When is a penalty not a penalty?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

That's how it used to be, in the good old days...

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think we will be screaming blue murder if one like that is given against us tomorrow night.

I know there is so much playacting, faking and cheating going on in football recently but I think we all used to know what handball was. I honestly don't think it was clear enough to award a penalty.

I've heard Dermot Gallagher say no penalty because the player wasn't going to reach the ball in a tackle situation. So if the ball was clearly going over the bar what is the difference.

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

IMO it was the correct decision, and not too dissimilar to Schalke v Man City - perhaps if that hadn’t been given this wouldn’t have been, but it is good that there’s been a consistent approach.  

[ricardo 7,339]

28 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think we will be screaming blue murder if one like that is given against us tomorrow night.

I know there is so much playacting, faking and cheating going on in football recently but I think we all used to know what handball was. I honestly don't think it was clear enough to award a penalty.

I've heard Dermot Gallagher say no penalty because the player wasn't going to reach the ball in a tackle situation. So if the ball was clearly going over the bar what is the difference.

What does a tackle have to do with it? It was an attempted bock.

In a tackle sitution a foul is given regardless of intention. You may honestly be going for the ball but if you miss and take the player its still a foul. In the penalty situation the defender certainly intended to block the ball and did so with an illegal part of his anatomy. I really cant see where there is anything to dispute.

[Indy 3,283]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

What does a tackle have to do with it? It was an attempted bock.

In a tackle sitution a foul is given regardless of intention. You may honestly be going for the ball but if you miss and take the player its still a foul. In the penalty situation the defender certainly intended to block the ball and did so with an illegal part of his anatomy. I really cant see where there is anything to dispute.

In that case then even if the defender stands still with his arms by his side and blocks the shot with his arm it should be a penalty Ricardo? As you stated defender intended to block the ball but did so with an illegal part of his body, so any time the ball hits your arm in the box it should be a penalty?

[ricardo 7,339]

15 minutes ago, Indy said:

In that case then even if the defender stands still with his arms by his side and blocks the shot with his arm it should be a penalty Ricardo? As you stated defender intended to block the ball but did so with an illegal part of his body, so any time the ball hits your arm in the box it should be a penalty?

No because if its kicked straight at you from close range you can't avoid it hitting you. In last night's case the player threw himself deliberately in front of the ball. The key is intention, by which I mean an intentional movement towards the flight of the ball.

[Indy 3,283]

The key to last night Ricardo was he didn’t block a shot on target, it was heading into Zamora country! Row z, so the defender hadn’t blocked a goal scoring opportunity, he didn’t intentionally move his arm away from his body in the direction of the ball and he wasn’t that far away from the strike of the ball, the ref had seen the passage of play and I think I’m right had already looked to award the corner before being instructed to take a look. At this point he changed his mind and for me it wasn’t clear cut penalty as this thread supports as we have seen it so differently 😂

 

But I can see where your coming from, it’s certainly a valid point in line with the rules, let’s hope we don’t lose to a penalty like that tomorrow, this board would be in meltdown 👍😉

[Hairy Canary 668]

Its coming to the point that you have to keep your arms in an unnatural position, i.e. behind your back to avoid giving away a penalty. Players can be seen doing that every game. However it's not possible to jump effectively with your hands behind your back so it's almost a fact that to attempt to block by jumping it becoming too risky. That cannot be right.

[ricardo 7,339]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

The key to last night Ricardo was he didn’t block a shot on target, it was heading into Zamora country! Row z, so the defender hadn’t blocked a goal scoring opportunity, he didn’t intentionally move his arm away from his body in the direction of the ball and he wasn’t that far away from the strike of the ball, the ref had seen the passage of play and I think I’m right had already looked to award the corner before being instructed to take a look. At this point he changed his mind and for me it wasn’t clear cut penalty as this thread supports as we have seen it so differently 😂

 

But I can see where your coming from, it’s certainly a valid point in line with the rules, let’s hope we don’t lose to a penalty like that tomorrow, this board would be in meltdown 👍😉

Why does it matter if it's on target. I've never seen that as a condition in awarding a penalty. You may as well say it's not a penalty if somebody is fouled while moving away from goal. If it's in the area it's a penalty.

 

[Van wink 2,994]

Thought is was a penalty at the time and nothing I have seen or read since has changed my mind. If you jump with your arm out and the ball hits your arm, its been a deliberate action to deflect the ball, has to be hand ball.

