BroadstairsR 2,272 Posted November 23, 2020 I seem to remember that, once upon a time, when a team was awarded a penalty it was more or less assured a goal. Not quite cast iron, but probable, and certainly more likely than these days. Fulham have apparently missed five of their last eight, whilst us City supporters have every reason to rely upon Tim Krul to bring off another wonder save whenever a penalty is awarded against our defence. Most of those missed would seem to be due to keeper heroics, although the phenomenon of the taker losing his foothold whilst kicking seems to have surfaced a lot recently. Cavaliero's slip last night follows on from Pukki's miss and that last Saturday by the 'Boro player. There may have been more. It seems that penalties are far more freely given nowadays, with referees either being more easily fooled by cunning forwards or just simply following stricter guidelines. The latter may well be the case. Both penalty decisions last Saturday have been more or less accepted as just, yet going by ancient standards they both seemed 'soft' to me. More penalties, more misses? Good for the game I suppose. Thoughts? (Do I not hate that expression.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crabbycanary3 994 Posted November 23, 2020 1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said: I seem to remember that, once upon a time, when a team was awarded a penalty it was more or less assured a goal. Not quite cast iron, but probable, and certainly more likely than these days. Fulham have apparently missed five of their last eight, whilst us City supporters have every reason to rely upon Tim Krul to bring off another wonder save whenever a penalty is awarded against our defence. Most of those missed would seem to be due to keeper heroics, although the phenomenon of the taker losing his foothold whilst kicking seems to have surfaced a lot recently. Cavaliero's slip last night follows on from Pukki's miss and that last Saturday by the 'Boro player. There may have been more. It seems that penalties are far more freely given nowadays, with referees either being more easily fooled by cunning forwards or just simply following stricter guidelines. The latter may well be the case. Both penalty decisions last Saturday have been more or less accepted as just, yet going by ancient standards they both seemed 'soft' to me. More penalties, more misses? Good for the game I suppose. Thoughts? (Do I not hate that expression.) Does 'Discuss' soften the ire? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,272 Posted November 23, 2020 "Discuss" is too presumptuous. Besides it opens the door to argument, abuse and general ill-feeling over what is just meant to be a casual observation of no particular importance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crabbycanary3 994 Posted November 23, 2020 1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said: "Discuss" is too presumptuous. Besides it opens the door to argument, abuse and general ill-feeling over what is just meant to be a casual observation of no particular importance. Don't do yourself a disservice Broady. If it's important to you, then it is important Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,272 Posted November 23, 2020 We would seem to define 'important' differently. Anyhow thanks for bumping this little thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,813 Posted November 23, 2020 There are too many penalties being given. It would be better if when - as in Aarons' case - the offence occurs when the player is running away from goal, or the offence is one of those the defender couldn't avoid - as in the ball being kicked on to the hand - that a free kick is given. That would leave penalties only being given when an offence is made that clealy stops a goal - which is what a penalty should be given for. It might have the side effect of lessening all those silly little dives and fallings over that players do as soon as they get in the penalty area, that they do just to try and get a soft penalty. It used to be great to see players riding tackles and doing everything they can to stay on their feet to try and get a goal, but nowadays they are encouraged to fall over at the slightest touch - and then pundits and so called experts - ludicrously imo - comment "he was entitled to go down" and you get all these soft penalties. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted November 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, lake district canary said: There are too many penalties being given. It would be better if when - as in Aarons' case - the offence occurs when the player is running away from goal, or the offence is one of those the defender couldn't avoid - as in the ball being kicked on to the hand - that a free kick is given. That would leave penalties only being given when an offence is made that clealy stops a goal - which is what a penalty should be given for. It might have the side effect of lessening all those silly little dives and fallings over that players do as soon as they get in the penalty area, that they do just to try and get a soft penalty. It used to be great to see players riding tackles and doing everything they can to stay on their feet to try and get a goal, but nowadays they are encouraged to fall over at the slightest touch - and then pundits and so called experts - ludicrously imo - comment "he was entitled to go down" and you get all these soft penalties. This is it. At the moment it feels like the punishment far outweighs the crime more often than not. A coming together as a player is running away from goal, an accidental handball the defender knew nothing about. Why does the situation need to be escalated to an 85% chance of a goal when there was little to no-threat on the opponents goal previously? Surely these kind of instances would be more suited to an indirect freekick as you say? Penalties are far too frequent now, they should be reserved and only used as strict punishment against fouls that directly prevent goal scoring opportunities. Imagine how much less controversial all this handball stuff would be if it was an indirect freekick being awarded and only one in ten / twenty were actually scored from! All of the sudden we aren't even having these OTT debates about silhouettes, what's deliberate and what isn't, what's a natural body position etc etc. That is not football! And its a good point you raise about the behaviour of players too, at the moment there is so much more sense in them going down at the slightest touch, if we take away the potential reward then it gives them more of a reason to stay on their feet and try to carve out an opportunity for themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete 368 Posted November 23, 2020 After the Fulham match Sky listed those clubs that have missed most pens in last 3 seasons. Fulham were clear at the top but Norwich were close behind in 3rd, due to our record in the promotion season when me missed 7 out of 8. Would have notched 100 goals if we were a little better from the spot that season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Surfer 1,547 Posted November 23, 2020 I like this argument. Especially as the word “penalty” implies punishment, and you don’t punish innocent or negligent people to the same degree you do someone who deliberately commits an act. How do we get this change adopted? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheGunnShow 7,358 Posted November 23, 2020 The best thing we could do to stop the cancer of diving in football, or at least make it less appealing to cheat in such a way, is to scrap the penalty kick. I'd replace it with a penalty corner like in hockey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,574 Posted November 23, 2020 2 hours ago, lake district canary said: There are too many penalties being given. It would be better if when - as in Aarons' case - the offence occurs when the player is running away from goal, or the offence is one of those the defender couldn't avoid - as in the ball being kicked on to the hand - that a free kick is given. That would leave penalties only being given when an offence is made that clealy stops a goal - which is what a penalty should be given for. That would make life more difficult and controversial for everyone. Not only would the referee have to judge whether an offence is a foul, he'd have to assess the angle the player was running at. You're right though that there are too many penalties being given. I still have no idea who at IFAB looked at the game two years ago and decided more penalties needed to be given for handball. The rule needs to be reverted so that only intentional handballs are given, or at the very least where a player didn't take reasonable care to avoid contact between arm and ball, such as jumping for at a set piece with the arm up or leaning towards the ball when it's struck from a distance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,471 Posted November 23, 2020 I agree, too many penalties for what used to be indirect free kick, like accidental handball. Two thirds of handball penalties should be indirect free kicks even if they are in the box Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nuff Said 5,930 Posted November 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: That would make life more difficult and controversial for everyone. Not only would the referee have to judge whether an offence is a foul, he'd have to assess the angle the player was running at. You're right though that there are too many penalties being given. I still have no idea who at IFAB looked at the game two years ago and decided more penalties needed to be given for handball. The rule needs to be reverted so that only intentional handballs are given, or at the very least where a player didn't take reasonable care to avoid contact between arm and ball, such as jumping for at a set piece with the arm up or leaning towards the ball when it's struck from a distance. There was an article about this in The Athletic yesterday which said even match officials don't like the new rules. Which begs the question how did it get agreed, but that's a different topic. They suggest reverting back to a simple approach - if it's arm to ball, handball; if it's ball to arm, it's not handball, or as Roy Hogdson says, if it's accidental, it's not handball. Works for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,748 Posted November 23, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, BroadstairsR said: I seem to remember that, once upon a time, when a team was awarded a penalty it was more or less assured a goal. Not quite cast iron, but probable, and certainly more likely than these days. Fulham have apparently missed five of their last eight, whilst us City supporters have every reason to rely upon Tim Krul to bring off another wonder save whenever a penalty is awarded against our defence. Most of those missed would seem to be due to keeper heroics, although the phenomenon of the taker losing his foothold whilst kicking seems to have surfaced a lot recently. Cavaliero's slip last night follows on from Pukki's miss and that last Saturday by the 'Boro player. There may have been more. It seems that penalties are far more freely given nowadays, with referees either being more easily fooled by cunning forwards or just simply following stricter guidelines. The latter may well be the case. Both penalty decisions last Saturday have been more or less accepted as just, yet going by ancient standards they both seemed 'soft' to me. More penalties, more misses? Good for the game I suppose. Thoughts? (Do I not hate that expression.) Penalties used to be given for trips. A player stopped getting the ball by a physical impediment . Football has developed this. Players now fall. Referees over the years now consistently give fouls where an attacking player drops to the floor. Football now spends endless hours debating “contact”. All of the VAR referrals this weekend was not about whether the player was impeded , but whether there was contact. Nobody says “did the player have to fall over” they now say “was there contact” with an assumption that it is perfectly acceptable for a 6ft athlete to throw themselves to the floor , often screaming in pain , in an attempt to con the ref. This practice should be laughed out of the game . Instead it is rewarded by the game . That, my friend , is the real problem. Edited November 23, 2020 by Graham Paddons Beard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted November 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: That would make life more difficult and controversial for everyone. Not only would the referee have to judge whether an offence is a foul, he'd have to assess the angle the player was running at. I'm not sure we should get tied down into the angle the player is running at, but I think we should look to award penalties for instances along the lines of: Fouling a player when he's about to shoot or go up for a header - i.e. a shirt pull during a corner should still be given as a pen / any found on a player in a position he can realistically shoot from A deliberate handball that prevents a goal (i.e. Steve Cook vs us last season) - or perhaps even any deliberate handball in the box if the referee feels it was deliberate So IMO both penalties Saturday would be far more appropriate as indirect freekicks. I agree there will still be a debate / controversy about whether a penalty or indirect freekick should be awarded, but I think adding the indirect freekick means there is a shade of grey in between the black and white of either awarding a penalty or not - meaning less controversial decision making overall. At the moment choice is between penalty or no penalty. Goal or no goal. The introduction of an indirect freekick would be less controversial as people wouldn't be holding so much up against the handball decisions or the relentless diving because it would be far less impactful on the outcome of the game. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,574 Posted November 23, 2020 13 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said: I'm not sure we should get tied down into the angle the player is running at, but I think we should look to award penalties for instances along the lines of: Fouling a player when he's about to shoot or go up for a header - i.e. a shirt pull during a corner should still be given as a pen / any found on a player in a position he can realistically shoot from A deliberate handball that prevents a goal (i.e. Steve Cook vs us last season) - or perhaps even any deliberate handball in the box if the referee feels it was deliberate So IMO both penalties Saturday would be far more appropriate as indirect freekicks. I agree there will still be a debate / controversy about whether a penalty or indirect freekick should be awarded, but I think adding the indirect freekick means there is a shade of grey in between the black and white of either awarding a penalty or not - meaning less controversial decision making overall. At the moment choice is between penalty or no penalty. Goal or no goal. The introduction of an indirect freekick would be less controversial as people wouldn't be holding so much up against the handball decisions or the relentless diving because it would be far less impactful on the outcome of the game. I disagree. By adding several shades of grey into the mix such as running angle or whether the player was in the act of shooting, you're making life more complicated for the referee and giving him far too much to consider in the space of a couple of seconds. You're also giving the VAR a lot more to analyse and the delays would be longer than they are now. Also, managers now are already moaning about every penalty decision, so giving them extra wiggle room with regards to whether it should've been a penalty (wasn't it an indirect free kick for that?) or whether a player was in the act of shooting (or was he going to pass?) gives managers and pundits so many more excuses to argue against the award of a penalty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted November 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: I disagree. By adding several shades of grey into the mix such as running angle or whether the player was in the act of shooting, you're making life more complicated for the referee and giving him far too much to consider in the space of a couple of seconds. You're also giving the VAR a lot more to analyse and the delays would be longer than they are now. Also, managers now are already moaning about every penalty decision, so giving them extra wiggle room with regards to whether it should've been a penalty (wasn't it an indirect free kick for that?) or whether a player was in the act of shooting (or was he going to pass?) gives managers and pundits so many more excuses to argue against the award of a penalty. I hear what you're saying, it probably does make the situation more difficult for the referee in terms of arriving at the correct punishment. And it is more subjective than just a foul = penalty. It is hard to add tangibles to it without the rules becoming extremely complicated. Perhaps it would be better if there were quite literally no penalties unless it was a clear goal scoring opportunity (i.e. similar situations to what now constitutes a red card offence when the player is the last man and doesn't play the ball). I had thought perhaps a case-by-case approach could work, i.e. is the player facing the goal and is the ball under control? I think that line of questioning would clearly rule out both penalties on Saturday. There will undoubtedly be inconsistencies but would it be any more controversial than it already is? I'm not sure. Although the above may be too convoluted to incorporate, surely we can agree that it would be better if all handballs (other than deliberate / goal saving handballs) were given as indirect freekicks instead. I think this aspect of 'fouling' is an easy one to clear up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,272 Posted November 23, 2020 (edited) The definition of handball seems to have changed as well. I seem to remember it was below the elbow, now it's the entire arm and 'arm-ball' rather than 'hand-ball' should be defined as such. What next balls-ball if it hits the player below the mid-riff? Involuntary handball should be an indirect free-kick; are they actually part of the game these days though? Edited November 23, 2020 by BroadstairsR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shaunieboy77 83 Posted November 23, 2020 'Winning' penalties has become a skill. The skill used to be staying on your feet and getting a cross or shot in. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,889 Posted November 23, 2020 Diving to con the referee is not a new thing. I remember Terry Allcock going to coach Man City in the 70s telling us that it was the first time he'd witnessed players in training practicing the art of conning refs. With blanket tv football and endless replays of all angles it's a well known thing now So now we have VAR which appeals to the tv audience but ruins the game in the stadium. I hope to soon get back to Carrow Road with no VAR where every penalty appeal for us is a stonewall and every appeal by the opposition is a dive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,748 Posted November 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: Diving to con the referee is not a new thing. I remember Terry Allcock going to coach Man City in the 70s telling us that it was the first time he'd witnessed players in training practicing the art of conning refs. With blanket tv football and endless replays of all angles it's a well known thing now So now we have VAR which appeals to the tv audience but ruins the game in the stadium. I hope to soon get back to Carrow Road with no VAR where every penalty appeal for us is a stonewall and every appeal by the opposition is a dive. No one is saying conning the ref is new. Eric Gates made a career out of it . The OP is the evolution of penalties . The point made is that “contact” is enough to legitimately award a penalty . There is no way that was the case back in the day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,889 Posted November 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: No one is saying conning the ref is new. Eric Gates made a career out of it . The OP is the evolution of penalties . The point made is that “contact” is enough to legitimately award a penalty . There is no way that was the case back in the day. Clearly if there's no contact this new tv age would not give a pen where as back in the day contact wasn't necessary to con the ref. The evolution in conning the ref now includes making sure there's contact even if that contact is part of the act by the conman. Great stuff if you're into drama on tv. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites