Should there be a sin-bin in football?
Both codes of rugby have one, so do handball and lacrosse. Ice hockey has one too, with its penalty
box and power play. It even exists in water polo.
Whatever the sport, the dynamic is the same: for a certain type of offence, the officials
can remove a player from the field, floor, pool or rink for a period of time, putting their teammates
at a numerical disadvantage.
But could something similar work in football?
More importantly, would it be good for the game?
In August, Newcastle and Manchester City drew 3-3 at St James’ Park.
With the game in its final quarter, Kevin De Bruyne broke into space in the Newcastle half,
only to be chopped down deliberately by Kieran Trippier. Initially, Trippier was
shown a red card for his tackle. But, upon VAR review, that was downgraded to a yellow.
It was an incident suited
to the sin-bin discussion. The tackle itself was probably somewhere between a yellow and red card.
But the case for an additional level of punishment – one more severe than a yellow
card, but not as serious nor as permanent as a red – was made by it being a tactical foul.
The principle that binds the many
forms of tactical foul is that they’re committed intentionally to prevent a move from developing.
It might be to stop a breakaway or a numerical mismatch; whatever the case,
it involves a player tripping or tugging back an opponent and accepting a yellow card as punishment
for nullifying the danger.
Is that fair? Well, that’s a matter of opinion, but the principle seems skewed: it amounts to an
individual punishment for a foul which benefits the whole team? Surely a collective sanction would
be more proportionate?
And that’s why such incidents reignite the conversation about sin-bins.
As the game has evolved, it could be argued that it has outgrown its on-field punishment system
and that, going forward, referees need more tools at their disposal to create deterrents
and discipline offenders.
It’s a fair perspective, but it’s only theory – any effect sin-bins might have on tactical fouling
would be guesswork.
As for its impact on another part of the game, however, there’s useful data to suggest that
temporary dismissals would serve football well.
Back in 2017, the International Football Association Board – IFAB – gave national
associations the right to introduce sin bins at grassroot levels and also offered them
the opportunity to choose which offences would be eligible for temporary dismissal.
In England,
the Football Association opted to run a pilot scheme in the 2019-20 season
and use sin-bins solely to punish dissent shown towards referees in amateur leagues.
The results were interesting
and were shown to produce a 38% reduction in dissent. In addition to which, the scheme produced
a positive response among those affected.
72% of players and 77% of managers wanted sin-bins to continue, and 88% of referees were in favour.
In the report,
it was also noted that player behaviour had generally improved and that the trial had
“showed players self-policing the game to prevent their colleagues from getting into trouble”.
So far, so good. It showed that
the sanction worked as a deterrent.
The logistics were simple too. A sin-binned player would be shown a yellow card, but then
be pointed off the pitch by the referee. The pilot scheme didn’t involve designated sin bin areas or
penalty boxes, but those would obviously exist were it to become law in the professional game.
Once ten minutes had elapsed, the referee then waved players back onto the field,
with the provision that if an already sin-binned player committed another sin-bin worthy offence,
they would then have to be substituted and removed from the game.
It applied to goalkeepers too;
it’s unclear whether this happened during the trial, but – in theory – a sin-binned goalkeeper
would either be replaced in goal by an outfield player, or a substitute goalkeeper would need
to be sent on, with the sin-binned player then either retaking their position or playing on as
an outfielder.
Those mechanics might need further work.
It’s also unclear whether any negative consequences were revealed during the trial,
or how exactly such a change would translate into the professional environment.
For instance, it seems certain that another level
of footballing bureaucracy would lead to further fan anger, paranoia and the kind of negative
behaviour that is hardly in short supply.
On the field, though, it remains to be seen how the period of numerical advantage could
be protected from time-wasting. While both codes of rugby use a sin-binning system successfully,
both sports also utilise a stopping clock. In football, by contrast, it’s easy to imagine teams
dawdling over restarts to erode a power-play. What might happen if an injury occurred,
for instance, or if the short-handed coach made a succession of time-draining
substitutions?
They aren’t insurmountable problems, but – in addition to others – they are still
issues which require thought if sin-bins are ever to become universal footballing law.
And that will be a decision for IFAB.
In England, the success of the original pilot scheme saw it extended further up the pyramid,
to step five of the National League system and Tier Three in women’s football, but extending
further and up into the Football League system would require international agreement,
further trials, and the most significant change in the sport since the global introduction of VAR.