The Pepe headbut however.......not quite sure how Dzeko ever got up after that one!

[Indy 3,283]

Just now, ricardo said:

Why does it matter if it's on target. I've never seen that as a condition in awarding a penalty. You may as well say it's not a penalty if somebody is fouled while moving away from goal. If it's in the area it's a penalty.

 

It’s not in my book, a penalty should be in the event of a clear goal scoring opportunity, for me all other fouls should be indirect, but that’s just my opinion, I never understood why you award a penalty for a player running away from goal in the box with no clear goal scoring opportunity! But as said that’s just my opinion not the laws of the game! 👍

[ricardo 7,339]

13 minutes ago, Hairy Canary said:

Its coming to the point that you have to keep your arms in an unnatural position, i.e. behind your back to avoid giving away a penalty. Players can be seen doing that every game. However it's not possible to jump effectively with your hands behind your back so it's almost a fact that to attempt to block by jumping it becoming too risky. That cannot be right.

It will always be a matter of interpretation and no rule will cover every situation but if your body is moving across the flight of the ball or with an intention of intercepting the ball you are always going to be at risk of the ball hitting the hand whether intentional or not. I think it is entirely different from a situation where the ball comes straight at you and you can't get out of the way.

[ricardo 7,339]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s not in my book, a penalty should be in the event of a clear goal scoring opportunity, for me all other fouls should be indirect, but that’s just my opinion, I never understood why you award a penalty for a player running away from goal in the box with no clear goal scoring opportunity! But as said that’s just my opinion not the laws of the game! 👍

A goal scoring opportunity has nothing to do with a penalty and never has been.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

6 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s not in my book, a penalty should be in the event of a clear goal scoring opportunity, for me all other fouls should be indirect, but that’s just my opinion, I never understood why you award a penalty for a player running away from goal in the box with no clear goal scoring opportunity! But as said that’s just my opinion not the laws of the game! 👍

Indy, that way would lie total madness. You would be asking referees to make all sorts of judgment calls on what might or might not be a clear goal-scoring chance. You already have enough confusion with the officials having to decide whether someone who is offside is interfering with play.

[Indy 3,283]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

A goal scoring opportunity has nothing to do with a penalty and never has been.

I know Ricardo, I was just stating my opinion on the matter, like Ice Hockey a penalty shot is only awarded when a clear goal scoring opportunity has been halted by hooking, slashing or other foul.

I know football isn’t the same I was just saying my thoughts.👍

[Van wink 2,994]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

I know Ricardo, I was just stating my opinion on the matter, like Ice Hockey a penalty shot is only awarded when a clear goal scoring opportunity has been halted by hooking, slashing or other foul.

I know football isn’t the same I was just saying my thoughts.👍

Or a penalty try in rugby, completely different of course, but following that model a foul in the penalty area where the ref is of the opinion that a goal would have been scored could result in a penalty goal. That would suit City fine atm.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Van wink

[ricardo 7,339]

So what about a player being wrestled to the floor during a corner. Should the ref take into consideration the height of the cross to determine if it might have been a goal scoring opportunity or not. Would you have given an indirect free kick if the ball was obviously overhit?

Edited March 7, 2019 by ricardo
Spelling

[Indy 3,283]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indy, that way would lie total madness. You would be asking referees to make all sorts of judgment calls on what might or might not be a clear goal-scoring chance. You already have enough confusion with the officials having to decide whether someone who is offside is interfering with play.

Not really Purple, it would make it easier, just award an indirect free kick for all offence other than direct shots, tackles taking a player through on goal, why should a penalty be awarded for that handball last night as it was way off target? Just saying, I know the rules aren’t in line with my thoughts .

[Indy 3,283]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

So what about a player being wressled to the floor during a corner. Should the ref take into consideration the height of the cross to determine if it might have been a goal scoring opportunity or not. Would you have given an indirect free kick if the ball was obviously overhit?

Yes as there’s no clear cut chance, just a foul.

 

How about obstructing a player with no intention of playing the ball? Why is that OK? That’s never a foul when defenders shield the ball out over ten yards!

[ricardo 7,339]

I think you are ploughing a lone furrow Indy. 

[Indy 3,283]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I think you are ploughing a lone furrow Indy. 

I know Ricardo, I just hate awarded penalties when there’s little chance of a goal scoring opportunity. Still if VAR is used correctly we should see better results and hopefully fair results.

