If one thing is spoiling this season, it is the spate of red cards that have been issued in dubious circumstances. Match of the Day now seems to spend much time analysing each red card rather than focusing on goals or giving us the benefit of Mr Hansen’s insightful views.

FootballCynic sees red cards as a bit like being out at cricket. The umpire has to be sure before he raises his finger and gives the batsman the benefit of the doubt. Of course, technology now means that more marginal decisions in cricket can be given out.

But, what does football do – it encourages referees to send off players for fouls that Norman Hunter would have considered a little nudge, but then denies referees use of technology to check that they have seen it right. To compound it, the FA Appeals Committee always back up the referee unless he has made an absolute bloomer. The result is that players are banned for three games for offences that might look worse than they are in situations where the referee is terrified of missing a red card offence.

The reasons for a red card are becoming more and more spurious. If the foot is raised in a tackle, it is now a red card offence. Have you tried tackling with your feet rooted to the spot? If you’re the last man and make a decent attempt to play the ball but just clip the forward – a margin of error of, say, one inch, you are off. Why? Surely, red cards are there to stop outright thuggery and persistent fouling. FootballCynic would rather see players that moan at referees all the time and ones that are overpaid for their limited abilities to be red carded, to be honest.

There needs to be some action, it would seem. Otherwise, corners that are sliced off for goal kicks, throw-ins taken more than one foot from the right place and tying up your boot laces on the field of play will all become red card offences.

FootballCynic’s campaign starts here. 100,000 signatures would mean that the topic is eligible for debate by HM Government. .