I'll get brickbats for this but I wonder whether the DOGSO rule (which most people seem to agree with) is linked with this to some extent. It has always annoyed me that - under the original version of the rule - an accidental trip, even with an attempt to play the ball, resulted in a red card if it happened to deny a goal-scoring opportunity (even if, viewed on its own, it might not even have attracted a yellow). This has always seemed to me a denial of natural justice. I appreciate that the rule has been changed but we now have the arguably even more illogical situation that an accidental trip outside the area results in a red card (even where there is an attempt to play the ball), whereas inside the area it does not. Yes of course the attacking team gets a penalty, but logic suggests that the same foul should be penalised in the same way or at least that the offending player should be more harshly penalised for an offence within the area than for an offence outside - instead it's the other way round. I've always hated these aspects of DOGSO for these reasons. Once you accept that innocent challenges can attract straight red cards you are on the slippery slope to a non-contact sport.