Is football no longer a contact sport? A penalty discussion.

[WhiskeyJar]

I personally think it still is but if you misstimes a tackle and the defender makes contact with the attacker then you are asking for trouble.

 

The issue stems from what I believe is the ideology of what is considered a "soft" penalty. If a foul is committed inside the box, no matter how you interpret it, it's a pen.

 

Take the Hazard case last night. I don't understand how a case can be made that football is not a contact sport any more when Bellarin clearly kicks Hazard. Hazard does milk it and certainly overreacted but it's a pen clear as day.

 

The Lovern/Everton pen was also considered soft but again Lovern was asking for trouble when he got tight to the attacker and seemed to push him over.

 

It just comes down to defenders who need to defend intelligently and make tackles that don't force the ref to make that penalty call.

[The Guest]

99% of the game players are coming into contact with each other. Trying to gain an advantage with little nudges and taps, taking the ball first but and also making contact with the man. None of them are fouls. Just because some referees have fallen for players cheating and pundits then follow it up with “there’s contact it’s a foul” nonsense doesn’t suddenly mean the game as a whole is a non-contact sport.

 

The people in charge are obviously trying to stop the cheating with this retrospective ban stuff but until they start punishing every player who decides to go down before contact is made then we are going to get soft pens like Ali and Calvert-Lewin.

 

The Hazard pen against Arsenal was just horrifically bad refereeing. His angle showed there was no forward momentum fro Hazard and the tap from Bellerin to clearly be accidental and have no impact on Hazard. The fact he then throws himself to the floor should be a booking for him for trying to con the ref.

[A_S]

I can't remember the last time a player was illegally impeded by a defender's outstretched leg, attempted to ride it out and stay on his feet, then was awarded a penalty anyway.

 

It's not the sole cause of 'soft' penalties, but it doesn't help the situation.

[Jairzinho]

I can't remember the last time a player was illegally impeded by a defender's outstretched leg, attempted to ride it out and stay on his feet, then was awarded a penalty anyway.

 

It's not the sole cause of 'soft' penalties, but it doesn't help the situation.

 

Yes. A big part of the problem is that attempting to stay on your feet isn't rewarded. Therefore, why would any player attempt to do so?

[VladimirIlyich]

Poor refereeing doesn't help. Don't get me started on Mike Riley being head of refereeing.

[Stickman]

To be fair Salah with his first goal against Leicester could have gone down a couple of times but stayed on his feet to score.

It doesn't help when you hear so called experts saying "ah but there was contact so he had a right to go down", like last night even thought Hazard clutched his shin like it was broken.

The exact same experts incidentally who will whinge like fuck if a similar pen is awarded against England in the World Cup. 

[Guest]

Direct free kick

 

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be

careless, reckless or using excessive force:

 

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

• jumps at an opponent

• charges an opponent

• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

• pushes an opponent

• tackles an opponent

 

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following three offences:

 

• holds an opponent

• spits at an opponent

• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own

penalty area)

 

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred

 

(see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

 

Penalty kick

 

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by

a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball,

provided it is in play.

[WhiskeyJar]

Yes. A big part of the problem is that attempting to stay on your feet isn't rewarded. Therefore, why would any player attempt to do so?

That's a major issue. Players know there is a higher chance of a penalty being awarded if they go down. How can you then distinguish the genuine penalties from the divers?

 

The judgement of the ref becomes crucial in those situations which is why Wegner was making the argument for VAR.

 

The game now is too fast to make crucial decisions based on a split second viewing.

[Ne Moe Imya]

That's a major issue. Players know there is a higher chance of a penalty being awarded if they go down. 

 

Don't think it's strong enough to say there's a "higher chance" if they go down. If they don't go down the chance is zero. Can't even remember the last time we saw a penalty given when the player didn't go to ground. It's basically a requirement now that if you feel any contact at all you should throw yourself down.

 

The Lovren/Everton one was different because he was even with the attacking player. It was still a foolish risk, but a good referee knows the difference between a defender who is behind the attacker and trying to push him to put him off his shot and a shoulder-to-shoulder challenge where the attacker just goes down to put doubt in his mind.

 

Unfortunately we didn't have a good referee that evening.

[Pureblood]

It depends who the ref is.  If it's Anthony Taylor then non-contact rules apply in the penalty area.

[Trumo]

Poor refereeing doesn't help. Don't get me started on Mike Riley being head of refereeing.

 

It doesn't help when you hear so called experts saying "ah but there was contact so he had a right to go down"

 

Two pet peeves of mine.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

"There was contact, so he had a right to go down" is up there with "He touched the ball, so it isn't a foul". I associate both with the phrase "for me, Clive".

 

The problem is referees don't tend to look for illegal contact anywhere on the pitch - it's far too hard to discern - they go largely by body language and the aftermath of a coming together. The stride pattern, posture etc. are far easier to read from twenty yards away than whether two knees, for example, might have collided at speed. Hence why a player fouled who goes down theatrically will get booked and one not fouled but convincing enough can get a pen.

