Sin Bins - 17/18 Season

[Trip]

OK, so the bit that made no sense to me was this:

"A player who receives a second temporary dismissal in the same match will serve the temporary dismissal and then takes no further part in the match"

What's the point of that? They hang around for 10 minutes and then go for an early bath?

It now makes sense because the next bit is this:

"The player may be replaced by a substitute at the end of the second temporary dismissal period"

So, the player can't come back on but the team isn't down to 10 men (assuming there are subs left).

 

[Yampy]

It's in the new Laws, but also just the sin bin portion is here:

http://theifab.com/backend/library/doc/Laws of the Game 2017-18 Guidelines for Temporary dismissals (sin bins)


Read the document above. Type "A" is that method all over. Type "B", the hybrid method, is a bit more complex, and allows for something similar to what the US has historically called "soft red cards" (ie, that play can no longer play, but they can be replaced by a substitute).

That's not my point. What's wrong with the current system that we need to change to something different? Is two cautions to one player = one dismissal to said player too simply or too difficult to deal with?

 

[Padfoot]

Am I understanding this correctly? A player can pick up 2 cautions for dissent, serve 2 temporary dismissals and be replaced by a substitute at the end of the end of the 2nd temporary dismissal?

So a player can get 2 dissent cautions yet the team only suffers with 10 men for 20 mins?

 

[DB]

From a conversation I've had with someone in the know... This is only for dissent. You issue a yellow card, the player must leave the field of play for ten minutes (temporary dismissal). If that player gets another yellow card for anything as per the lotg, he leaves the field of play. No he doesn't sit on the bench and then goes to the showers after ten minutes. He has been sent off via a red card.

Rolling substitutes was a fantastic idea which is used brilliantly here in Cornwall. It can get annoying when teams substitute players all the time throughout the match... But, the laws allow them to do it so who am I to pass judgement? I get a match fee for officiating the game in accordance with the LOTG... So long as they are abiding by those laws, who am I to judge?!?

The spray... Has it made things worse? Not at all. Has it made things better? Debatable. So, that's a good thing.

Temporary dismissals will be a good thing! I'm sure of it. No competitive team wants to be a man down. No competitive team will be willing to lose a man through dissent. So, after the first few weeks of the pre-season and into the domestic campaign where the new laws are being applied, teams will soon learn! At the same time, the referees (who are willing to embrace change and do their job in accordance with the LOTG) will find a way of managing this change. I mean bloody hell, once you've carded one person for dissent, you rarely get any others in the book for the same offence. The most I've had in one game for dissent is three. That's entirely manageable.

 

[GraemeS]

My primary concern with this is that it might end up being along the lines of the mandatory caution for GK encroachment. I personally feel that the problem is probably that nationally, referees let too much go before reaching for a caution for dissent. I agree that a 10 minute sin bin is probably a harsher punishment than a £10 fine later on (although I see no reason why it can't be both!), but I'm not sure that a sin bin is going to encourage referees to punish dissent more readily. In fact, if anything, it will make the decision to give a dissent caution that little bit tougher, due to the greater impact it will have on the match.

So I suspect that the final result will actually result in referees feeling that they require a higher tolerance before cautioning for dissent. It's one way of reducing the number of reported dissent cautions and I'm worried that will be the only metric by which success or failure of this is judged. But I don't think fewer dissent cautions and a higher tolerance for dissent is really a desirable outcome.

Having said that, I'm always open to experimentation where there is a clear problem that needs fixing - unlike coloured kits, which is a poorly thought out attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist!

 

[Justylove]

Stepped approach using the captain will become a much more powerful tool as well. Having the player over with his skipper and being clear that anymore and you'll be sat down for 10 minutes will normally be enough.

Interested to see how it works on the whole reporting on Whole Game. I guess that if you put the Yellow through as C2 no fine is issued, but if you put it through as anything else, it will be? Likewise questions around whether they count towards the Yellow count for suspensions.

 

[DB]

I agree that a 10 minute sin bin is probably a harsher punishment than a £10 fine later on (although I see no reason why it can't be both!), but I'm not sure that a sin bin is going to encourage referees to punish dissent more readily.

Double punishment I think. The team would have been punished enough; if a player is binned, his team (if they have anything about them) will be pretty peed off with the guy... For me, that's speaks more than a £10 fine.

 

[Padfoot]

No. They'll just be pissed off at the ref for not tolerating the abuse....it's part of the game, don't you know?

Nothing is ever the players fault.....

 

[lincs22]

The most worrying part of this for me is that the FA are trying this at grassroots football first.

Would have been better as part of the strategy to do it in higher profile matches, so all footballers learn (if they can).

I know the FIFA / IFAB agreement is at this level, but a "more forward thinking FA" would have tired it at National League level first?
I think it will be a good idea, but I feel the term "Lambs to the slaughter" sums the predicament of the referees who are involved in the pilot scheme.