I still don’t think I’d have awarded that penalty last night, just my opinion of it. You would have so never easy even with VAR. 😉

[ricardo 7,339]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

I know Ricardo, I just hate awarded penalties when there’s little chance of a goal scoring opportunity. Still if VAR is used correctly we should see better results and hopefully fair results.

I still don’t think I’d have awarded that penalty last night, just my opinion of it. You would have so never easy even with VAR. 😉

Short of having a lie detector by the corner flag there is no way of determining intention so i guess we will have to rely on the ref😉

[littleyellowbirdie 2,509]

4 hours ago, Indy said:

I don’t really agree with that and I do.......VAR is to blame as the ref was in a good position to see the initial block and was happy to give a corner. Then the VAR team told him to take a look, so he then changed his mind, but for me like you Herts didn’t think it was intentional and certainly not unnatural. So I do blame VAR, but you’re right ultimately the ref should have stuck to his original corner.

But as Purple said he’d give it.....I wonder how he would feel if that was given against us end of next season sending us down? 😉

How can VAR be to blame? VAR doesn't make any decisions, it just shows what happened at the time and gives an opportunity to look at it to make a decision. Additionally, the VAR team are making a judgement on exactly the same footage that you're making the judgement: they don't have separate cameramen doing the VAR footage, it's all the cameras that are being used for the TV footage. 

[First Wazzock 902]

I just had a feeling this might happen...

Every decision a referee makes is based on his opinion. Trying to get consistency is always going to be difficult, and trying to determine intent is impossible.

It will only be a matter of time before the decision will have to be from a panel of 3 watching, or if there is a decision that is slightly contentious we could need 5 to make the decision, moving towards higher odd numbers for each controversial decision. And this is supposed to be better than just letting the guy in the middle make the decisions - he can balls it up perfectly well on his own!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Why does it matter if it's on target. I've never seen that as a condition in awarding a penalty. You may as well say it's not a penalty if somebody is fouled while moving away from goal. If it's in the area it's a penalty.

Dermot Gallagher has said that he would not give a penalty if in his opinion the player had no chance of getting the ball. That is why so many times you see a player by the line dumped but the ref gives a goal kick. So no matter what rules say or mean, referees will use their initiative.

And I agree that if the ball was going over, the same initiative could apply especially when the ref only changed his mind by watching a TV replay just the same as we all did and the nation is divided whether it was a penalty. Gallagher has said no penalty, Martin Tyler, one of the commentators on the game and numerous current and ex players have said no penalty. So if it is that unclear how can you give it?

[splendidrush 699]

I'm a conspiracy theorist, it's easier, seems to me that no matter how many cameras, or how much technology is introduced, they will always find a way of making the rules fit their agenda..... I'm so looking forward to next season. 🙁

 

[JF 694]

2 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

I'm a conspiracy theorist, it's easier, seems to me that no matter how many cameras, or how much technology is introduced, they will always find a way of making the rules fit their agenda..... I'm so looking forward to next season. 🙁

 

I’d imagine in this instance that the agenda would have been learning in PSG’s direction though. As I said earlier in the thread, under the new guidance that referees have been given for the CL this season, that was a penalty. In my opinion, without that guidance it’s still a penalty 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just watching the Chelsea match and Pedro went down in the area. There is no VAR but its television so plenty of camera angles. The referee says no penalty. Darke and Spackman eventually agree there was a shove but not a big one so it would have been harsh to give a penalty-but they had seen them given. No protest from the players either.

Later, Kiev attempt to cross it and it hits Alonso on the arm which he has tucked by his side (but certainly not in a normal way unless he was dancing to Madness) but was putting himself in the way of the ball on purpose.No penalty. No protests from the players.

In my opinion and the referee's and more or less the commentators, both decisions were fair  and correct. But extrapolation from last night's game could have given a penalty to each side.

[Yellow Wal 314]

If only players could stop turning their backs on shots and stand up like men, (I can't remember big Dunc turning his back too often) then most of these 'unintential' handballs would not arise. Personally, if you pay me £50K, £100K or £200K a week you can kick that bloody ball at me as often as you want!

[vos 155]

For me - no penalty. Yes, he was clearly trying to block the ball which was part of his job. But his arms were in a natural position as part of the normal jumping process and with his back to the ball. If we concede one like that tomorrow night the crowd will go berserk !!!!