professional foul = red card.......should it be ?

[kicker]

Give me your opinion ? Do you think a professional foul that results in a penalty kick, deserves to penalized by a red card ?

I don't think it should. Hear me out. The thought process is that a professional foul maliciously prevents a direct scoring chance, and should hence be penalized by expulsion of the player that commits it. I think that a penalty kick is as much of a scoring chance as a one-on-one with the keeper. Both have high incidents of conversion, and the chance of being saved or missing........In some cases the professional foul actually improves the team's chance of scoring....A free kick however is way less of a scoring chance than a one-on-one breakaway (in my opinion)

Intentionally blocking a scoring shot with your hand = red card, fine....A professional foul committed before the player gets in the area, only resulting in a free kick= red card, fine........... but a professional foul on a one-on-one resulting in a penalty kick should be penalized by a yellow card in my opinion.

What do you think ?

[morvant]

i say yellow because thats too drastic for such a minor incident.

[Touches]

Kicker,

A professional foul committed before the player gets in the area, only resulting in a free kick= red card, fine........... but a professional foul on a one-on-one resulting in a penalty kick should be penalized by a yellow card in my opinion.

You see what you type there breds...............It is the same act being commited thus it should invoke the same response.i.e a red card.

Why should it matter if the infringment occured within the 18 yard box or not?

The cost of doing the same act in the box is a penalty!.......I find it fair! Look at it as a bonus, for the attacking team, rewarding them with an initiative and a punishment for the defender for doing shit so close to the goal.

Besides its better for the fans and the game........penalty and man advantage is what we like to see.

[kicker]

Kicker,

A professional foul committed before the player gets in the area, only resulting in a free kick= red card, fine........... but a professional foul on a one-on-one resulting in a penalty kick should be penalized by a yellow card in my opinion.

You see what you type there breds...............It is the same act being commited thus it should invoke the same response.i.e a red card.

Why should it matter if the infringment occured within the 18 yard box or not?

No it's not the same thing. A foul outside the box and a foul inside the box are not the same....and I won't bother elaborating on that, because that is common sense........

I hear what you say but follow my logic again touches.......and you'll see where I'm coming from

[Touches]

No kicker

A foul inside and outside the box is the same thing........the act of commiting the foul or causing obstruction to a player is the same no matter what part of the pitch it is committed.

The decision or reward for the infringment  made by the referee is not different either......... A penalty and a free kick is one and the same.

The difference is that a free kick when earned outside the box is taken where the infringment occured. A free kick in the penalty area is taken from a marked spot.

Thus by extension why should a red card infringment outside the box, not be the same as a red card infringment inside the box? Why should you give a man a yellow or in respect a lighter sentence. I see where you are coming from and you are using the avenue that a Penalty is punishment enough, but I doe look at it like that.

Lastly if the offender was already on a yellow then yuh have no qualms about him going off ent!

[morvant]

as yuh brake it down like that i understand.man done getting an advantage with a penalty as compared to a free kick

[KND2]

I think it should because you are clearly obstructing a man you is in a good goal scoring position.

if it was downgraded to a yellow almost everytime a man was breaking away to score a defender would pull him back.

Man will trade a one on one for penalty

but a one on one for a sending off and a penalty will stop man from holding you back in the first place

[kicker]

No kicker

A foul inside and outside the box is the same thing........the act of commiting the foul or causing obstruction to a player is the same no matter what part of the pitch it is committed.

The decision or reward for the infringment  made by the referee is not different either......... A penalty and a free kick is one and the same.

The difference is that a free kick when earned outside the box is taken where the infringment occured. A free kick in the penalty area is taken from a marked spot.

Garbage my friend. A penalty and a free kick are not the same. A penalty is a special type of free kick awarded for being fouled in what is considered to be the most dangerous attacking area of the field. If it were the same, then the defending team would be allowed to place a wall on the goal line.

A foul is a foul yes, but where the foul takes place DOES make a difference. That however is straying from the point and logic of my argument. My logic deals with action and relative consequence.. read on....

Thus by extension why should a red card infringment outside the box, not be the same as a red card infringment inside the box? Why should you give a man a yellow or in respect a lighter sentence. I see where you are coming from and you are using the avenue that a Penalty is punishment enough, but I doe look at it like that.

It's not just about a penalty being punishment enough. Like I said follow the logic (sequence of reasoning thoughts). I'll put it in point form to make it easier.

