Obviously, players and coaches would accept this more lenient approach, but referees know better. The sin bin is a rubbish idea. To start with, why should misbehaving players be given further opportunities to transgress?

Everyone knows the consequences of bad sporting actions on the pitch, so players, particularly the professionals, have nothing to complain about when they are disciplined.

Michel Platini, Uefa president and a former professional player, argues his proposed white card is specifically for those who dive or show dissent towards referees. He said dissent was a "veritable epidemic", but the white card "should not be confused in any way with the yellow card, which, for its part, is dedicated to fouls within the game".

This is a disingenuous way of saying it is acceptable for players to dive and to disrespect the referee since players will effectively receive a slap on the wrist for being naughty.

The existing laws - with yellow and red cards introduced in 1970 after former referee Ken Aston was inspired by traffic lights in England - already discipline players sufficiently.

Worryingly, Pierluigi Collina, Uefa chief of refereeing and a revered former World Cup official, has backed his president. Collina, who also supported Platini's idea for using extra referees on the goal lines instead of goal-line technology, said using sin bins sent a message that simulation or arguing with the referee was unacceptable.

"I don't think it is a positive message to have a simulation on the field of play … or to have players always complaining, protesting against a referee's decision. So the message that should be given is more correctness on the field of play and maybe a sin bin-like five, seven, 10 - I don't know how long - minutes could be an answer," said Collina.

Regardless of the number of minutes a player should spend in the sin bin, the whole premise is unconvincing.

For diving, it makes no sense to stop cautioning a player and instead penalise them with a period in a sin bin because they know they can attempt to dive again without fear of being sent off.

Furthermore, it becomes redundant when players attempt to dive in the final minutes of a match. This means the consequence of being caught diving becomes even less of a concern, especially when compared to what a dive could potentially gain a player.

Therefore, Platini and Collina are wrong to claim sin bins will stop diving. The best way to prevent players from diving is to support referees when they caution players and to name and shame serial cheats.

Similarly, for dissent and using abusive language, referees have yellow and red cards. Unfortunately, these two disciplinary sanctions are no longer clearly defined nor are they correctly enforced, especially at the highest levels of the game. All referees are taught that players swearing at them should be instantly sent off.

However, referees in the English Premier League are doing a huge disservice to everyone around the world in allowing players to regularly swear at them without punishment.

At most, they may issue a caution, which indicates using abusive language has been "re-interpreted" as a cautionable and not a sending-off offence.

Since the EPL is beamed to over 200 countries, the overriding message is that players can abuse referees without being sent off. Therefore introducing sin bins would be impractical as they would be filled with foul-mouthed players.

The real problem is perceived "soft" cautions, which in the past have meant some players picking up "cheap" second yellow cards.

However, the answer is not to add an extra layer to the laws by introducing the white card.

All that is required is to identify the soft cautions - such as players removing their shirts after scoring a goal - and allow competition organisers to retrospectively fine players.

Sin bins would simply cause more problems.