Jump to content
horsefly

Winning a Penalty

Recommended Posts

Yesterday's penalty provided a good example of a player "winning" a penalty though mischievous play. Penalties should be awarded when a player is fouled as he makes a genuine attempt to play the ball, but is this what happened yesterday? It looked to me that the Preston player lured Skipp into running into the back of him by making a move forward then stopping dead without making any attempt to play the ball. Similar examples abound in the game. For example, James Vardy was a past-master (perhaps still is) at winning penalties by not playing the ball. His trick was to veer away from the trajectory of the ball he was supposedly chasing and into the path of the defender following that trajectory and who now couldn't avoid clattering into him. I remember him doing precisely that at CR (was it Bassong?). Is winning a penalty like this clever gamesmanship, or does it undermine the integrity of the game? To me it is the latter, there is something very distasteful and anti-sporting in attempting to win a penalty, and it should be outlawed rather than rewarded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's become so prevalent and the odds are loaded so far in favour of attackers that I would actually abolish penalty kicks as a punishment and replace them with something like penalty corners like they do in hockey instead. If it works for the attacker, they get a free, unpressured shot at goal from 12 yards with no-one within ten yards of them. At most they might get a yellow for simulation, which is incredibly rare.

At least penalty corners give the defending team a chance to actually defend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Horsefly

 

Agreed.

 

You also "win" fouls as well and tactical fouls are now praised by managers and commentators alike.

I suppose there has been a bit of all that since day one, but ir does seem more rife and acceptable in today's game.

I think, too, that it was a very soft penalty and indeed you could be correct in suggesting that it may have been manufactured by the defender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is disappointing that the referees aren't good enough to see what you and I saw. Sometimes I wonder if they understand the game at all. I accept that it is difficult to spot someone hanging their leg out to tangle with an opposition player but the one yesterday was absolutely blatant. Almost as blatant as when Grant Holt got an Ipswich player sent off a few years ago. Just slow down or stop and let the opponent run in the back of you. 

The most disappointing thing is that even with VAR they regularly failed to spot it. On the subject of VAR, the Manchester United game was held up for ages yesterday while they looked at a perfectly innocent collision in the penalty area. Gary Neville did his best to be polite but his thoughts made me wonder if the VAR people should have an ex professional with them to explain what has actually happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It's become so prevalent and the odds are loaded so far in favour of attackers that I would actually abolish penalty kicks as a punishment and replace them with something like penalty corners like they do in hockey instead. If it works for the attacker, they get a free, unpressured shot at goal from 12 yards with no-one within ten yards of them. At most they might get a yellow for simulation, which is incredibly rare.

At least penalty corners give the defending team a chance to actually defend.

I’ve thought this for a long time TGS. You are the only other person I’ve seen with the same view. I’ve never understood penalties as the punishment far outweighs the crime. A soft push from Skipp in a non dangerous position gives Preston a goal. A foul on Cantwell as he’s about to shoot, just inches outside the box is just a free kick. 
 

Of course attackers are going to look to “win” penalties. The reward is so high for what is a subjective decision on whether something is a minor foul or not. Personally I would only give penalties for the denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity, much like the penalty try in Rugby. Other fouls would just be free kicks within the area.

 

Edited by Hairy Canary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pen yesterday was an utter joke. The guy threw himself down, with minimal contact (if any) and totally unnatural to the "push". He went down about a second after the contact - didn't look remotely real.

Why the FA can't just use some common sense and implement Video replays for the ref is beyond me. 

We don't need VAR, we don't need stockley park, we do need a screen at the side of the pitch that the ref can go and check if he's given a decision that he isn't certain on or wants to double check. Fouls/Red cards only - not for offsides etc.

Edited by kick it off
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On MOTD they say "He had a right to go down there as he felt a touch."  Since when has footy been a non-contact sport?