1. A defender intentionally fouling an attacker who is on a one-on-one, before he gets in the area is changing an excellent scoring opportunity, into less than a 50/50 chance (having to bend the ball around the wall etc...)

2. A defender intentionally fouling an attaker who is on a one-on-one, and is already in the area, may not really be altering the chances of scoring. You might even argue that he is increasing their chance of scoring by allowing a penalty (eg. Marvin Andrews is less likely to score a one-on-one, than Latapy is to convert the penalty)

3. The defender in situation 2 is therefore committing less of an offence as he has not robbed the attacking team as much as the defender in situation 1.

4. For committing less of an offence, his punishment should be less harsh= yellow card as opposed to red.

I'm not saying to agree, but consider the logic, understand it, and comment on the argument......

Lastly if the offender was already on a yellow then yuh have no qualms about him going off ent!

That's a different rule (two yellows equal a red) altogether that I'm not dealing with in this thread, and it doesn't affect the presented logic

[Filho]

I think you have to be consistent...treat all pro fouls that prevent a clear goalscoring chance the same. It shouldn't be a red if you tug a man shirt, but if you pelt your blade and risk injuring the attacker, you have to hold your red. if you hands a ball on the line you should hold a yellow and it should be a goal....no need for no penalty. to me, the professional foul outside the box and the one inside are really the same thing. the only difference is the former just didn't have that extra second or two to develop into the latter.

You are basically saying that playing with 10 men is more or less equal to a penalty....but that is impossible to measure.

[Observer]

Sent off. Simple as that. Why because the penalty could be missed

What I think is a bigger issue is a player getting two yellow cards being sent off and then has to miss the next game. there should be a re-evaluation of the incident and then a decision if the player can play the next game. Imagine a card for hand ball and one for no being 10 yards off the ball as you are first in the wall. Your team now plays short and you out for two games

[kicker]

if it was downgraded to a yellow almost everytime a man was breaking away to score a defender would pull him back.

Good point.......fair enough

Sent off. Simple as that. Why because the penalty could be missed

the break away could be missed too......so how has the situation changed ?

[Observer]

if it was downgraded to a yellow almost everytime a man was breaking away to score a defender would pull him back.

Good point.......fair enough

Sent off. Simple as that. Why because the penalty could be missed

the break away could be missed too......so how has the situation changed ?

Exactly! The fact is if the law is across the board it does not matter, Professional foul = sent off. Simple decision. Look we all know that what would be a foul in midfield is not necessarily a foul in the penalty area, because the consequences are different. The fact is before players use to take the chance and give up the PK, and they stayed on the field. Now they think twice because not only is it a pk but yuh gorn as well.

[FF]

The fact is before players use to take the chance and give up the PK, and they stayed on the field. Now they think twice because not only is it a pk but yuh gorn as well.

I disagree here... I don't think it has made any difference at all... man still pulling man back and skating down man... on de off chance that dey keeper save de penalty or better yet de freekick..... or the off-off chance that de referee and the linesmen all blink when the tackle occur....

the red card is still a deterrent but not an effective one in my view... it is worth de risk in many players eyes

[kicker]

It shouldn't be a red if you tug a man shirt, but if you pelt your blade and risk injuring the attacker, you have to hold your red.

see..... your argument is that the colour of the card should be determined by the nature of the foul. The professional foul rule however is based on intent, and how it affected the lost scoring chance of the attacking team....so that's sorta two different arguments.

I think you have to be consistent...treat all pro fouls that prevent a clear goalscoring chance the same. to me, the professional foul outside the box and the one inside are really the same thing. the only difference is the former just didn't have that extra second or two to develop into the latter.

Using that logic....a professional foul outside the box should be awarded with a penalty as well....cause they both robbed the attacking team of an equal scoring chance......that's not the case though......which is why I propose that the colour of the card differ according to the reward given to the attacking team....that to me is consistency on a higher level

You are basically saying that playing with 10 men is more or less equal to a penalty....but that is impossible to measure.

All the other permutations/consequences of the proposed situation are impossible to measure....this is just a suggestion about a stand alone incident (the pro foul, the reward and the punishment), using a certain logic for discussion purposes......To extrapolate all the repercussions and their probabilities, and adjust for them would take too much work.......  

[Touches]

Kicker,

1. A defender intentionally fouling an attacker who is on a one-on-one, before he gets in the area is changing an excellent scoring opportunity, into less than a 50/50 chance (having to bend the ball around the wall etc...)