[magicrat]

Perhaps we should scrap penalties except for straight RC offences in the box.  FK on the edge of the box closest to the point of the offence, 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I say give more indirect free kicks; haven't seen one of those in ages. There was a comical value to seeing everyone standing on the goal line, hands in front of bollocks, and someone blasting it at them from all of three yards out.

[Beno]

I'd say 80% of pens these days are 'soft'. Mostly all the contact is initiated by the attacker so that it looks like he has been fouled, or they are on their way down before the defender makes a challenge and so cons the referee again. 

Can't stand these modern day pundits who say, 'there was contact - it's a penalty'. That is just bollocks. A slight touch doesn't mean you have to fall over, the defenders have got to be given a fair crack of the whip to try and tackle to prevent  a goal. 

If everyone fell over at the slightest contact on the rest of the pitch, then the game would cease to exist.

[Stickman]

The same pundits who say "there was contact so he had a right to go down" are the same ones who spout "goalies get far too much protection these day"

[Pureblood]

"If it wasn't a pen it must be a dive".

 

No, you silly cunt.  

[UnwelcomeinPeru]

I say give more indirect free kicks; haven't seen one of those in ages. There was a comical value to seeing everyone standing on the goal line, hands in front of bollocks, and someone blasting it at them from all of three yards out.

Yes - the problem is proportionality. The sanction for a foul in the penalty area in most cases is way out of sync with the offence. A penalty is a free hit at 190 square feet of goal from dead centre. Few penalties result from fouls that deny the attacking team that opportunity, and many result from 'fouls' where there was little or no opportunity to score a goal: in fact the only 'opportunity' is to induce a foul.

I am not sure what the alternative is though.

[aws]

I'd say 80% of pens these days are 'soft'. Mostly all the contact is initiated by the attacker so that it looks like he has been fouled, or they are on their way down before the defender makes a challenge and so cons the referee again. 

Can't stand these modern day pundits who say, 'there was contact - it's a penalty'. That is just bollocks. A slight touch doesn't mean you have to fall over, the defenders have got to be given a fair crack of the whip to try and tackle to prevent  a goal. 

If everyone fell over at the slightest contact on the rest of the pitch, then the game would cease to exist.

Agree with most of that but on the other hand defenders are often allowed to get away with shoves, holding, little kicks and trips which unbalance strikers. There would be twenty penalties a game if they weren't.

 

The problem is the disparity between all the stuff that gets ignored and the likely goal which results when the ref decides which of the many incidents he's going to penalise. Maybe penalties should be reserved for incidents where the striker is hindered in the course of a real scoring chance and all the other stuff gets punished by a free shot from the edge of the D.

[Pureblood]

I think the time has come for video reviews.  I don't really have a problem with proportionality.  If the attacking team has reached the penalty area they have done something right and deserve their penalty if a player is impeded that close to the goal.  It rewards teams who take the initiative instead of managers who drive a bus.

 

It's the inconsistency of the decisions that grates.  So give the referee a bit of help.

 

It would go against the grassroots philosophy of officiating the game, but surely at the top level the rules should be amended because the stakes are so high.  

 

It wouldn't be a perfect system but it would help in cases where the referee has clearly been conned.

[Trumo]

I think the time has come for video reviews.  I don't really have a problem with proportionality.  If the attacking team has reached the penalty area they have done something right and deserve their penalty if a player is impeded that close to the goal.  It rewards teams who take the initiative instead of managers who drive a bus.

 

It's the inconsistency of the decisions that grates.  So give the referee a bit of help.

 

It would go against the grassroots philosophy of officiating the game, but surely at the top level the rules should be amended because the stakes are so high.  

 

It wouldn't be a perfect system but it would help in cases where the referee has clearly been conned.

 

VAR in its present guise isn't always effective. In last night's Turin derby, a Torino player was fouled near the touchline. The referee waved play on even though a few of the Torino players had stopped playing. Seconds later, Juventus had the ball in the net to make it 2-0. The Torino players and coaches remonstrated so the referee went to the sideline to watch the replay. The replay showed a clear foul on the Torino player but the referee stuck with his original decision and allowed the goal to stand.

 

Then there was the incident at the Confederations Cup where Emre Can was fouled by a Cameroon player. It was barely a bookable offence never mind the straight red that the referee dished out, to the wrong player, even after using the VAR. Eventually, the referee viewed the footage again, and then sent off the player who'd committed the foul.

[Pureblood]

Yeah, it wouldn't be perfect as I say but it would help.  The refs need help.  I agree with Wenger.

[aws]

The trouble with live video reviews is you'd have to stop the game quite often. I'd be happy to try and stamp out diving by unlimited video reviews after the game. Three match bans for divers (including leg draggers) and a point deducted for his club.

[Pureblood]

The trouble with live video reviews is you'd have to stop the game quite often. I'd be happy to try and stamp out diving by unlimited video reviews after the game. Three match bans for divers (including leg draggers) and a point deducted for his club.

 

It would add to the drama and Ray Winstone could sponsor the whole charade.  Larrrrvely. 

[aws]

It would add to the drama and Ray Winstone could sponsor the whole charade.  Larrrrvely.

 

Divers to get the full "Who’s the Daddy?" treatment in the potting shed after the game.