Diminishing Value of a Red Card

Often when we see players being sent off AND penalty kick being awarded in the event of an illegal stop of a goal-bound ball, Baada and I have thought that the punishment is too harsh. That for stopping one goal, the team effectively gives away the goal (conversion rate of penalties is high) and also loses a player (sometimes the goalie) for the rest of the game.

Now, after last night’s strategic hand ball by Luis Suarez, people are complaining that the punishment is not enough. Though it was a split-second instinctive decision by Suarez to handball, even if he were to replay the incident in his head and analyze the costs and benefits, I’m sure he would’ve done what he did. This clearly contradicts what I mentioned in the first paragraph.

The main issue here is with the value of a red card  at various stages of a game. The red card has intrinsic value – of being suspended for the next game. In addition to this, the red card leaves the team one short for the rest of the game, and so it is clear that the later a red card is given out, the lesser the disadvantage it causes the team because they’ve to play for lesser time with a man short.

What makes Suarez’s decision more logical is the time value of a one-goal lead. The lesser the time left in the game, the more the value of the one-goal lead since there is lesser time for which it needs to be protected. And in this case, the handball occurred on what might have been the last “kick” in the game, and so the value of the one-goal lead was really high.

The earlier this incident had occurred in the match, the less would’ve been Suarez’s incentive to handball – more time to win back the conceded goal and more time to play a man short if redcarded. At the time when it actually occurred, Suarez would’ve been a fool to NOT handball. The payoffs were heavily loaded in favour of handballing and he did it.

People on twitter are suggesting that rules be changed, that the goal should’ve been awarded anyway instead of the penalty and stuff, but considering that the same punishment costs much more if given out earlier in the game, I think the current punishment is appropriate. The excess of this punishment in earlier stages of the game is compensated by the punishment being too little in the latter stages, and on an average I think it is appropriate.

Let’s continue to keep football simple and not clutter it with Duckworth-Lewis kind of rules. And congrats to Suarez for taking the most logical decision at the moment. It is indeed as great a “sacrifice” as Ballack’s tactical yellow card against Korea in the 2002 semis.

And I feel sad for Asamoah Gyan. But then again, with Ghana being in the knockout stages solely on the merit of two Gyan penalties, it is only appropriate that they are going out nowon the demerit of Gyan’s missed penalty.

3 thoughts on “Diminishing Value of a Red Card”

  1. If this should have been a goal, then by extension any foul/handball anywhere on the ground that impeded the path to goal should be a goal.

    Ghana got their due compensation for this missed chance, another shot at the goal – a penalty. Isn’t this why a penalty is called so – a penalty for a grave mistake by the opposition team. They didn’t take it means they should be the people blamed.

    Suarez probably didn’t think it through while stopping the ball with his hand, but yes he must be congratulated for sacrificing himself for his team, instead of being vilified like this. Unlike the Henry handball, which was for conning the referee, this is not cheating.

  2. Exactly what I kept telling people from the moment it happened. The guy’s a bloody hero – even if his actions were partly reflex! If Uruguay goes on the win the game (which they did) and, especially if they go on to win any further games, Suarez ought to be given a gold medal when he gets back home! Yes, it’s dirty and against the Spirit of the Game, but hey – he took his punishment and ended up sacrificing for the team. Awesomeness, that play. Love it!

Put Comment