By Andrew Warshaw in Zurich
March 2 – Those who favour scrapping the so-called triple punishment rule were left disappointed today when football’s lawmakers opted to retain the status quo even though referees badly need some kind of guidance in applying this most controversial of regulations.
UEFA boss Michel Platini’s campaign to amend the highly contentious punishment imposed on players who deliberately prevent a goalscoring opportunity – penalty, dismissal and suspension – fell on deaf ears as the International FA Board (IFAB) refused to budge.
The IFAB, which comprises FIFA and four British associations, needs six votes out of eight to approve any law change and UEFA’s recommendation – increasingly supported by fans and managers who consider the existing law far too punitive – didn’t get sufficient backing.
But it isn’t quite dead in the water either. IFAB sent the issue to their two advisory panels for a more technical and specialist look at what can be done to help referees interpret the rule with greater consistency and clarity.
“There was a lot of discussion that the proposal would increase the potential for cynical fouls so the request from UEFA was not approved,” said FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke. “It has been decided that the advisory panels will discuss it and see if there is any way to end this discussion once and for all.”
Alex Horne, the English FA’s chief executive, said ditching the triple punishment “would reopen the door to cynical fouls.”
“This isn’t to say we don’t understand the issues. We had a long debate about whether we could do more to reinterpret the definition of what constitutes a ‘goalscoring opportunity.’ But as drafted it is clearly a red card offence.
“We think our decision to take this to IFAB’s technical and football panels is the right thing to do,” said Stewart Regan, chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, echoing Horne’s sentiments. ”It’s such an important and emotive topic for players and clubs that we don’t want to flip-flop back to where it was before,” he said.
“There were cynical tackles, particularly by goalkeepers, and if they know they cannot be sent off they will simply take out the attacker. When you have a situation like that sometimes a penalty is a more difficult task [than an open goal]. We know it’s a major topic the football community feels strongly about but it is so complex and will have such an impact that we’ve got to get it right.”
Among other decisions – or lack of them – made by the traditionally conservative IFAB, the idea of rugby-style sinbins gained only lukewarm support as IFAB gave a clear hint that a 10-minute break didn’t work for football.
And rugby-style video replays, strangely on the agenda despite FIFA always insisting it is firmly opposed, were given shirt shrift when Valcke declared they would never follow goalline technology into the rule book. “There is a risk that using the video will change the nature of our game. Other sports are not like football. Sure videos give you more information but if we start to have breaks, it’s the end of the game.”
But what did make it into the rule book was a decision to ban players from displaying any messages on their undergarments – even if they are innocent statements with a good cause. The rule comes into effect globally from June 1, in other words before the start of the World Cup.
“From now on there can be no slogan or image whatsoever on undergarments, even good-natured ones,” said Valcke after the English proposal was carried.
Crucially, competition organisers, and not the referee, will deal with any breaches of the new rule. Jonathan Ford, chief executive of the Welsh FA, accepted that the ban might be construed as “a little bit churlish” but said there were more reasons to impose it than not to. “Everyone agreed about political or religious statements but on personal statements some of us did consider how far are we going and were a bit sceptical,” said Ford. “But we decided it was easier for us to say it has no place in the game.”
And Regan added: “With all the different languages in football and players moving between countries its very difficult for referees to make judgments so this the best thing for the image of the game. It may be familiar to the player concerned but nobody else might know what the message says.”
Contact the writer of this story at moc.l1738292450labto1738292450ofdlr1738292450owedi1738292450sni@w1738292450ahsra1738292450w.wer1738292450dna1738292450