Do we need to revise the criteria of why to award a penalty?

[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?

 

[Gassin's finest]

 

[Jenko]

I think the referees just need to do their jobs properly, you know, by using their brains. And I think VAR is only good if the people using it aren't braindead also.

 

[Ginol-ooh!]

It would be quite complicated to implement, but I wouldn't be against the powers that be experimenting with a rule change whereby penalties were only awarded for clear goalscoring opportunities, and indirect free kicks were awarded for everything else in the area (eg when a player is running away from goal, or surrounded by multiple players, or the call is marginal).

 

[DenverSpur]

It would be quite complicated to implement, but I wouldn't be against the powers that be experimenting with a rule change whereby penalties were only awarded for clear goalscoring opportunities, and indirect free kicks were awarded for everything else in the area (eg when a player is running away from goal, or surrounded by multiple players, or the call is marginal).

Trouble is the powers that be don’t do creative thinking.

 

['O Zio]

I remember one of the guardian journalists saying similar years ago. Why is it that any infringement inside the box, no matter how minor , results in an almost certain goal to the opposition. Meanwhile really serious infringements outside the box just result in a free kick.

I think his suggestion was that penalties should be awarded for certain things regardless of where they occur, whereas minor things in the box should be free kicks like you say

 

[A Bit Much]

I remember one of the guardian journalists saying similar years ago. Why is it that any infringement, no matter how minor , results in an almost certain goal to the opposition. Meanwhile really serious infringements outside the box just result in a free kick.

I think his suggestion was that penalties should be awarded for certain things regardless of where they occur, whereas minor things in the box should be free kicks like you say

This is a very good point. A slight shove on someone turning away from goal with no chance of scoring is awarded with an almost certain goal.

I'd be in favour of this, penalties shouldn't really be happening that often, and it encourages diving like we saw from saints yesterday when desperate for a goal.

 

[nailsy]

Copied over from the other thread :

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.

 

[Japhet]

I'd prefer it if the whole subject of 'simulation' was reviewed. Any exaggeration of the effect of any contact and the offence is automatically wiped out. Maitland Niles is a prime example. At most there was a tiny amount of contact and most likely none at all, yet he goes down as if he's been shot by a sniper. To me, that's a similar level of cheating as a professional foul that regularly leads to a red card because it creates a goal scoring opportunity dishonestly, rather than preventing one.

 

[cider spurs]

Anyone found guilty of cheating via simulation, the opposing player should be awarded a free flick to said players balls, and a bollock splitting wedgie to follow.

 

[ralphs bald spot]

I'd prefer it if the whole subject of 'simulation' was reviewed. Any exaggeration of the effect of any contact and the offence is automatically wiped out. Maitland Niles is a prime example. At most there was a tiny amount of contact and most likely none at all, yet he goes down as if he's been shot by a sniper. To me, that's a similar level of cheating as a professional foul that regularly leads to a red card because it creates a goal scoring opportunity dishonestly, rather than preventing one.

I totally agree with this if a player is deemed to be cheating and attempting to get a penalty by doing so he should be sent off - the same as the player who makes a foul to stop a goal there is no difference really they are both game changing decisions - players know now the slightest touch in the box and they can go down - contact isn't a penalty - the one on Saturday is a joke - the decision should be is the player making the foul to either gain advantage or is the foul giving his side a clear advantage in stopping a goal scoring opportunity

 

[Misfit]

If it's a free kick outside the box, it's a penalty in it. Of curse it's never quite worked that way but I guess that's the human element at play, as maddening as it is.

Just some more consistency would be nice in a perfect world.

And players really need to punished punished for blatant cheating. All too wink and a nod now. Booking minimum for each instance, outside or inside box.

 

[Japhet]

If it's a free kick outside the box, it's a penalty in it. Of curse it's never quite worked that way but I guess that's the human element at play, as maddening as it is.

Just some more consistency would be nice in a perfect world.

And players really need to punished punished for blatant cheating. All too wink and a nod now. Booking minimum for each instance, outside or inside box.

I've always maintained that in 99.99% of cases, when a player goes crashing to the ground in the box, the Ref has 2 options; a penalty or a booking for simulation, and in my world, contact doesn't automatically mean a foul ( as is the case outside the box). Everything is biased in favour of attackers though.

 

[Partizan]

Just get rid of penalties altogether, they're awful.

 

[IfiHadTheWings]

I've always maintained that in 99.99% of cases, when a player goes crashing to the ground in the box, the Ref has 2 options; a penalty or a booking for simulation, and in my world, contact doesn't automatically mean a foul ( as is the case outside the box). Everything is biased in favour of attackers though.

Except the shoddy offside calls on VAR

 

[Ribble]

I think the referees just need to do their jobs properly, you know, by using their brains. And I think VAR is only good if the people using it aren't braindead also.

I feel like the general poor standard of officials all the way up to the top of PGMOL is one of the reasons why VAR seems to have been implemented and officiated worse in the PL than elsewhere.

Copied over from the other thread :

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.

Hell yes, loved a good indirect FK scramble in the box! A much fairer solution if a foul isn't denying a clear goalscoring opportunity.

 

[XIIIMPC]

No, just revise penalties altogether