2. A defender intentionally fouling an attaker who is on a one-on-one, and is already in the area, may not really be altering the chances of scoring. You might even argue that he is increasing their chance of scoring by allowing a penalty (eg. Marvin Andrews is less likely to score a one-on-one, than Latapy is to convert the penalty)

3. The defender in situation 2 is therefore committing less of an offence as he has not robbed the attacking team as much as the defender in situation 1.

4. For committing less of an offence, his punishment should be less harsh= yellow card as opposed to red.

I'm not saying to agree, but consider the logic, understand it, and comment on the argument......

I go be a thorn in yuh tail today for this topic, lines 1 and 2 and purely speculative at best. yuh example of Andrews when he is not a fwd scoring a one on one and comparing him to Latapy with a penalty was also in poor taste. Also when Dennis Lawrence showed Stern how it was done in the Panama match.........anyway we straying off point here.

Lines 3 and 4 breds, I find them thing hard to for you to quanitfy how much you rob a man of a chance or opportunity, it just not quantifiable easy so.

As for line 4....there is no such thing as more or less of an offense. Backchat to a player or ref , raising yuh jersey when yuh celebrate a goal or time wasting is the SAME YELLOW card as when yuh hit a man a Blade or hit a man a lash or start fight or handle a ball.  So it is difficult to say what is worthy or not.

Kicker, yuh realise is you asking the question............Fifa done make it easy on every body and simplify the matter by giving yuh a straight red one time.

I cyar get into this now I running off to class but lastly a free kick and penalty is the same. Yuh like facts ent......I cutting from FIFA site laws of the game

A penalty kick

A penalty kick is awarded against a team that commits

one of the ten offences for which a direct free kick is awarded

, inside its own penalty area and while the ball is in play.

Thus you have to commit an offence for a direct free kick to get a penalty.

The difference in penalty and free kick is just the location where the resuslting kick is taken.

To get a direct free kick...

 A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

    * kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
    * trips or attempts to trip an opponent
    * jumps at an opponent
    * charges an opponent
    * strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
    * pushes an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following four offences:

    * tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
    * holds an opponent
    * spits at an opponent
    * handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).

A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred. * (see page 3)



I going to class now I will answer yuh when I come back around 9:30 pm tonight! we go continue then
     

[kicker]

 The fact is before players use to take the chance and give up the PK, and they stayed on the field. Now they think twice because not only is it a pk but yuh gorn as well.

yeah I hear yuh... good point. The possibility of a red could prevent fouling altogether....I guess that is probably the main reason why the rule was put in place, but as FF says...it's probably not that much of a deterrant....I imagine these same arguments took place in the FIFA ruling board before they made the rules.........people who saw it like me obviously lost  .........I still see it my way though.

[Filho]

It shouldn't be a red if you tug a man shirt, but if you pelt your blade and risk injuring the attacker, you have to hold your red.

see..... your argument is that the colour of the card should be determined by the nature of the foul. The professional foul rule however is based on intent, and how it affected the lost scoring chance of the attacking team....so that's sorta two different arguments.

I think you have to be consistent...treat all pro fouls that prevent a clear goalscoring chance the same. to me, the professional foul outside the box and the one inside are really the same thing. the only difference is the former just didn't have that extra second or two to develop into the latter.

Using that logic....a professional foul outside the box should be awarded with a penalty as well....cause they both robbed the attacking team of an equal scoring chance......that's not the case though......which is why I propose that the colour of the card differ according to the reward given to the attacking team....that to me is consistency on a higher level

No...I was suggesting that there should be different categories of the pro foul..not just one type. A professional tug should be treated different from a professional blade. A hand ball on the line should be different from a handball outside the 18 yard box. You can argue that there is room for different intent in these actions. But once you fall into one of these categories you have to get the same punishment...a tug outside the box is the same yellow as a tug inside the box. Pelting your blade as the last defender outside the box should be the same red card as the last man pelting his blade inside the box. That is what I meant by consistency.

Look, I think of it like punching a next player in his face. You getting a straight red card whether you in the box or out. Not so? The pro-foul is considered unsportsmanlike behaviour and like a punch in the face, the intent is the same inside the box as outside...In these cases the resulting penalty or free kick is related to where you happen to be on the pitch and the reward is secondary to the punishment

[kicker]

lines 1 and 2 and purely speculative at best. yuh example of Andrews when he is not a fwd scoring a one on one and comparing him to Latapy with a penalty was also in poor taste. Also when Dennis Lawrence showed Stern how it was done in the Panama match.........anyway we straying off point here.