Rubbish penalty yesterday. At this rate ( with 2 not given for us last week) people will be calling for VAR in the Championship on here before long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It is disappointing that the referees aren't good enough to see what you and I saw. Sometimes I wonder if they understand the game at all. I accept that it is difficult to spot someone hanging their leg out to tangle with an opposition player but the one yesterday was absolutely blatant. Almost as blatant as when Grant Holt got an Ipswich player sent off a few years ago. Just slow down or stop and let the opponent run in the back of you. 

The most disappointing thing is that even with VAR they regularly failed to spot it. On the subject of VAR, the Manchester United game was held up for ages yesterday while they looked at a perfectly innocent collision in the penalty area. Gary Neville did his best to be polite but his thoughts made me wonder if the VAR people should have an ex professional with them to explain what has actually happened. 

Whilst I don’t think that was a penalty yesterday I don’t think VAR would have overturned it because there was contact there. We all know he played for it and it wasn’t enough contact to send him down like that but I think VAR would not have changed anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Whilst I don’t think that was a penalty yesterday I don’t think VAR would have overturned it because there was contact there. We all know he played for it and it wasn’t enough contact to send him down like that but I think VAR would not have changed anything. 

After the Man U game yesterday VAR officials must be on something or be receiving a nice little back handler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are nearly completely right @horsefly, though unfortunately you miss a fundamental detail.

If you watch the corner come in - just before the penalty is given - Skipp switches off and loses his man. This is the critical error. The referee doesn’t get to make his ‘error’ (it was soft) without this mistake.

Skipp knows he has made an error, he tries (over-hard, over-enthusiastically) to rush back and get in front of his man to the correct position. 

The opponent is very clever and has instinctively understood all of this. He also works out he isn’t likely to score, so ‘brake-tests’ Skipp - as he tries clumsily to recover his error - and falls over.

The ultimate reason that the referee gives the penalty is that Skipp has his hands up as he tries to correct.

The opponent has been clever, Skipp has been naive, the ref has been ‘early-season keen’.

Skipp’s fault. 

Parma 
 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

You are nearly completely right @horsefly, though unfortunately you miss a fundamental detail.

If you watch the corner come in - just before the penalty is given - Skipp switches off and loses his man. This is the critical error. The referee doesn’t get to make his ‘error’ (it was soft) without this mistake.

Skill knows he has ads an error, he tries (over-hard, over-enthusiastically) to rush back and get in front of his man to the correct position. 

The opponent is very clever and has instinctively understood all of this. He also works out he isn’t likely to score, so ‘brake-tests’ Skipp - as he tries clumsily to recover his error - and falls over.

The ultimate reason that the referee gives the penalty is that Skipp has his hands up as he tries to correct.

The opponent has been clever, Skipp has been naive, the ref had been ‘early-season keen’.

Skipp’s fault. 

Parma 
 

He let Sinclair go for the second goal as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get sick of hearing how players win penalties, its either a penalty or its not. 

It's now become an art that clearly some teams clearly coach, yesterday's was ridiculous because the player is getting nowhere near the ball as it's a good 3 or 4 foot over his head. 

It reminds me of the ones that Man Utd got at Carrow Road when it hit Cantwell, the ball is clearly clearing the crossbar so wouldn't have gone in so how did hitting Cantwell arm affect the play, it didn't. 

Football for the purest is long since dead and its become embarrassing. 

Edited by Rich T The Biscuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hairy Canary said:

I’ve thought this for a long time TGS. You are the only other person I’ve seen with the same view. I’ve never understood penalties as the punishment far outweighs the crime. A soft push from Skipp in a non dangerous position gives Preston a goal. A foul on Cantwell as he’s about to shoot, just inches outside the box is just a free kick. 
 

Of course attackers are going to look to “win” penalties. The reward is so high for what is a subjective decision on whether something is a minor foul or not. Personally I would only give penalties for the denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity, much like the penalty try in Rugby. Other fouls would just be free kicks within the area.

 

I would like to +1 on this view too. Remember thinking how harsh a pen we conceded under Hughton was in a prem game while watching at Carrow Road (I think it was Stoke or Sunderland). Leon Barnett nudged their player from behind while he had his back to goal towards the edge of our box - a completely non threatening position as the box was still packed from a corner - and for the player of course to hurl himself on the floor to win the penalty. How can such a non threatening position be escalated to a 85% likelihood of a goal?

