A&H

Penalty moments

I would think that because the ball was already lost makes an already not so serious offence even less serious.

I mean, of course, if the attacker lost the ball and the defender comes in red headed with a flying ninja kick, I would have been hanged afterwards if I didn't give a penalty.

And what Rustyref said about appeals, there weren't any during those moments, just some curious looks whether they might get a penalty out of it or not.
 
The Referee Store
Robert King said:
I would think that because the ball was already lost makes an already not so serious offence even less serious.
Click to expand...
No, it absolutely and definitively doesn't. Please have another look at Law 12, read through it carefully and please quote any sections of it that support that support that viewpoint. If you can't find any such sections (and I have to tell you, I'd be amazed if you can) then I think you need to revise your stance on this. Offences must be judged on their merits and as mentioned earlier, where the ball is (so long as it is in play) doesn't make a difference and it most certainly doesn't make the offence less serious.

I think I understand where you're coming from on this. There is a common belief (once again, perpetuated by some pundits and commentators) that if a player in the penalty area has pushed the ball too far ahead and is not going to be able to retrieve it (for example, before it goes out of play over the end line) you shouldn't give a penalty for a late-ish challenge on him. Before I became a referee, I used to think this was true as well. But this belief is absolutely wrong in law.

Just so as you know how long-standing and well established in law this principle is, here is some wording taken from a decision made at the IFAB Annual General Meeting held at 42, Russell Square, London WC on 14th June, 1924:
A penalty kick can be awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, if in the field of play at the time the offence is committed.
Click to expand...
So this has been the case for nearly 100 years now.
 
Robert King said:
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.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth. I am also a young referee.

I have no issue with different interpretations of certain laws (careless/reckless etc). My issue is that you deliberately avoid to apply the laws because you believe the ball being away from the incident makes it unpunishable with a penalty kick. Say this to an assessor and you will screw up your progression.

As a ref, you should be respected, not necessarily liked.

I hope you go on to have an enjoyable career
 
There is also the idea of if you can "sell" these decisions to the coaches and benches. With very young players I think everyone is more accepting that accidental collisions will occur. With adults and as you go higher it is very different. You have to make a decision and be ready to communicate that decision - not just ignore the incident. Sometimes a few words, sometimes a hand signal: no foul, play on; keeper's got the ball, accidental collision; fair tackle, play on... it's this kind of small gesture to the players/benches that will help you keep match control in much harder fixtures with harder decisions.

So, did you "sell" these two decisions, or just ignore them? And how could you have sold them?

The first one - how late and how bad was it. If it was well after the ball has gone and a rugby tackle, this seems very hard to sell as an accident or "no foul".
The second one - if the keeper has the ball and the two players come together with the defender in between attacker and GK this seems easy to wave play on.
 
santa sangria said:
The second one - if the keeper has the ball and the two players come together with the defender in between attacker and GK this seems easy to wave play on.
Click to expand...
Very true - For the second incident, if there is an inconsequential 'coming together' or some trifling and incidental contact, a referee is entitled to judge that no foul has taken place. But as regards the first one, I have to stress again (as I think this is a very important point of principle for a young referee to grasp early on) that you cannot see something that you believe was (in his own words) "a free kick, definitely, no doubt" had it been outside the penalty area and not give it based on the argument that while the offence was inside the area, it "didn't stop the guy from getting to the ball or anything as the ball was well out [of the area]."
 
Alright guys, points noted. Thanks for the replies. Position of the ball is not important.

But still, for example the first incident where the player got in a little late, (The offence too wasn't so bad). As Graemes has said too, he probably wouldn't give it. But what if the ball was passed back to him after he played it? And because of the defender he couldn't get there. I mean, this would be a 100% penalty, right? But now that the ball is gone, it suddenly makes it quite uncertain, at least for me and definitely players. There were no appeals too.

Another moment was next to the goal, goalkeeper dives for a ball, which was going far wide and had a player running behind it. Ball goes under the goalkeeper and goes out, but player falls over the goalkeeper at the same moment. And here, also, no one appealing for a penalty, though I am certain that if the same thing happened a few metres back, say at the penalty spot, there would be a lot more appeals.