It's all speculation......that's how opinions are formed. The Andrews example was just an example of how a penalty could be more rewarding than a one-on-one.

Lines 3 and 4 breds, I find them thing hard to for you to quanitfy how much you rob a man of a chance or opportunity, it just not quantifiable easy so.
    

Well it's not math so we can't quantify anything. It's just judgement based on the reward. the reward for being fouled in the area is greater than the reward for being fouled outside. Based on that I measure the difference between the scoring chance before the foul and the scoring chance after the foul.......the difference is larger if the foul takes place outside the box.......

As for line 4....there is no such thing as more or less of an offense. Backchat to a player or ref , raising yuh jersey when yuh celebrate a goal or time wasting is the SAME YELLOW card as when yuh hit a man a Blade or hit a man a lash or start fight or handle a ball. So it is difficult to say what is worthy or not.

I know it's difficult to say what is worthy or not....It's just my opinion ...........

Kicker, yuh realise is you asking the question............Fifa done make it easy on every body and simplify the matter by giving yuh a straight red one time.

Just because FIFA says it, doesn't make it correct.

Those football rules yuh paste there are irrelevant....so I eh botherin' to comment on that....

Your issue touches, is you trying too hard to tear my logic apart, but nit-picking at my choice of words or examples, and making references to different irrelevant FIFA conventions......Logic is a sequence, if you have a problem with the sequence then fine....otherwise, lemme hear your own independent reasoning and how it differs to mine. Look up at the first post under this thread and read the last line of that post, and follow suit.............Don't bother with my wording or points or examples....my points are not perfect because they are subjective and based on opinion, and you can nit-pick tiny holes in them from now till kingdom come, but the sequence makes sense....and it comes together to form a valid opinion that you can agree with or not.

Observer, Filho & KND2 and Trini all made good points, either by attacking the overall theme of my reasoning,  or by giving independent opinions in their own words without referencing what FIFA considers a foul etc...... and I accepted them all.....

Lastly, consider this. Imagine that FIFA's current ruling is what I've suggested in this thread.....and I then suggested that they change it to what the ruling actually is today. You'd probably still oppose what I had to say. People have the tendency to accept what is already in place. Bodies such as FIFA influence our judgement just because they are the governing body, regardless of how good their rulings might be.....and that makes it hard to view my opinion with an open mind. So try to forget about what you already know....Forget FIFA's opinion. Forget that you know me, and forget that I have no official football credentials. Pretend that you and me were inventing the game of football from scratch, and see what you come up with.....then hit me back.

[Trini]

I personally find it should not be a red.
But if a man intentionally pull dong a man heading for goal, even if he outside the box, it should be an automatic penalty.

But then again, I find FIFA should implement other rules too:
1) Use of instant replay, and
2) Dynamic substitutes, like in Basketball (in and out)

Game hadda change with the times to an extent.

[kicker]

The pro-foul is considered unsportsmanlike behaviour and like a punch in the face, the intent is the same inside the box as outside...In these cases the resulting penalty or free kick is related to where you happen to be on the pitch and the reward is secondary to the punishment

Good point....I guess that's how FIFA sees it. The card is just for the offense. And it's totally independent from the resulting reward (penalty or free kick)......fair enough.

I want to look at it a little differently...and lump them together......and hence change the card rule.

I personally find it should not be a red.
But if a man intentionally pull dong a man heading for goal, even if he outside the box, it should be an automatic penalty.

But then again, I find FIFA should implement other rules too:
1) Use of instant replay, and
2) Dynamic substitutes, like in Basketball (in and out)

Game hadda change with the times to an extent.

Good points......That's the kinda thinking I was hoping to see.....as opposed to simply refuting what I had to say by making references to current FIFA conventions.....I don't like the idea of rolling subs though....

[dwn]

i think the current ruling is better than the proposed.

to me, the professional foul outside the box and the one inside are really the same thing. the only difference is the former just didn't have that extra second or two to develop into the latter.

agreed. exactly what i wast thinking.

