Penalty moments

[Robert King]

Had 2 games today, both games had a moment where a penalty could have been given. But I really am not a fan of giving a penalty for every minor thing. Giving a penalty almost equals giving a goal, so I actually only give penalties when I really have to. (Handball, tackles etc.)

Had two moments today where I am in doubt: Green vs Red, Red player is holding the ball in opposing box and either passes back or shoots. I don't remember. Anyway, ball is well clear out of the box at some point but a defender comes in a little late and stands on the Red's foot and clashes body to body. Looked a bit like rugby at some point, but it wasn't that bad though haha. Didn't give the penalty, because in my opinion something like this happens. Usual stuff, and it also didn't stop the guy from getting to the ball or anything as the ball was well out. Outside the box I would have given a free kick, definitely, no doubt. But inside..?

Second moment was an attacker running straight at the goalkeeper. U12 game so the goalkeeper just stood on the five metre line. (The small box inside the box) Defender running behind and overtaking the attacker. Sticks out a leg and attacker falls over it. Thing is that the ball was long lost and almost already in the goalkeeper's hands. Next to that I was reffing a match in which I didn't use my whistle much, just let them play. Again did not give a penalty, as for the fact that the ball was long lost.

Same thing happened some time ago, ball was almost over the line if not already over. Attacker stumbles on the goalkeeper who is lying on the grass. Again did not give a penalty.

Would like to know how you guys think about this. I tend to only give penalties when the foul really stops the player in his attack. If he has no chance of setting forth the attack, then I don't like to give a penalty. Sometimes I do, but not Always.

Thanks in advance

 

[Mintyref]

Not sure about the second but if the first would have been a free kick outside the box it should be a penalty in it, so in my opinion you were wrong. I'm sure others will not agree

 

[PP62]

Not sure about the second but if the first would have been a free kick outside the box it should be a penalty in it, so in my opinion you were wrong. I'm sure others will not agree

Oh I agree with you. The penalty area doesn't make an offence legal.

 

[CO. DOWN REF]

Taxi!

 

[Robert King]

Haha, I knew people weren't going to agree. But I do see a lot in professional football that a free kick is easier given than a penalty.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

1) YHTBT. Depends how late, how hard the clash/step is, things like that. Certainly scope for a penalty, scope to let it slide, depends on this one

2) What do you mean by the defender stick out a leg here?

 

[JamesL]

Only you as the referee knows what was the "correct" decision here.
I always try to apply an element of empathy in the penalty area particularly when it is packed. I think you have to accept there is going to be contact between players in the penalty area as the space seems to become more confined and the stakes are higher.
That said there's a fine line between incidental contact and players commiting a foul. If you say this was a free kick outside the box Im no sure why it isnt a penalty. The LOTG make no distinguishment between in or outside of the penalty area (apart from restart) so nor should we. Like I say, apply empathy for the situation but you cant outright ignore fouls on the basis a goal will result. The defenders are well aware of the consequences of fouls in the area and the onus is on them not to commit a foul, not for you to decide which fouls are worthy of a penalty.


P.s. the box within a box is called the goal area.

 

[Robert King]

I do understand where you guys are coming from, as many people have told me already and I have read myself too, there is no difference whether a foul is made outside or inside the box, but I think that I can classify this attempt under the empathy James named. Say we compare it with a player shooting the ball far, far over. And after he shot the ball, (so not while he was shooting it) someone stepped on his foot or clashed into him after jumping to stop the ball and then stepped on his foot. I know in Fifa 17 they would give a penalty for it but that is also one of the most frustrating parts for me of the game. IMO this would not be a penalty. If the ball hit the crossbar and was bouncing back to the player, who then got stepped on, I would give a penalty.

And thanks James for telling me what the box inside the box is called!

In the second situation, the defender kind of stepped in front of the attacker. Like he was stretching.

 

[JamesL]

I do understand where you guys are coming from, as many people have told me already and I have read myself too, there is no difference whether a foul is made outside or inside the box, but I think that I can classify this attempt under the empathy James named. Say we compare it with a player shooting the ball far, far over. And after he shot the ball, (so not while he was shooting it) someone stepped on his foot or clashed into him after jumping to stop the ball and then stepped on his foot. I know in Fifa 17 they would give a penalty for it but that is also one of the most frustrating parts for me of the game. IMO this would not be a penalty. If the ball hit the crossbar and was bouncing back to the player, who then got stepped on, I would give a penalty.

And thanks James for telling me what the box inside the box is called!

In the second situation, the defender kind of stepped in front of the attacker. Like he was stretching.

