Rough Justice For The Last Man

Both Sky Sports' and Setanta's offerings of Premiership Football in the two days previous to the writing of this article have provided instances which exemplified the absurdity of a particular ruling in football; a staple rule of the game which is internationally recognised and implemented. For years fans have watched players in the position of 'Last Man', commit fouls in the penalty area and get themselves sent off and usually concede goals from the resulting penalty anyway. But is this adjudication really fair or are we just used to it?

Both Gareth Bale of Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle's Habib Beye fell foul of the automatic red card rule, which comes into play when a player who commits an offence which denies a goal-scoring opportunity. Ignoring the fact that the calamitous Rob Stiles got the decision wrong at St James Park; regardless of the rights or wrongs of the law which propogated the adjudication; both referees in the respective fixtures acted in accordance with the rules of the game when dismissing players they believed impeded an opposing player in a goal scoring position.

FIFA's 'Laws of the Game' state that a player should be sent off if he ''denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal." This Law wholly justifies both the red card's shown at The Brittania Stadium and St James Park, and also the penalty kick's awarded as a result of the players respective misedemanors. But does a habitual red card, a pre-condition, resemble justice in any way, shape or form in this situation?

The rule was introduced in the 1980's after a series of high profile incidents. Willie Young's blatant foul on Clive Allen in the 1980 F.A Cup final with the youngster clearly through on goal, being one of particular signification (Young recieved only a booking for the cynical tackle). Similar incident's which illustrated the professional footballer's willingness to intentionally foul an opposing player prompted the automatic red card rule in the instance of a 'professional foul' or 'serious foul play'; the rule coming into effect if the offence is "punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick." Now for me, this is the crux of the problem.

Judging by the logic of the 'Last Man' ruling, FIFA do not believe that a penalty kick is an adaquate replacement for the 'one on one' opportunity the player was denied through open play. If in this situation the Penalty Kick was deemed an 'obvious goal scoring opportunity', it would be unneccesary to award a red card aswell as a penalty, as the 'obvious goal scoring opportunity' would be directly replenished. Therefore, the red card represents further punishment and in my opinion, is wholly unfair.

In fact, I find this judgement to be truly proposterous. If a foul is committed outside the penalty area which denies a 'goal scoring opportunity', I wholly agree that the guilty player should be automatically dismissed, as a free kick is not an 'obvious goal scoring opportunity'. But surely, a penalty is an ample substitute for a 'one on one opportunity' in open play, where the player could plausibly fall, miscontrol or be closed down by the goalkeeper? I believe that football fans the world over would agree that awarding a penalty kick in this circumstance is fitting retribution enough, in 99% of 'Last Man' cases which occur inside the box.

Perhaps in some instances, the foul committed is done so deliberately and should therefore be punished with harsher measures than just the awarded penalty kick. After all, a major factor in the rules introduction was its ability to eliminate the 'Professional Foul', or more accurately, eliminate the benefit of committing a 'Professional Foul'? I agree. If the the official deems the offence to be intentional, a 'Professional Foul', he should be given the power to brandish a yellow or red card. But what is imperative here, is that the referee can do so at his discretion, rather than being obligated to. This detail could be easily incorporated into a revised law.

In the cases of Bale and Beye's dismissals' on Sunday afternoon and Monday evening, their was no inclination that the competitors intended to foul the opposing player; both appeared to be genuine attempts to win the ball. In both cases, the penalised teams conceded a goal from the resulting penalty kick, were reduced to 10 men and failed to triumph in games they had every chance of winning had they retained 11 players on the pitch. Justice was vacant in both circumstances; similar injustices have been, and will be witnessed season after season at all levels of football, in all countries.

In the modern age of football the sport is geared towards entertainment and the stakes are high; the fan and the afflicted clubs where subsequent losers here. The dynamic of both games this weekend were unnecesarily disrupted; with negative aesthaetic connotations for the fan, and more serious implications for Newcastle FC and Tottenham Hotspur. I'm certain Juande Ramos and Joe Kinnear felt as disgruntled as I after these respective incidents but cant quite put their finger on why they feel so wronged. Lets hope that they change this draconian rule before more games are illegitimately sabotaged, and clubs pay a serious price for sub-standard regulation of the game.