2. A defender intentionally fouling an attaker who is on a one-on-one, and is already in the area, may not really be altering the chances of scoring. You might even argue that he is increasing their chance of scoring by allowing a penalty (eg. Marvin Andrews is less likely to score a one-on-one, than Latapy is to convert the penalty)

i dont see the point.

if a man rounds the keeper and get taken down in front of an open goal - its not the same as a one on one where a defender was biting on the man back and the keeper was cutting down the angle. what im saying is - to consider the relative chances of scoring the penalty vs the one on one is too complicated a thing to base punishment for the foul on. what if the keeper real good at saving penalties? there are countless permutations ...

[kicker]

there are countless permutations ...

You're correct, and that is my point. Why have one standard ruling against a situation that is not standard ? It is unrealistic to consider all the perms. I even said it in an earlier post, but I think altering the rule a little might help.

Situation 1. Team A commits a professional foul outside the box- down to ten men- concede a freekick- 15% chance of going down a goal.

Situation 2. Team B commits a professsional foul inside the box- down to ten men- concede a penalty 75% chance of going down a goal.

If both teams committed the same offence as you say.......why is it that Team B seems to be getting punished more ? To me the attacking team is getting more of a raw deal in situation 1, and deserves more to be up one man for the rest of the game, than in situation 2. In situation 2, you're still getttin a penalty kick..plus you get to play the rest of the game up a man........The playing field is not even there. In my opinion, a professional foul cannot be considered a constant (we can't lump them all into the same category).......it's consequences vary depending on where it takes place, and therefore the resulting punishment should vary as well.........I can't agree that the current ruling is better.

[doc]

there are countless permutations ...

You're correct, and that is my point. Why have one standard ruling against a situation that is not standard ? It is unrealistic to consider all the perms. I even said it in an earlier post, but I think altering the rule a little might help.

Situation 1. Team A commits a professional foul outside the box- down to ten men- concede a freekick- 15% chance of going down a goal.

Situation 2. Team B commits a professsional foul inside the box- down to ten men- concede a penalty 75% chance of going down a goal.

If both teams committed the same offence as you say.......why is it that Team B seems to be getting punished more ? To me the attacking team is getting more of a raw deal in situation 1, and deserves more to be up one man for the rest of the game, than in situation 2. In situation 2, you're still getttin a penalty kick..plus you get to play the rest of the game up a man........The playing field is not even there. In my opinion, a professional foul cannot be considered a constant (we can't lump them all into the same category).......it's consequences vary depending on where it takes place, and therefore the resulting punishment should vary as well.........I can't agree that the current ruling is better.

The equity exists in the call against the offender. It just happens that when a penal offence is committed in the box, it results in the awarding of a penalty. Hand ball is a direct kick inside the box it's a penalty, similarly the professional foul described results in a direct kick plus a red card, but inside the box that becomes a penalty plus the red card.

[kicker]

The equity exists in the call against the offender. It just happens that when a penal offence is committed in the box, it results in the awarding of a penalty. Hand ball is a direct kick inside the box it's a penalty, similarly the professional foul described results in a direct kick plus a red card, but inside the box that becomes a penalty plus the red card.

Yeah that's the same thing Filho was saying.....and it makes sense.....just thinking of alternatives ya know ?

It would interesting if we could go back in time before the professional foul rule came about, and see how people would respond to a post suggesting that the rule be created.......I remember football back in the day when there was no such thing, and we didn't seem to care too much.....now that it exists, it seems like people aren't willing to see it a little differently.....interesting

[dwn]

Situation 1. Team A commits a professional foul outside the box- down to ten men- concede a freekick- 15% chance of going down a goal.

Situation 2. Team B commits a professsional foul inside the box- down to ten men- concede a penalty 75% chance of going down a goal.

you are basng this on arbitrary percentages. how are you going to decide whats most accurate % from situation to situation?

If both teams committed the same offence as you say.......why is it that Team B seems to be getting punished more ?

rule 1. professional foul on the last man = same offence. ok. red card in both cases.

rule 2. one is in the box, the other isnt = different situation.
a foul in the box = penalty.
a foul outside the box = freekick.

the prob of scoring a penalty is more than that of scoring a freekick. sounds like youre saying that rule 1 should be changed to make it fair.

In my opinion, a professional foul cannot be considered a constant (we can't lump them all into the same category).......it's consequences vary depending on where it takes place, and therefore the resulting punishment should vary as well.........I can't agree that the current ruling is better.

Im not sure what you're saying here. The varying punishment is conceding a freekick versus conceding a penalty.