No wonder referees can hesitate sometimes and that phrase ‘if it were anywhere on the pitch it would’ve been given’ is often brandished. Penalties change games completely - but a very soft bit of contact, an accidental trip or close quarters handball, in a packed penalty area most definitely does not. Unless as you say a direct goal scoring chance or very threatening position is negated because of it, at which point it should be a penalty. Anything else should be a indirect freekick as you mention, or a normal freekick outside of the box in line with the offence to stop the box overcrowding. 

It seems to me that penalties are now becoming ever more prominent, especially with the introduction of VAR in the prem. I’d much rather they went the other way, with only serious obstruction of opposition play being given, and only the most obvious and stupid handballs should be given (i.e. deliberate, or hands above his head, stopping a goal etc), none of this ridiculous silhouette ****. None of the Palace players even appealed for the pen at United yesterday! Also imagine how many of United’s pens from last season came from such incidents which would not have yielded a goal if it wasn’t for that slightest bit of contact or handball! They’d probably have finished midtable.

Having direct pens only given when a foul stops a goalscoring chance or threatening position would of course bring up new debates. But I’d rather the conversation be about what is a goalscoring chance or threatening position than 300 replays on MOTD to see whether the ball clipped his shoulder or the top of his arm when it was a completely accidental handball! 

Having a larger scale of decision available to the referee also makes incorrect decisions less controversial. I.e. you may have missed the soft foul during the corner but it only would’ve been an indirect freekick etc.

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

You are nearly completely right @horsefly, though unfortunately you miss a fundamental detail.

If you watch the corner come in - just before the penalty is given - Skipp switches off and loses his man. This is the critical error. The referee doesn’t get to make his ‘error’ (it was soft) without this mistake.

Skipp knows he has made an error, he tries (over-hard, over-enthusiastically) to rush back and get in front of his man to the correct position. 

The opponent is very clever and has instinctively understood all of this. He also works out he isn’t likely to score, so ‘brake-tests’ Skipp - as he tries clumsily to recover his error - and falls over.

The ultimate reason that the referee gives the penalty is that Skipp has his hands up as he tries to correct.

The opponent has been clever, Skipp has been naive, the ref has been ‘early-season keen’.

Skipp’s fault. 

Parma 
 

I can’t agree, he barely touches him. I would not have given it the slightest thought if a similar incident was not given in our favour. This behaviour is so ingrained into the game’s culture now it’s ridiculous. 

All diving, play-acting and even blatant timewasting should be met with retrospective bans, 1 - 3 games depending on severity. If your cheating gets a player sent off (Xhaka in the FA cup final for example), then it’s a 3 game ban. If it’s less sinister then a 1 game. It’s easy to spot 90% of the time and I’d rather we take this kind of line to stub it out than having pundits say things like ‘there was a hand on his back from the opponent, and although it probably resembled a small moth landing on him, he has a right to go down there’.

There is no ‘spirit of the game’ with this anymore, it’s pathetic. Rarely do you see anything like what is acceptable - and even encouraged - in football in other sports. It should be clamped down on with aggression. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea to do away with penalties.

That would be one of the bigger changes in the game ever and seems unlikley to the extreme, BUT it has some validity as expressed by some of the points made in this thread.

A free and easy pot at goal following some minor cheating/acting in a non dangerous position. Basically the term "skilled at winning penalties" equates to "skill at cheating."

 

The Skipp/Cantwell comparison stood out, among other comments. Cantwell was in a far more dangerous position but because he was fouled a couple of inches outside we only benefited from a free kick faced with a line of defenders. 

 

Perhaps one compromise would be to reduce the size of the penalty area by a bit. 

Edited by BroadstairsR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that one of the best players for ‘winning’ fouls was Grant Holt.

I used to love the way that someone of his build and strength could so easily on occasions be brought to the ground by the lightest of touches by the smallest of players, whilst in the same game he could smash through the biggest defenders.