In the scenario you describe if the ball is still in play its a foul and a penalty. The offence is committed due to physical impact to an opponent not the action it prevents so if a player shoots and is then physically impeded the fact they managed to shoot without being impeded is not part of the equation, they have still had a foul committed against them and it should be punished in accordance with LOTG.

The computer game fifa has very little concept of the LOTG so I honestly wouldnt adopt any approach you see within the game or draw any compatisons whatsoever.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Unless the ball is already out of play, the players's proximity to the ball should not be a factor on whether the opposition player has committed an offence or not...

I gave a penalty in a youth game last season where a cross was over hit and was heading to the corner flag and looked initially as it was going straight out of play, but as it got nearer to the corner, it noticeable slowed down to an eventual stop. Attacker was running parallel to the goal line in an attempt to reach the ball, defender who was at an angle running towards the ball notices attacker is faster and going to get the ball first. So the defender altered his run to intercept the attacker and flattened him with a shoulder barge inside the penalty area, about 15 yards from where the ball was. They were the nearest players to the ball. Neither player had possession of the ball, but it was still a nailed on foul all the same!

The first one sounds like a classic cheap late follow through challenge, usually seen as attacker on clearing defender.

Second one again, regardless of whether the ball is lost to the attacker or not, you have to decide was it an accidental collision or the defender had a cheap shot at the attacker. With these kinds of incidents, if it was deliberate and you let it slide, there is a distinct possibility depending on the character of the player and game situation that the attacker might seek some kind of retribution.

In situations where the ball has already gone out of play for a throw or is awaiting a set piece to be taken, players can still be disciplined/carded for offences that take place off the ball, but the restart remains the same. ie ball has gone for a corner, players are waiting for it to be taken. Defender decides to right hook the nearest attacker. Stonewall red for violent conduct, however as the corner hadn't be taken, it's still a corner and not a penalty.

 

[Jack M]

Had 2 games today, both games had a moment where a penalty could have been given. But I really am not a fan of giving a penalty for every minor thing. Giving a penalty almost equals giving a goal, so I actually only give penalties when I really have to. (Handball, tackles etc.)

Had two moments today where I am in doubt: Green vs Red, Red player is holding the ball in opposing box and either passes back or shoots. I don't remember. Anyway, ball is well clear out of the box at some point but a defender comes in a little late and stands on the Red's foot and clashes body to body. Looked a bit like rugby at some point, but it wasn't that bad though haha. Didn't give the penalty, because in my opinion something like this happens. Usual stuff, and it also didn't stop the guy from getting to the ball or anything as the ball was well out. Outside the box I would have given a free kick, definitely, no doubt. But inside..?

Second moment was an attacker running straight at the goalkeeper. U12 game so the goalkeeper just stood on the five metre line. (The small box inside the box) Defender running behind and overtaking the attacker. Sticks out a leg and attacker falls over it. Thing is that the ball was long lost and almost already in the goalkeeper's hands. Next to that I was reffing a match in which I didn't use my whistle much, just let them play. Again did not give a penalty, as for the fact that the ball was long lost.

Same thing happened some time ago, ball was almost over the line if not already over. Attacker stumbles on the goalkeeper who is lying on the grass. Again did not give a penalty.

Would like to know how you guys think about this. I tend to only give penalties when the foul really stops the player in his attack. If he has no chance of setting forth the attack, then I don't like to give a penalty. Sometimes I do, but not Always.

Thanks in advance

You said it yourself. You would have given it if it were outside the box. Therefore, you should have given the penalty.
You are last week's ref! Next week something similar could happen and the referee may actually have the bollox to give the penalty. Well done on making that referee's job harder.
If you bottle decisions like that you shouldn't be a ref

 

[PP62]

You said it yourself. You would have given it if it were outside the box. Therefore, you should have given the penalty.
You are last week's ref! Next week something similar could happen and the referee may actually have the bollox to give the penalty. Well done on making that referee's job harder.
If you bottle decisions like that you shouldn't be a ref

This response is totally uncalled for and unhelpful. Robert King was asking for advice as he wasn't sure. That's what this forum is for.

 

[Peter Grove]

Again did not give a penalty, as for the fact that the ball was long lost.

I tend to only give penalties when the foul really stops the player in his attack. If he has no chance of setting forth the attack, then I don't like to give a penalty.

I'm afraid you seem to be labouring under some major misconceptions. Where the ball is, how long has elapsed since the player lost it and how good an attacking situation he's in is absolutely irrelevant. So long as the ball is still in play, the ball could be 100 yards away and it might be 5 minutes since the player last had possession of it but if he's fouled inside the opponent's penalty area, it's still a penalty.

 

[Jack M]

This response is totally uncalled for and unhelpful. Robert King was asking for advice as he wasn't sure. That's what this forum is for.

