Should All Yellow Cards Carry the Same Punishment?

Here in the USA Michael Ballack is an analyst. I got to thinking about WC 2002 when he was forced to miss the final against Brazil because of two yellows; one of which was tactical iirc.

It got me to think that only yellows coming from violent or dangerous play should carry over from match to match. Why should a timewasting yellow be treated the same as an ankle snapping tackle? One feature of a civilized society is its ability to differentiate between offenses and punish them accordingly. Why treat all yellows the same?

Also, it was the larger world of football that was punished by Ballack missing the final. The match would have been far better with him on the pitch.

Your thoughts please.

It would take too long to sort out all the different yellow's.They would need a board of people to sit after every game to say which yellow card should be carried over and which not.

Could you imagine a domestic league having this feature?

10 games every week with say at least 30 yellow cards,it would be a nightmare.

Also then you would get the appeals because such a players card was not carried over but another players card was and the manager disagree's with the decision...we hear enough of managers whining as it is.

I see your point. Maybe then yellows shouldnt be issued for things like time wasting or moaning?

an ankle snapping tackle ought to be a red.

an ankle snapping tackle ought to be a red.

I know but I was just trying to separate violent fouls from non violent fouls.

I see your point. Maybe then yellows shouldnt be issued for things like time wasting or moaning?

Maybe people shouldn't time waste or moan?

Maybe people shouldn't time waste or moan?

Its the degree of punishment thats the point. It would be like punishing a loiterer the same as a burglar. It also ruins the later stages of big tourneys like this. Or wipe the non violent cards after the group stage.

Its the degree of punishment thats the point. It would be like punishing a loiterer the same as a burglar. It also ruins the later stages of big tourneys like this. Or wipe the non violent cards after the group stage.

All yellow cards do get wiped after the group stage I thought.

All yellow cards do get wiped after the group stage I thought.

You are right..starting this year according to this

http://www.setanta.com/ie/Articles/2012/05/02/UEFA-stands-by-yellow-card-rule/gnid-140802/

Yellow cards should be just a fine and no suspension, like in Copa Libertadores.

So a player could get carded in all games without getting suspended.

Yellow cards should be just a fine and no suspension, like in Copa Libertadores.

So a player could get carded in all games without getting suspended.

I think non violent conduct shouldnt result in suspension so maybe fines for these would be an excellent idea

rong fred

Here in the USA Michael Ballack is an analyst. I got to thinking about WC 2002 when he was forced to miss the final against Brazil because of two yellows; one of which was tactical iirc.

It got me to think that only yellows coming from violent or dangerous play should carry over from match to match. Why should a timewasting yellow be treated the same as an ankle snapping tackle? One feature of a civilized society is its ability to differentiate between offenses and punish them accordingly. Why treat all yellows the same?

Also, it was the larger world of football that was punished by Ballack missing the final. The match would have been far better with him on the pitch.

Your thoughts please.

We have differentiated; not all timewasting get a yellow card, usually there's a ref signalling to hurry up before he shows the card. Just because some offenses (violent or no) lead to similar punishments, it doesn't mean that there is no discrimination between those.

All yellows should carry over. The yellow card is the second severest punishment you can give on the pitch. There is no reason that a player should take it lightly. There should be consequences.

The world punished by a class player missing the final? The player should not have attempted to "ruin" the game in the previous match in the first place by a severe act of timewasting, then he wouldn't need to risk punishment.

Similarly, I consider any offense that's good for a yellow also good enough for a second yellow. There is no such thing as "too light an offense for a second yellow" while implying it's good enough for a first yellow. It's the player who should treat the game like he's been cautioned (like he is), instead of the ref punishing a cautioned player less severely than a non-cautioned player.