He was brilliant and getting us free kicks that either releived the pressure on the defence or gave us good opportunities.

I bet the opposition fans hated him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does also seem that players win a lot of free kicks by yelping loudly when tackled - as though that helps make the decision for the ref if he’s not sure -ridiculous as it may seem.  You don’t tend to realise so much unless there’s a larger crowd but it is noticeable.

Edited by Branston Pickle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

You are nearly completely right @horsefly, though unfortunately you miss a fundamental detail.

If you watch the corner come in - just before the penalty is given - Skipp switches off and loses his man. This is the critical error. The referee doesn’t get to make his ‘error’ (it was soft) without this mistake.

Skipp knows he has made an error, he tries (over-hard, over-enthusiastically) to rush back and get in front of his man to the correct position. 

The opponent is very clever and has instinctively understood all of this. He also works out he isn’t likely to score, so ‘brake-tests’ Skipp - as he tries clumsily to recover his error - and falls over.

The ultimate reason that the referee gives the penalty is that Skipp has his hands up as he tries to correct.

The opponent has been clever, Skipp has been naive, the ref has been ‘early-season keen’.

Skipp’s fault. 

Parma 
 

Agree with all that, but it was still the softest of penalties.  VAR would have had a field day yesterday, there were so many contentious issues. Thankfully, it is confined to the goldfish bowl of the PL where hopefully it will stay until it is discontinued as fans switch off from the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

It does also seem that players win a lot of free kicks by yelping loudly when tackled - as though that helps make the decision for the ref if he’s not sure -ridiculous as it may seem.  You don’t tend to realise so much unless there’s a larger crowd but it is noticeable.

Did you see the Bruno Fernandes on yesterday when he had his foot stood on during a tackle, really embarrassing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

You are nearly completely right @horsefly, though unfortunately you miss a fundamental detail.

If you watch the corner come in - just before the penalty is given - Skipp switches off and loses his man. This is the critical error. The referee doesn’t get to make his ‘error’ (it was soft) without this mistake.

Skipp knows he has made an error, he tries (over-hard, over-enthusiastically) to rush back and get in front of his man to the correct position. 

The opponent is very clever and has instinctively understood all of this. He also works out he isn’t likely to score, so ‘brake-tests’ Skipp - as he tries clumsily to recover his error - and falls over.

The ultimate reason that the referee gives the penalty is that Skipp has his hands up as he tries to correct.

The opponent has been clever, Skipp has been naive, the ref has been ‘early-season keen’.

Skipp’s fault. 

Parma 
 

I appreciate your response but it does rather beg the question (in the proper strict sense of that term). My point is not about the naivety or otherwise of players getting sucked into giving away penalties in this way (certainly there is a case for saying that about Skipp), rather it is the general point that the game's authorities (including referees) are allowing this deceptive behaviour to happen. I'm arguing that referees should not be duped into giving penalties to players who have not made a genuine attempt to play the ball but play the man instead, which is what happened to Skipp irrespective of his putative naivety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kick it off said:

We don't need VAR, we don't need stockley park, we do need a screen at the side of the pitch that the ref can go and check if he's given a decision that he isn't certain on or wants to double check. Fouls/Red cards only - not for offsides etc.

Whilst this would be sensible, it would still inevitably end up giving soft penalties as for some reason, the referees have decided that contact = foul. How many times have you heard Shearer etc say "Well, there was contact" as justification for a stupid decision. Contact does not equate to a foul.

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

You are nearly completely right @horsefly, though unfortunately you miss a fundamental detail.

If you watch the corner come in - just before the penalty is given - Skipp switches off and loses his man. This is the critical error. The referee doesn’t get to make his ‘error’ (it was soft) without this mistake.

Skipp knows he has made an error, he tries (over-hard, over-enthusiastically) to rush back and get in front of his man to the correct position. 

The opponent is very clever and has instinctively understood all of this. He also works out he isn’t likely to score, so ‘brake-tests’ Skipp - as he tries clumsily to recover his error - and falls over.

