BAGSHOT: Uncertainty and disagreement over the so-called ‘triple punishment’ will continue after football’s law-makers failed to agree on a suitable format to clarify the issue for referees and fans writes KEIR RADNEDGE.
This concerns the fact that a ‘last defender’ can commit one single foul which concedes a penalty, incurs a red card and also a suspension which is frequently considered excessive.
The Football Task Force 2014, which is chaired by Germany’s Franz Beckenbauer, had brought the issue to the attention of the International Football Association Board which held its annual meeting at Pennyhill Park, Bagshot, Surrey, south-west of London.
However, agreement proved beyond the four representatives of FIFA and one each from the four British home associations.
Alex Horne, general secretary of the Football Association, said: “The proposal for dealing with with the triple punishment was withdrawn. We felt the two proposed forms of words left too much confusion in applying the laws of the game.
“If you are a referee or fan you want the amendment to be easy to undertand and interpret. We had a couple of different goes at it and we didn’t feel either were quite right.
“We have asked the FIFA disciplinary committee to look at whether the compulsory sanction of a one-match suspension is necessary – so that may come forward as a proposal. For now, it’s still work in progress.”
On other issues, IFAB decided:
1, to authorise a two-year experiment by the four British Associations with rolling substitutes in junior football;
2, to confirm the impossibility of a goal being scored directly from an ‘uncontested’ dropped ball;
3, to withdraw a proposal for a fourth substitute being used during extra-time;
4, to approve the optional use in leagues by referees of a ‘vanishing spray’ to delineate the 9m-mark at free kicks.