Blue Cards: Making the Sport Worse or Shaping the Future Game

In the 2018 World Cup, video assistant referee (VAR) caught the attention of the football world because of its enormous potential to eliminate refereeing errors. The technology was managed by a booth of four people watching multiple angles of each play to catch misjudged calls and reverse them. The referee had the ability to view the play for themselves on a pitchside screen before giving the final say. However, a concept that initially seemed promising immediately posed issues.

While VAR did help referees catch red cards and offside calls that they would otherwise have missed, there have been far more instances of outrage than praise. The rules of VAR, like many other sports review systems, are strange and flawed. VAR cannot be used on potential yellow cards and can only be used on “clear and obvious errors.” This means that if there was a serious foul that the referee missed and arguably should have been a yellow card, or if there’s an error that was not “obvious” from the referee’s perspective, VAR cannot intervene and the call cannot be reversed.

VAR has undoubtedly been the most successful with offside calls, as offsides are the most objective of the rules. VAR’s work in making offside calls has drastically changed the game, as before VAR, a player could potentially get away with being slightly offside. The introduction of VAR has allowed for precise lines to be drawn that determine whether a player is onside down to the millimeter.

While VAR has seen success in offside calls, as a whole, it has only made life harder for referees. They are the scapegoats of any subjective or missed calls, and this has led them to take longer to make each call in an attempt to get each one right, only delaying the game and causing unnecessary frustration.

It is clear that change is needed in refereeing and the treatment of referees as a result of these calls. However, the proposed solution of blue cards is not one that fits the issue. The blue card would serve similarly to a yellow card, except harsher in its actions. A player that receives one would be taken off the pitch and put into a “sin bin” for 10 minutes, similar to hockey’s penalty box. Blue cards would be awarded for dissent and cynical fouls (clear offenses that intend to interfere with the opposition’s counterattack). Similar to what is in place now, two blue cards or one blue card and one yellow card would result in a red card.

The blue card aims to cover two of the most prevalent issues in soccer today. The first growing issue is dissent. There used to be reverence toward referees, even when players and fans disagreed with them. They might have despised them, but in the end, players would accept their decision and authority. In recent years, it has become clear that players are walking over referees, especially in the way they address them. Sometimes, there are situations where a yellow card isn’t enough to stop a player from harassing the referee, and a blue card could potentially be the solution to that. 

Cynical fouls have also become an issue, as by law, they are only to be punished with a yellow card unless the foul obstructs a “clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity.” This means that players are allowed to illegally prevent one promising attack per game without being sent off, which has made tactical fouls an unfortunately important part of the game. If a team’s promising move is stopped illegally, a 10-minute man-advantage seems like a fair reward. 

So before dismissing the blue card concept, it is crucial to acknowledge that it could be key in both helping referees regain control and changing tactics for the better. However, blue cards are certainly not perfect, nor are they even ultimately a “good” idea. There are multiple issues that justify the backlash that FIFA has received for this idea.

One logistical issue would be an increased risk of injuries for players. Before each game, players go through a complex series of warm-up exercises for approximately an hour, and there are an average of 2.3 injuries per match. If these athletes were to stop playing and sit statically for ten minutes—oftentimes in cold weather—their risk of pulling a muscle and other non-contact injuries would increase exponentially. Athletes “are more likely to injure cold muscles because they are tighter.” In countries such as Germany, a 10 minute rest in freezing temperatures could be dangerous.

Another issue would be how blue cards mix with VAR. This would require the lawmakers to rethink how calls can be changed after review, thus introducing a new set of guidelines for the referee. This is something that would ultimately do the exact opposite of what blue cards intend to do, which is making life simpler for referees. There becomes another realm of subjective calls regarding what is cynical, and it makes the margins even thinner between yellow, blue, and red cards, allowing for more controversy. 

Players such as West Ham United forward Michail Antonio have expressed discontent with blue cards, with Antonio going on The Players Channel podcast to speak out against them. “I feel bad for the referees, it’s a difficult job…They can’t even get videos right. So now, you want to add a third card in? It makes no sense,” Antonio said. Critics of blue cards believe that if referees are having trouble managing the two cards that they already have, a third card would only add more chaos for them and players. 

The last widespread complaint is that many don’t want such a drastic change to the game. There hasn’t been the introduction of a new card since 1970, and fans are drawn to sticking with tradition. Though the game has many flaws, the state of the game now is not dire enough to be tampered with by a change such as the blue card.

Thus, while the idea of something to change the game for the better may be appealing, it doesn’t seem that blue cards are the catalyst to successfully mitigate these prevalent problems. It is important to not only express discontent with the idea but also to understand FIFA’s advocacy for referees.