The ultimate reason that the referee gives the penalty is that Skipp has his hands up as he tries to correct.

The opponent has been clever, Skipp has been naive, the ref has been ‘early-season keen’.

Skipp’s fault. 

Parma 
 

I both agree and disagree. I agree about Skipp inviting the situation, however, you should not be able to 'win' a penalty by being clever, as ultimately you are just deceiving the officials to your advantage. I realise that it is a business and small margins wins games and therefore why it is done. I just believe the rules should be adapted so that you cannot 'win' a penalty. If you are fouled, you get a penalty. He was definitely not fouled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really down to the Referees and the people who are training them.

If that was a penalty yesterday there should be at least 8 every game.

Refs need to make sure they are in a good position to see what is going on in the box and enforce the rules correctly.

Yellow cards need to be given for people falling over, as if a sniper in the crowd has got them, when there has been no, or very little contact. And, anyone in the Refs face complaining needs one too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you clatter into someone from behind you are asking for the ref to make a decision. A stupid tackle and got what it deserved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

If you clatter into someone from behind you are asking for the ref to make a decision. A stupid tackle and got what it deserved.

The word 'clatter' paints out a very physical picture. In reality both hands touched the attacker back but the contact made wouldn't have even caused my 8 year old daughter to move off a spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than paste the opposition for making advantage of a blunder you ought to be imploring City players to be this clued up and to take this advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

If you clatter into someone from behind you are asking for the ref to make a decision. A stupid tackle and got what it deserved.

I disagree the contact was so minimal , and he threw himself down , as someone else just posted you would have 4 or 5 pens every game at this rate .😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Ricardo. Put your hands on a players back in the box and you are inviting him to go down and the ref to point to the spot. A lesson that hopefully Skipp learns from.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Crafty Canary said:

Exactly Ricardo. Put your hands on a players back in the box and you are inviting him to go down and the ref to point to the spot. A lesson that hopefully Skipp learns from.

Placing your hands on an opponent is not a foul. He cheated to get a penalty. I hope Skipp does learn a lesson from it, but he shouldn't need to, as the lesson he is learning is essentially that other players will cheat, so try your hardest not to give them that opportunity (a lesson that he definitely already knows). Why can't the lesson be that the football powers seriously implement a system that stops rewarding cheaters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Nobody invites anything. It wasn't even a foul. He should have been done for simulation.

Ever since some pillock said football is too important, it has allowed the tactic of cheating to become a part of the game.

I hate it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

I’ve thought this for a long time TGS. You are the only other person I’ve seen with the same view. I’ve never understood penalties as the punishment far outweighs the crime. A soft push from Skipp in a non dangerous position gives Preston a goal. A foul on Cantwell as he’s about to shoot, just inches outside the box is just a free kick. 
 

Of course attackers are going to look to “win” penalties. The reward is so high for what is a subjective decision on whether something is a minor foul or not. Personally I would only give penalties for the denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity, much like the penalty try in Rugby. Other fouls would just be free kicks within the area.

 

I also speak from ten years of refereeing experience in junior football, and indeed got to two county cup finals (Lancashire FA U14s finals, both boys and girls, back in 2002). I had a reputation as a referee that didn't give many penalties at all and if anything, was one who was happy to let a bit of contact go. My stance was that if I was not absolutely 100% certain, I am not giving a free shot on goal, and the same applies to both teams.

The problem, at its core, is simple. Namely the rewards far outweigh the risks and are heavily weighted (and in my opinion to far too much an extent) in the attacker's favour.

I'd also argue that the six-yard box is superfluous and would change it to a ten-yard arc (think of the D on the penalty box) from the goal-line, starting ten yards from either post. That way you already know where a free-kick is if an offence is in there, and you also know that defenders have to be in goal, but on the line if they want to defend. I still prefer the idea of penalty corners though. They work really well in hockey and are a decent chance of a goal, but also a sporting chance to the defence.

Edited by TheGunnShow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...