 

[Twinblade]

They could have piloted it at the European U17 tournament currently being played alongside the trial of the new penalty shootout proposal. Seems an ideal platform to trial it at a high standard of football to see if it would be worthwhile.

 

[Peter Grove]

Am I understanding this correctly? A player can pick up 2 cautions for dissent, serve 2 temporary dismissals and be replaced by a substitute at the end of the end of the 2nd temporary dismissal?

So a player can get 2 dissent cautions yet the team only suffers with 10 men for 20 mins?

Yes. The IFAB's rationale for this is:

A player [...] may be replaced by a substitute at the end of the second temporary dismissal period if the player’s team has not used its maximum number of substitutes (this is because the team has already been ‘punished’ by playing without that player for 2 x temporary dismissal periods)

 

[Cheshire Ref]

So last night was the League meeting of the local league i sit on the committee for, 50 club secretaries were in attendance. We mentioned that we have been asked if we wish to take part in the pilot and that we would be asking for opinions via email in the next few weeks.

We asked for some brief feedback from the clubs and not 1 person seemed to be in favour of it, not 1.

 

[lincs22]

So last night was the League meeting of the local league i sit on the committee for, 50 club secretaries were in attendance. We mentioned that we have been asked if we wish to take part in the pilot and that we would be asking for opinions via email in the next few weeks.

We asked for some brief feedback from the clubs and not 1 person seemed to be in favour of it, not 1.

I think that this will the response of most clubs to the idea. Some "forward-thinking" committees will volunteer, maybe run by people wanting to get up the FA brown-nosing tree - but they won't have the issues.

HOLD ON - a thought. How about an FA, CFA or league committee member has to go to each match and acts a sin-bin timekeeper? No longer a problem for the referee, managers are not needed and gets the "blazers" out in the fresh air to see how proper football is run...

 

[PinnerPaul]

So, the current system where the second caution results in a dismissal and the team plays a man short is too simple or too difficult? Is it fit for purpose or not?

No potential for confusion then!

 

[PinnerPaul]

From a conversation I've had with someone in the know... This is only for dissent. You issue a yellow card, the player must leave the field of play for ten minutes (temporary dismissal). If that player gets another yellow card for anything as per the lotg, he leaves the field of play. No he doesn't sit on the bench and then goes to the showers after ten minutes. He has been sent off via a red card.

Rolling substitutes was a fantastic idea which is used brilliantly here in Cornwall. It can get annoying when teams substitute players all the time throughout the match... But, the laws allow them to do it so who am I to pass judgement? I get a match fee for officiating the game in accordance with the LOTG... So long as they are abiding by those laws, who am I to judge?!?

The spray... Has it made things worse? Not at all. Has it made things better? Debatable. So, that's a good thing.

Temporary dismissals will be a good thing! I'm sure of it. No competitive team wants to be a man down. No competitive team will be willing to lose a man through dissent. So, after the first few weeks of the pre-season and into the domestic campaign where the new laws are being applied, teams will soon learn! At the same time, the referees (who are willing to embrace change and do their job in accordance with the LOTG) will find a way of managing this change. I mean bloody hell, once you've carded one person for dissent, you rarely get any others in the book for the same offence. The most I've had in one game for dissent is three. That's entirely manageable.

Don't get the logic that if its debatable if its made things better its a good thing? Can't see any debate to be honest, free kicks take longer -and at the top level, where its used, players always used to go back to mark indicated by the referee and kickers didn't used to try and steal a few yards after referee had placed the ball in any case - so for me not at all debatable - serves no useful purpose whatsoever - like sock tape - we managed over 100 years without a mention in LOTG, its not served any useful purpose whatsoever.

Clearly the sin bin idea DOES have the potential to improve the game, but IMHO, it has greater potential to cause confusion and more conflict, not less - we'll have to see - but concerns from qualified referees on here are surely valid & worth debate, given cumulative years of experience!

 

[Mooseybaby]

"A player who has been temporarily dismissed and then receives a caution (YC) continues playing. A player who has received a caution (YC) and then receives a temporary dismissal can continue playing after the end of the temporary dismissal period"

So if I understand correctly basically means a yellow card shown for dissent (player sin binned) is effectively no card at all!

This has recipe for disaster, confusion, conflict and aggravation written all over it!

 

[Padfoot]

 

[AlexF]

They could have piloted it at the European U17 tournament currently being played alongside the trial of the new penalty shootout proposal. Seems an ideal platform to trial it at a high standard of football to see if it would be worthwhile.

It's been used in UEFA at the youth club competitions for the last 2-3 years, quite successfully by all accounts too.

That's where the specific IFAB documentation grew out of.

 

[Yampy]

UEFA! That's Europe isn't it? I though we were out of that sort of thing. Vorsprung durch Brexit!

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Let me have a little guess that players and managers will expect the sin bin for potentially ALL Yellow card misdemeanours, fouls, handball etc etc..... I can see it now..... 'don't book him ref, give him 10 minutes on the Naughty step as an alternative' keep ye cards in your pocket and all that.... You KNOW that will definitely happen!!!!