Adam had to go but refs need more options

Reckless: Adam slides in on Wayne Rooney

THE idea that this could have been an ‘orange card’ tackle is wrong. Referee Martin Atkinson was absolutely right to dismiss Charlie Adam; his studs-led lunge was out of control and could have caused serious injury. However, the idea of a new disciplinary sanction has been suggested many times, with the FA’s ‘law man’, former referee David Elleray, an advocate of the sin-bin option. Rugby enforces the temporary exclusion of players for certain offences and I would encourage a trial along similar lines in football, but not for the type of tackle Adam committed on Rooney. Any offence involving serious foul play or violence must always result in a red card. It’s not just the immediate punishment of the act, but also the deterrent for future tackles. Showing a player a straight red card for a tackle is one of the toughest decisions a referee has to take. Therefore, offering a softer option, an orange card or time in a sin bin, would be too tempting for the majority of officials and result in players not fearing permanent dismissal. We need to see fewer studs-led tackles and the only way to ensure that is for referees to show strength. Atkinson, to his credit, did just that. Where a sin bin would be appropriate is for technical offences such as excessive dissent, over-exuberant goalscoring celebrations and when the two yellow card offences don’t really warrant a red. The offences are wrong but the punishment of a red card is not commensurate, hence the desire for a sin bin.