Just a quick thought on using hardness.  It is not the suspensions, but the penalties that stop me using it more. Potentially losing 2-3 goals with hardness 10 through penalties alone will not be made up with the extra points cosidering GK and SW combos typically employed.  I use 1% hardness a lot, it is the same number of dice rolls but with 5% more chance.

I suggest along similar lines that there is a "Dark Arts" BRB who reduces PK chance (to 5%) or caps the number of penalties a team can concede (to 1?)  but with an increase in straight red cards if caught making the sly elbow into the ribs of the keeper at corners.  

We don't (yet) have VAR in United so no complication of 20 cameras monitoring the pitch.

A few thoughts on this one.  First, I like the idea, if for nothing else than an encouragement for more managers to consider the use of hardness in match plans.  I don't use Hardness because I am Soft.  If my team injures another manager's key player solely because of the increased hardness (I.e. the injury chance only hit because of the increased odds that my team's hardness added), I feel bad. The game is supposed to be fun, and losing a key player makes it less fun, so I made it less fun for someone else. That's just me. I also see how hardness is a tactical element, and teams that use it take on 'dirty' labels and develop a 'team character' that also makes the league more fun overall.  It's not just "Let Olmec Decide" week in and out.  If an element can be introduced that enhances managerial use (and misuse) of certain tactics, the league as a whole could benefit on the "fun" factor, or at least more teams gearing up the T11 for Revenge Matches! That's also fun to watch play out as the seasons roll on.

At the same time, teams that play hardness get the in-match benefits, especially at Gk and Sw.  Since those are player-specific boosts, and not positional collectives, I think they would have to be treated differently.  Also, as opposed to all-or-nothing, could we include three options? 1) The appeal works, and the red is removed; 2) the appeal is partially successful, and the red is reduced to a yellow; or 3) the appeal fails.  Examples:
At Gk & Sw (where the hardness is focused on one player, max of 3), odds of success are scaled to the amount of hardness used. (Numbers below assuming 1-100 random roll)
0 hardness --> 1-50 red card removed; 51-75 reduced to yellow; 76-100 fail
1 hard --> 1-20 removed; 21-33 yellow; 34-100 fail
2 hard --> (no removal chance); 1-10 yellow; 11-100 fail
3 hard --> no appeal (team got max benefit in the match; suffer the max penalty in the next)

For all other players:
0 --> 1-50 removed; 51-80 yellow; 81-100 fail
1 --> 1-40 removed; 41-60 yellow; 61-100 fail
2 --> 1-30 removed; 31-50 yellow; 51-100 fail
3 --> 1-22 removed; 23-40 yellow; 41-100 fail
4 --> 1-16 removed; 17-30 yellow; 31-100 fail
5 --> 1-12 removed; 17-20 yellow; 21-100 fail
6 --> 1-8 removed; 9-15 yellow; 16-100 fail
7 --> 1-5 removed; 6-10 yellow; 11-100 fail
8 --> 1-3 removed; 4-6 yellow; 7-100 fail
9 --> 1 removed; 2-3 yellow; 4-100 fail
10 --> (no removal); 1 yellow; 2-100 fail
Additionally, hardness applies to all the Df/Mf/Fw regardless of where applied, so the above number would all be halved if there were any hardness applied to their specific position. For an example, if a team played 5 hardness at Fw, and none at Df/Mf, any Df/Mf given a red would use the above odds.  Any Fw would have those odds halved.
For how many?  I think a limit of 2 or at most 3 would be plenty.  Figuring out who would be harder.  Focus on key players, but in what order? Gk, Captain, Sw, Fw, Df, Mf?  Highest SL first?  As opposed to all those variables, perhaps it would be easiest for the Team Lawyer to take on the appeal with the highest odds of success first, and then work down the list for a 2nd or 3rd appeal.  No sense appealing a 3-hardness Gk suspension because it can't succeed, even though the Gk is probably more critical for the next match.
Final thought: timing.  I think it needs to be immediate, post-matches, out of consideration for other managers.  Some managers have carved out gaming time on Sundays or Mondays, and rarely come back on Thursday/Friday/Saturday morning for adjustments or additions.  We would penalize them to make them wait to see if their upcoming opponent will or won't have a top Gk or their Captain free in the first/second match of the session.  Knowing there's a weaker Gk in goal, or a top Fw line will be weaker, definitely changes the odds of victory, and planning on where to allot my own T11. A team that could benefit from getting a player back shouldn't also benefit from their opponents also being left in limbo for several days, possibly then having to rush lineups last minute to adjust for a successful appeal.

The main penalty for using hardness are (as James mentioned) the expected goals against due to pks - which keeps at least me from rough play, mostly.

A 1-game suspension OTOH is - given the fitness-based rotation - mostly a just minor nuisance: the player just plays game 2 and 3.

The lawyer only reduces the suspensions, so he would IMHO just manage a problem, where there is none.

And yes, I know that longer suspensions do happen.
I've even heard of very rare 3 game suspensions.

Hardness??

Some of these comments really reinforce for me why we need something like this. Back in the early days of United, a number of us used Hardness very regularly (myself included). Players were getting injured, players were getting suspended, and PKs were given up. Teams won by using Hardness, and teams lost by using haardness. It was a tactic that was used to bring variety and spice to the game. But, statistic analysis proved out that the increased rates of PKs and suspensions from red cards made Hardness not worth using, and thus it fell out of practice. 

So, in my mind, we have 2 options:

1. Do something to bring back the use of Hardness as a viable tactic in the game,

2. Do away with it all together if we're not going to make it viable. 

I think the game needs more variety so I'm not in favor of the latter. So for the former, I think this Brb is a good move in the direction to bringing Hardness back to being viable. This doesn't do anything for reducing PKs, which is fine - we can address that in other ways if we feel it's something we need to do. But it does bring a potential to reduce suspensions, albeit not guaranteed. And I like that.

I like some of Kevin's suggestions that using the Appeals Lawyer not be a guaranteed thing. I like getting a sliding scale based on the amount of hardness used. Making the GK and SW specialized sounds like a good idea, but we might want to consult Al on how much more difficult that would make the programming of the feature. But I think it's a good idea. 

Like others on here, I rarely, if ever, use hardness only to avoid the heightened risk of a penalty. Suspensions don't really play into the calculus for me. That said, I'm in favor of any adjustments that would add intrigue and strategy to the game, and I think red card appeals could be helpful to the limited extent that it allows managers to stick to their youth development plans. I'd be on board with red card appeals if the odds make sense. I like Kevin's idea of a sliding scale and think that on the whole, appeals should be granted rarely.

If it ain't broke, don't bring in lawyers to fix it!!!!