Whether Jones should have been sent off or not under the current rules, the rule is nearly as daft as some of those governing Rugby Union.
Awarding a penalty kick is presenting the attacking team with an almost certain goal. Surely that is adequate punishment for a foul, without sending off the offender for the rest of the match. If we had a sin bin then maybe ten or fifteen minutes with ten men would be a reasonable addition, but the whole of the rest of the game is simply a recipe for refereeing controversy.
This all arose out of the so-called professional foul. Fouling inside the box is specifically unprofessional. Doing it outside the box to deny a goalscoring opportunity without conceding a penalty might be "professional". The answer in this case was never a sending-off, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity should, like a foul inside the box, bring the reward of a penalty. Then spectators would then see an exciting penalty and the sending off could return to being a punishment for serious or persistent foul play.
At the moment we've framed the rules, like Rugby administrators too, so that a high percentage of matches come down to the exigencies of refereeing. Ordinary spectators like Dancing end up commenting that the ref' ruined the game ........ on several occasions each season. We all go to football to see players not referees. And if referees are placed in the position of no longer being the impartial arbiter, but the accidental or deliberate deciding influence on the game, why would people want the role? Surely football wants the guy who wants to officiate so others can enjoy playing and watching, NOT somebody who likes being the centre of attention?
Awarding a penalty kick is presenting the attacking team with an almost certain goal. Surely that is adequate punishment for a foul, without sending off the offender for the rest of the match. If we had a sin bin then maybe ten or fifteen minutes with ten men would be a reasonable addition, but the whole of the rest of the game is simply a recipe for refereeing controversy.
This all arose out of the so-called professional foul. Fouling inside the box is specifically unprofessional. Doing it outside the box to deny a goalscoring opportunity without conceding a penalty might be "professional". The answer in this case was never a sending-off, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity should, like a foul inside the box, bring the reward of a penalty. Then spectators would then see an exciting penalty and the sending off could return to being a punishment for serious or persistent foul play.
At the moment we've framed the rules, like Rugby administrators too, so that a high percentage of matches come down to the exigencies of refereeing. Ordinary spectators like Dancing end up commenting that the ref' ruined the game ........ on several occasions each season. We all go to football to see players not referees. And if referees are placed in the position of no longer being the impartial arbiter, but the accidental or deliberate deciding influence on the game, why would people want the role? Surely football wants the guy who wants to officiate so others can enjoy playing and watching, NOT somebody who likes being the centre of attention?