"Blue cards to be introduced for football sin-bins"

100% agree. We’ve all heard captains say ‘I’m the captain, i can talk to you’ which we know is nonsense, but actually applying that would make dealing with dissent so much better. Actually define who can talk to you and anyone outside of that knows they’ll be taking a seat for 10 minutes. It doesn’t prevent referees having a dialogue, but it creates a ‘speak when you’re spoken to’ mentality for the teams.
I don't think it'd change much to be honest.

All that would happen is that players would moan/gob off at you by way of doing it to their captains rather than at you. No different to how things currently stand except a player will simply shout loudly at their captain what they want to say to you (but obviously loud enough for you to hear it as well!! :rolleyes:).
The Referee Store
The one thing that does sound promising with this proposal is it gets rid of the nonsense that you can get two yellow cards and not be sent off. Seems that the blue cards will just be a yellow with the addition of a sin bin, get two blue cards, or one blue and a yellow, and that equals a red. Much simpler for referees to implement, and for participants to understand.

The concerning element is a sin bin for cynical foul, as they are far more subjective than dissent. Dissent itself has some level of subjectivity due to differing tolerance levels of referees, which cynical fouls even more so. And what will a cynical foul be defined as, use the current definition of SPA, where players are often cautioned for accidental fouls that aren't in any way cynical, or leaving SPA as a standard caution and say it has to be a very obvious cynical foul for a sin bin. Whatever they go with I can't help thinking that every foul is going to result in the opposition demanding a sin bin.
Firstly, worth saying that I'm not in favour of extending sin bins to include things other than dissent. I've refereed at grassroots in Denmark where EVERY yellow card led to a sin bin and didn't find that aspect of officiating at all enjoyable.

However, should they decide to go the 'cynical foul' route, I'm not sure defining it would be as complex as it seems. For me, you'd simply go with SPA offences where there wasn't a challenge for the ball (a distinction referees already need to make in penalty area DOGSO situations). So referee thought process would be SPA with a challenge for the ball = Yellow Card, SPA without a challenge for the ball = Blue Card.
The majority of SPAs (no challenge for the ball) happen in the dying minutes of games, hence the blue card adds very little value
Of course, if they really wanted to punish such challenges with parity, they'd go down the path of retrospective bans, just as they could for other forms of blatant cheating. There are some Cautions that simply deserve more, but the blue card is not the answer
As for the idea of only Captains speaking to the Referee.... I don't know that game and nor do I want to
Last edited:
My thoughts one this.. The Blue card (as used in small sided soccer) - lets the fans watching know what is happening. e.g. Blue = Sin bin. Not sure it would work for "cynical" fouls - if we go down that route why not every yellow = 10 mins in the bin as per rugby. And I still believe that there should be a "naughty boy" seat seperate for a sin bin....
For a bit of fun.

After 24 matches, highest offenders would average at 1.5 sin bins a match.

Fairly big variances here, favouring Man City.😂

I mean I think the Man City complaint is that they get away with a lot of unpunished tactical fouls and PI as-is - so it's absolutely not a surprise to see them at the bottom of this table if all we're doing is isolating SPA cautions! :)
For a bit of fun.

After 24 matches, highest offenders would average at 1.5 sin bins a match.

Fairly big variances here, favouring Man City.😂

View attachment 7117
I know it's not your graphic, but I highly doubt there's that many 'tactical fouls' that would have resulted in a blue-card across this season. I'd assume this is the Athletic just basically giving every yellow card in/around the penalty area - a 'tactical foul' tag
Interesting scenario here, player given two sin bins in the same match, so no red card but takes no further part in the game, but can be substituted.

Club & player didn't realise they should serve a one match ban, despite not being red carded.

Sounds like there is some merit in their argument they had confusing advice from 'respondent' but that's over ridden as whole game system was clear that the player should be suspended.
SPA is confusing. There’s a lot of “what football expects”. There’s also confusion over whether blatant holding is SPA or general USB. And there’s confusion over whether tactical foul means a foul that is not an attempt on the ball, SPA or something else (like a deliberate City foul to stop the other team playing).

There will be a lot to unravel. Especially if they introduce a new class of foul.

In the last few seasons the SPA has tightened, but now we see some “common sense” SPA cards (Gomez). Referees won’t be able to handle televised sin bins the same. It will contradict the “keep 11 on the field” edict.

As Talksh*** also said: “leave it alone, stop fu**ing up our game with rule changes. Haven’t you f***ed it enough with VAR?”


  • 1708553073079.png
    116.7 KB · Views: 1
I repeat, SPA is way too subjective to be considered for blue cards. And how do they monitor the time for each individual player when there's 3-5 in the bin ? How many clocks will be needed ? As you say, just the leave game alone. Yellow and Reds work perfectly. They just need to be dealt with properly