He said that he would give a FK outside the box but wouldn't give a penalty for the same thing as he fwlt it would be too harsh a punsihment.
As a referee this should NEVER come into it. If the player commits a foul inside tge penalty box, a penalty should be awarded. It isn't our fault if the defender is fouling someone.
From my perspective, he didn't give the penalty because it was easier not to. This is poor and one of the reasons that referees (who do the job properly) get grief from managers who get away with it due to poor refereeing

 

[Robert King]

Alright guys,

First things first. I am a young referee, 17 years old. Started reffing under 8's start of this season and reffed about 30 games right now. Now mostly the adult teams. (18 or above). (I'm not from England)

Jack, your response, as PP62 already mentioned (thanks for that), is totally unnecessary and not helpful at all. I think that if you ref proper and (not even necessarily) high level teams, they will understand that every referee is different and interpretes the rules differently. Where one ref gives free kicks for any pushing and pulling, another ref might be letting them push and pull all they want the whole game.

I don't think I'm going to go further in depth on the situations as for the penalty question. Thanks to anyone who commented in a normal way.

I know the rules, I don't have any presumptions, I'm not making things easier for myself, I don't like easy games. I will put the advice everyone has given to use in my games and talk about it with the other referees.

 

[WilliamD]

@Robert King keep going we are all learning. This thread should help you in the future, I think you can see where you went wrong.

Nevermind @Jack M he's clearly having a bad day. We don't need to abuse each other, we get enough on the field.

 

[RustyRef]

Like it or not, at senior levels of the game there is very much an expectation that offences have to be worse to give a penalty than they would be outside of the area. It happens in a huge percentage of top level games where a penalty isn't given for a very similar offence to one that has been penalised elsewhere on the pitch. It's the same as you will very rarely, if ever, see a penalty given where there is no appeal. All about no surprises.

And, whether people like it or not, and I know that many on here won't, you will not get anywhere as a referee if you give surprising penalties. You certainly won't get above level 4, and in all likelihood won't last at level 4 after your free first season. I was once idealistic like this, thinking it had to be the same inside and out, and it was only once I started being more sensible that I began to move up the merit table, both for assessors and club marks. And when I got to level 3 it was drummed into us that you had to look at more than just black and white. I still gave a lot of penalties, including ones that the clubs would no doubt say were controversial (or just plain wrong ..!) but there's no way I'm giving a penalty for a slight bit of contact that no one else has noticed.

 

[Robert King]

That is really interesting to read. Kind of a relief that I wasn't the only one. ;-)

 

[GraemeS]

I think @RustyRef has given you the common sense answer really. The correct answer in law is that there's no difference - if it's a foul outside the box, it's a foul inside. The fact of the matter is that in reality, we're expected to have a slightly higher threshold for offences if the result will be a PK. Don't overdo it and don't extend it far enough that you bail out of nailed-on penalties, but your first example is definitely something that just happens and doesn't have to be a penalty IMO.

Practically speaking, how often do you see a big "No Foul" gesture or shout from referees outside the box? I'd suggest it's pretty rare. But inside the box you have to be clearer about it and so it's far more common to hear or see the referee making it clear that he doesn't think there's been a foul. It's another way in which incidents inside/outside the box are treated differently.

I had one today where I gave a FK for fairly minimal contact with fairly limited appeals just outside the box. Had the contact been inside the box, I'm not sure it would have been enough for me. And I had one towards the start of the season which looked like a clear kick on the back of the attackers ankles, so I gave the penalty. But because he elected to stay up, it became a "controversial" decision, because no one was expecting it.

 

[Peter Grove]

there's no way I'm giving a penalty for a slight bit of contact that no one else has noticed.

OK - but not giving a penalty because it was (to use an old phrase) a triflng or dubious offence is a totally different scenario from not giving a penalty because "the ball was well out [of the penalty area]" or because "the ball was long lost and almost already in the goalkeeper's hands," especially when the referee himself says, "Outside the box I would have given a free kick, definitely, no doubt."

So let me just reiterate (since it is something that I think we need to give clarity to this young referee on) that not giving a penalty for what he considers is a definite and indubitable foul simply because the ball was either not in the penalty area or the player had already lost it is definitely wrong, and does not fall into the category of a debatable or justifiable reasoning.

Also, I'm not sure the difference between fouls being given outside the penalty area and inside it is so much to do with the seriousness of the offence (or at least, if it is, it shouldn't be) as it is with being sure that an offence has actually, definitely taken place. Again, it may strictly speaking, be a technically dubious argument but I think the tendency is to want to be more sure of the offence if it's going to be a penalty.