Do we need to revise the criteria of why a penalty should be awarded?

[DenverSpur]

In light of the penalty given against us at Southampton I find myself asking is enough thought given to importance of the decision?
Giving a penalty is a potential game changing decision but do referees ever ask themselves if the action being judged is a potential game changing action?
Whether Sarr touched MN or not did that contact change anything? Did any contact bring MN down? No! He went down because he threw himself in front of Sarr to prevent him clearing the ball. Did Sarr’s possible contact affect anyone else or the position of the ball? Did it give us an unfair advantage or unfairly disadvantage Southampton? No! So why is that incident important enough to award Southampton a game changing opportunity.
The same thing happened in the Man City/Leibzig game. Was the ball brushing the arm of the defender a potential game changing action? Of course it wasn’t. So why is a game changing opportunity like a penalty given?
In both cases, and many others, the punishment far exceeds the severity of the perceived offense.
Do we need to revise the criteria of why a penalty should be awarded?

 

[nailsy]

In light of the penalty given against us at Southampton I find myself asking is enough thought given to importance of the decision?
Giving a penalty is a potential game changing decision but do referees ever ask themselves if the action being judged is a potential game changing action?
Whether Sarr touched MN or not did that contact change anything? Did any contact bring MN down? No! He went down because he threw himself in front of Sarr to prevent him clearing the ball. Did Sarr’s possible contact affect anyone else or the position of the ball? Did it give us an unfair advantage or unfairly disadvantage Southampton? No! So why is that incident important enough to award Southampton a game changing opportunity.
The same thing happened in the Man City/Leibzig game. Was the ball brushing the arm of the defender a potential game changing action? Of course it wasn’t. So why is a game changing opportunity like a penalty given?
In both cases, and many others, the punishment far exceeds the severity of the perceived offense.
Do we need to revise the criteria of why a penalty should be awarded?

I agree. I used to like the free kicks in the box. You didn't get many of them, but when you did they caused chaos - you'd have almost every player in the box. Bring them back.