The current ruling might not be perfect and perhaps there is a better solution. However I think basing the rulings on the 2 set rules above is better than basing rules on arbitrary probability judgements of what is fair.

[kicker]

you are basng this on arbitrary percentages. how are you going to decide whats most accurate % from situation to situation?

That's not the point...take the numbers with a grain of salt....it's just to illustrate that I think there's a difference.

the prob of scoring a penalty is more than that of scoring a freekick. sounds like youre saying that rule 1 should be changed to make it fair.

Yeah either that or change 2...whichever

Im not sure what you're saying here. The varying punishment is conceding a freekick versus conceding a penalty.

That's not the point. That varying punishment has nothing to do with the the fact that it was a pro foul. That has to do with the fact that it was in the box....pro foul or not, that rule holds...I'm saying that the punishment should vary by the colour of the card.

The current ruling might not be perfect and perhaps there is a better solution. However I think basing the rulings on the 2 set rules above is better than basing rules on arbitrary probability judgements of what is fair.

so what is a better solution ?

[dwn]

you are basng this on arbitrary percentages. how are you going to decide whats most accurate % from situation to situation?

That's not the point...take the numbers with a grain of salt....it's just to illustrate that I think there's a difference.

the prob of scoring a penalty is more than that of scoring a freekick. sounds like youre saying that rule 1 should be changed to make it fair.

Yeah either that or change 2...whichever

Im not sure what you're saying here. The varying punishment is conceding a freekick versus conceding a penalty.

That's not the point. That varying punishment has nothing to do with the the fact that it was a pro foul. That has to do with the fact that it was in the box....pro foul or not, that rule holds...I'm saying that the punishment should vary by the colour of the card.

The current ruling might not be perfect and perhaps there is a better solution. However I think basing the rulings on the 2 set rules above is better than basing rules on arbitrary probability judgements of what is fair.

so what is a better solution ?

if you propose a rule based on something, how can you then take the numbers with of salt? if you are going to define the fairness of the rule you need a concrete argument. whether it be #s or some other measure of fairness. in this case it seems to be numbers because we a comparing probability of outcomes.

why is there a need for the cards to balance out the fact that you have a higher chance of scoring a penalty? when you consider all factors (the foul and the position it took place in) the fact is the situations are NOT the same. so why change the rules to even out the punishment?

comparing the current to the proposed rule i think the current is the better solution. i dont have a thrid solution and was not suggesting one. my point was - i believe that the current ruling is better and has a more concrete backing because it is based on sound rules.

[arrow]

this thread should be renamed "kicker = likes to hear himself talk....should we listen?"

[JDB]

Look, I think of it like punching a next player in his face. You getting a straight red card whether you in the box or out. Not so? The pro-foul is considered unsportsmanlike behaviour and like a punch in the face, the intent is the same inside the box as outside...In these cases the resulting penalty or free kick is related to where you happen to be on the pitch and the reward is secondary to the punishment

I don't know if a professional foul is considered unsportsmanlike behaviour. The pro foul sending off rules were definitely in force before they started clamping down on "unsportsmanlike conduct".

The pro foul applies to goalscoring opportunities because bfore the rule the penalty box didn't provide enough protection for forwards in clear attacking situations, what we consider one on ones.

Keepers used to play high and do anything to stop the attacker, knowing that the worst they would get was a yellow card. The advantage was clearly in favour of the defending team.

That was never the case inside the box where a penalty was always suitable punishment and an adequate deterrent to fouling. I personally never saw the need to apply the sending off ruling for professional fouls inside the box that are not otherwise sending off offences i.e. violent or dangerous

[Touches]

Kicker,

The beauty of football is in its simplicity. Thus the fewer the rules and interpretations the easier it is to manage and play the game.

I think a professional foul that results in a penalty kick, deserves a red card.

I think it should. Hear me out. The thought process is that a professional foul maliciously prevents a direct scoring chance, and should hence be penalized by expulsion of the player that commits it. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I think that a penalty kick is as much of a scoring chance as a one-on-one with the keeper. Both have high incidents of conversion, and are equal in the team's chance of scoring.

Intentionally blocking a scoring shot with your hand = red card, fine....A professional foul committed before the player gets in the area, only resulting in a free kick= red card, fine........... a professional foul on a one-on-one resulting in a penalty kick should be penalized by a red card in my opinion.