Penalty box consistency

[Seamus Colemole]

That's not the rule. The 'keeper has to make a move towards the ball and the attacker has to block him off to be deemed impeding his progress. Simply moving side to side or taking one step forward for positional purposes isn't going for the ball.

The attacker is completely entitled to stand still in the box and Anichebe hasn't moved.

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

Makes no mention of where the ball is.

If Victor has simply stayed stood where he was he'd probably have got away with it. However once he bought his left arm up and pushed it back towards Jask who was clearly trying to move he impeded him.

Its the action with his left arm which is the problem.

 

[steele]

Best way to stop this nonsense, is to introduce video. Could then take all shirt pulling etc and give a straight penalty.

 

[Tubey]

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

Makes no mention of where the ball is.

If Victor has simply stayed stood where he was he'd probably have got away with it. However once he bought his left arm up and pushed it back towards Jask who was clearly trying to move he impeded him.

Its the action with his left arm which is the problem.

It isn't. Honestly, it's only impeding the player if you're stopping him going to a desired destination, which is 99 times out of 100 towards the ball.

If Jaaskelainen tries to move and Anichebe blocks him off, it's a foul, but Jaaskelainen doesn't. If he did, the two players would wrestle and the ref would blow up immediately. As it is, Anichebe stands still. It doesn't matter where his arm is because that action in itself isn't going to stop the 'keeper moving.

The question is whether Jaaskelainen is impeded, as in stopped from moving to a desired location. He isn't - he takes one step forward, then jumps back and the header beats him. At no stage is he prevented from moving by Anichebe, and the striker is entitled to take up any area on the pitch he sees fit as the corner is taking place.

The only way it's automatically deemed as impeding the 'keeper is if the player has no clear intent of ever challenging the ball (e.g. facing away from the ball). Then the ref can blow up as soon as the corner is taken.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

He's still trying to move and being prevented by Anichebe obstructing him, and it was on the edge of his 6 yard box but thats not really the issue, regardless of where he was trying to go he was being fouled so couldn't do so.

Yes, but say you're right, how on earth did we not get a penalty when Shawcross was doing so much worse on Felli? How often do you ever get fouls given when defenders bear hug attackers compared to attackers giving fouls away for apparently obstructing goal keepers?

 

[Eggs]

......its only a matter of time before key decisions are made following a TV review. A few years ago there was a website called 'the league as it should be'. Not sure if its still going, but it adjusted results when goals were wrongly disallowed, penalties not awarded etc. 2 teams were consistently found to have key result making decisions go in there favour - Chelsea and RS. On avarage Everton were 9 points per season down and Man U (surprisingly) 4 points.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Yes, but say you're right, how on earth did we not get a penalty when Shawcross was doing so much worse on Felli? How often do you ever get fouls given when defenders bear hug attackers compared to attackers giving fouls away for apparently obstructing goal keepers?

Because either the different official didn't see it, didn't deem it a foul, or done that thing that officials do of ignoring fouls on attackers cause they don't want the spotlight of giving 10 penalties a game.

As you can see with me and Tubey, its open to interpretation, i think Anichebe was impeding him Tubey doesn't. So what is the correct decision for the ref to make?

As for the Shawcross one, i think the correct proceedure is to warn the player before the corner comes in, then if he is still doing it when the ball is in play caution him and give a penalty. What did the officials actually see before Fellaini flattened him?

Seems like every week i'm trying to explain something which in my mind is good reasons as to why some decisions get given and others don't, its not as simple as "x was a foul in game y so a should be a foul in game b". Be good if it was but refereeing is unfortunatly not that simple.

 

[Philw]

There was another shocker at City. Barry jumped all over the Reading bloke when he got their winner.
I'd forgotten how bad Carlton Cole's foul on Ivanovic was when he scored West Ham's 2nd against Chelsea until I saw it again last week.
Is there anyone out there qualified to tell us what the friggin' rule is FGS!

i've not got a problem with city's goal - the full back decided he was going to stand there and duck - Barry's got every right to go for that ball IMO

He didn't duck until he felt the weight of Barry on his back. As for him 'deciding' to stand there, where should he have gone?
Didn't Barry come from behind him?

We've seen a lot of this lately and I'll make the point again. If Baines' touch on the Norwich player was a foul - and I think it
was, technically - why isn't jumping on a defenders back/neck to reach for a header a foul?

Clearly not a foul. What is Barry supposed to do, not try and attack the ball? Shorey was making no attempt to play the ball and was backing towards Barry, who simply jumped over the top of him. If there was any foul then it was Shorey clearly attempting to obstruct Barry, but he failed to do this anyway.

