A lot of entrenched opinions, here, which I think don't take account of the changes that have been made to RC
For 150 years RC (sending off) was the ultimate sanction, reserved for only the most egregious acts of foul play
And they were very rare, and taken seriously, and the punishment fitted the crime
But now we also give out RC for accidents.
Does the punishment still fit the crime?
You‘re absolutely right about the long history of sending off’s. I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure that red cards only appeared when yellow cards did???
What has changed though is the understanding of the ‘crime’. Or to be precise; the affects of the ‘crime’.
For most of that 150 years the odd punch, high tackle, dump tackle was considered part of the game and unless it was considered particularly ‘egregious’ as you rightly say, it was penalty only, if not simply “play on”.
Like many of you probably, I played during this time, and this approach was just how it was. We knew no different, “tough game”, “man up” etc, etc
But now we do know better. The game has to change, indeed it has changed, and we know that the stricter approach to sanctions has reduced the head injuries, and we need to maintain this trend, not look for ways to lessen it because of perceived intent.
Let’s not forget that the Head Contact Process already allows for playing on after head contact + no foul play. So once we as refs have made the call that foul play has occurred I don’t understand why we need more variables, particularly if they are driven by the fallacy of “red cards ruin games”.
So Crossref, to answer your question; yes, if we determine that the ‘accident’ is also foul play, the punishment does fit the crime.