Not trying to seem stubborn, just trying to learn more.
 
Robert King said:
Alright guys, points noted. Thanks for the replies. Position of the ball is not important.

But still, for example the first incident where the player got in a little late, (The offence too wasn't so bad). As Graemes has said too, he probably wouldn't give it. But what if the ball was passed back to him after he played it? And because of the defender he couldn't get there. I mean, this would be a 100% penalty, right? But now that the ball is gone, it suddenly makes it quite uncertain, at least for me and definitely players.

Not trying to seem stubborn, just trying to learn more.
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't listened. You still say that the ball being further away makes it less of a foul and subsequent penalty.
THE POSITION OF THE BALL DOESN'T MATTER!!!!! Only time it does for me is if it is out of play or an offside offence has occurred.
Players are usually morons when it comes down to the LOTG. Just because they don't think it is a penalty means it clearly isn't one. I once had a player tell me that him telling me to **** off wasn't a caution.
 
Jack, leave me the *** alone. I'm trying to learn and that means asking questions.

Calling players morons, just like you are passive aggressively calling me one, says more about you than me.

Also, what about the surprise penalties Rustyref mentioned? Things. Are. Not. Adding. Up. And you are not helping.
 
Erm can we try playing nice and sharing the toys or am I going to have to send you to the naughty step?
 
In what way did I infer you were a moron?
All I said was most players are when they spout these supposed rules.
You asked the question, you should expect honest feedback. I have given you my honest opinion to which you scold me for
 
Jack, I was halfway through a message and thought: Why am I even bothering.

The rest,
I know the rules, but seeing contradicting comments everywhere, also on television and from other referees, makes it confusing. If anyone is willing to put more insight into this, please, if not, then I will ask my assessor. And no Jack, I don't know what kind of assessor you have, but no, I don't think this will "screw up my progression".
 
Football has LAWS, not rules.......another player connotation

Assessors want you to stick to the letter of the law. If you don't give a blatant foul because it would be easier not to, you will get marked down.

You mentioned you weren't from England. May I ask, where do you referee? America, Canada, Oz?
 
Anyone who basically says "laws are the laws" is either kidding themselves or a robot. It's a match-changing incident - you should take an extra half-second to work out what's going on. If for no other reason than you risk losing your match control if you referee in black and white... (And yes, I know the rules).

To be honest your first incident just sounds like they ran into each other - I'd actually be questioning whether you would really give that as a free kick outside the box. As I keep reminding (supply league) players who squeal when they lose the ball: contact is still allowed...
 
Jack M said:
Football has LAWS, not rules.......another player connotation

Assessors want you to stick to the letter of the law. If you don't give a blatant foul because it would be easier not to, you will get marked down.

You mentioned you weren't from England. May I ask, where do you referee? America, Canada, Oz?
Click to expand...

Jack, the second paragraph is correct as you've written it. Yes, blatant fouls should clearly be given. However, I don't think we're talking about blatant fouls here - there are shades of grey and interpretation. If you give a foul on the halfway line for a "soft" push, the assessor will add it to the tally of fouls and say no more. The players will get on with it. If you give the same foul in the penalty area, there's as much risk of being pulled down on decision making & accuracy or application of law as anything else. The assessor could say "it was just contact, it wasn't enough to constitute a push" or "the attacker went down too easily, you should have penalised him for simulation". Add to that the fact that your match control probably goes out of the window and you're staring down the barrel of a 66.

The rules/law thing - bit petty no?
 
Tbh it was petty. I always get petty with stress. I apologise for that.

I was refering to the original post when he said that he definitely would have given it if it was outside the area, but not inside as 'the ball was too far from it'. That is the cause of the problem
 
Jack M said:
Tbh it was petty. I always get petty with stress. I apologise for that.

I was refering to the original post when he said that he definitely would have given it if it was outside the area, but not inside as 'the ball was too far from it'. That is the cause of the problem
Click to expand...

Yeah fair enough. I think Robert probably realises by now that that thought process is a bit flawed, but the wider point he brings up about making extra sure for penalties isn't unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top