 

[toffeejack]

Clearly not a foul. What is Barry supposed to do, not try and attack the ball? Shorey was making no attempt to play the ball and was backing towards Barry, who simply jumped over the top of him. If there was any foul then it was Shorey clearly attempting to obstruct Barry, but he failed to do this anyway.

is the right answer. only one person wanted to win that ball. shorey made no attempt, barry didn't even put his hands on him half way through the jump to make it look like there was a foul. at no point did he use shorey as levearge - perfectly good decision from the officials

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Because either the different official didn't see it, didn't deem it a foul, or done that thing that officials do of ignoring fouls on attackers cause they don't want the spotlight of giving 10 penalties a game.

As you can see with me and Tubey, its open to interpretation, i think Anichebe was impeding him Tubey doesn't. So what is the correct decision for the ref to make?

As for the Shawcross one, i think the correct proceedure is to warn the player before the corner comes in, then if he is still doing it when the ball is in play caution him and give a penalty. What did the officials actually see before Fellaini flattened him?

Seems like every week i'm trying to explain something which in my mind is good reasons as to why some decisions get given and others don't, its not as simple as "x was a foul in game y so a should be a foul in game b". Be good if it was but refereeing is unfortunatly not that simple.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ees-launch-clampdown-holding-penalty-box.html

This says that refs will be clamping down on it from now on. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Fellaini returns. I'd lay odds on them clamping down more on him than the person holding him.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ees-launch-clampdown-holding-penalty-box.html

This says that refs will be clamping down on it from now on. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Fellaini returns. I'd lay odds on them clamping down more on him than the person holding him.

I don't think anyone would argue its not a good thing, i'm sure our defenders hold attackers as well so as with everything if refs see it and deem it worthy of being a foul they will give it, if they do in one match then not in the next its not lack of consistency its a human being from probably a different angle seeing 2 seperate incidents with 2 seperate players which may be similar but not identical.

Although i'm sceptical any clampdown would last because no doubt managers, fans and pundist will soon start complaining about games being ruined because there are 10 penalties given in 1 game for holding in the box. But thats only 10 out of 12 incidents and the team who only got 4 penalties and not 6 will cry like girls over it.

 

[mawders]

2 points. 1) Vic was holding (slightly), 2) Vic moved which blocked the keepers attempt to get the ball. Even though it was minimal and we see defenders doing this all the time to strikers and nothing gets given, we all know that you just need to fart on a keeper and a foul gets given.

But, it was a shocking shocking display from the officials. Not quite as shocking as Hansen on MOTD though

 

[Philw]

I don't think anyone would argue its not a good thing, i'm sure our defenders hold attackers as well so as with everything if refs see it and deem it worthy of being a foul they will give it, if they do in one match then not in the next its not lack of consistency its a human being from probably a different angle seeing 2 seperate incidents with 2 seperate players which may be similar but not identical.

Although i'm sceptical any clampdown would last because no doubt managers, fans and pundist will soon start complaining about games being ruined because there are 10 penalties given in 1 game for holding in the box. But thats only 10 out of 12 incidents and the team who only got 4 penalties and not 6 will cry like girls over it.

There were definately instances of this on Sat, but it was 6 of one, half dozen of the other (heads to World Football forum) so...

 

[pfim]

Clearly not a foul. What is Barry supposed to do, not try and attack the ball? Shorey was making no attempt to play the ball and was backing towards Barry, who simply jumped over the top of him. If there was any foul then it was Shorey clearly attempting to obstruct Barry, but he failed to do this anyway.

Agree with this. And as a bit of an aside, just terrible defending from someone who should be much, much better.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Clearly not a foul. What is Barry supposed to do, not try and attack the ball? Shorey was making no attempt to play the ball and was backing towards Barry, who simply jumped over the top of him. If there was any foul then it was Shorey clearly attempting to obstruct Barry, but he failed to do this anyway.

I've seen it again and I do see - which I didn't the first time - that Shorey holds his ground and does seem to be aware that Barry
is coming from behind.
The question is, does Shorey have to get out of his way, or even go for the ball himself? He may have thought that the ball would pass harmlessly away if he did nothing. Barry clearly isn't sure because he said later that some of his teamates thought it was a foul and he thought it could have been, himself. (EPL Highlights. Fox)
Of all the similar recent incidents this was far from the worst, imo. Carlton Coles' was diabolical and Benteke's was nearly as bad. No question of obstruction in those two.