off you pop, appeal if you want.extend this to players pushing other players off the pitch in to advertising boards/ railings.
Diabolical decision5 game ban! https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c0lykrnw64xo
Remember that SFP is often a 2 game ban in FIFA comps!
Qatar are already out, meaning he is banned for 4 games in other comps. now. Definitely not an appropriate/reasonable sanction imoSo unless Qatar get to the final 2 rounds his tournament is over too..
Does it fit the crime?
Definitely not.
At time of writing, I was not aware their games had played. They had a slim chance pre match of qualifying.Qatar are already out, meaning he is banned for 4 games in other comps. now. Definitely not an appropriate/reasonable sanction imo