Are penalties too harsh?

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
49,432
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Currently, any foul within the box is punished with a very good chance of getting a goal.

Is that right?

Obviously, if the foul prevented an actual goal scoring opportunity, then a penalty is appropriate. However I've seen multiple infractions on the edges of the box, with the play going nowhere, and the team with the ball gets rewarded with a goal, whereas, if the foul happened a few inches outside the box, a free kick would be the reward.

Should the rule be changed to:

Within the box, a foul that denies a clear goal scoring opportunity, gets rewarded with a penalty. A foul that does not deny a clear goal scoring opportunity, gets a direct free kick at the spot of the infraction.

I'm sure there are numerous flaws I'm not seeing, and someone will generously point them out to me. But the current system can't be the best way, can it?

Discuss.
 
Was just thinking this myself.

The isue would be clarifying fouls like when a player is on the wide of the penalty box, who would have crossed/squared for an 'easy' chance. Say they get fouled, is that a penalty or free kick? Or Perisic's handball (which was imo), it's stopping a direct header towards the goal/6 yard box.
 
Change the size and shape on the penalty area?

Or don't make fouls in the box.
 
I'd say indirect, like a passback. Perisic's handball didn't prevent a goalscoring opportunity, same as a passback wouldn't, nor did it look deliberate to me.

But then that adds in the complication of interpreting goalscoring opportunities for the right outcome to be awarded. There'll be clear cut ones, but also plenty of grey areas.
 
Could make the case for that handball to be a freekick within the box.

Deliberate handball = Penalty
Handball due to "unnatural" position = free kick.
Accidental handball = nothing.

Problem is, when the laws were written, it was only meant to be deliberate handballs anyway. The modern interpretation is that the the player "deliberately" move their arm into an unnatural position.

Needs to be clarified at same time.
 
For handballs like today, indirect FKs would be better. Suarez handballs should always be pens though.
 
You make some interesting points. A penalty is way too harsh in this case. The player didn't take anything away from France by having the ball hit his hand. France essentially got a goal on plate.

I'm not sure how it should be implemented but I agree that there are mismatches in the rules.
 
Yeah let's give refs even more decisions to make while players crowd them and pundits/fans/managers moan about them.

Leave it alone.
 
Grinner said:
Yeah let's give refs even more decisions to make while players crowd them and pundits/fans/managers moan about them.

Leave it alone.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It's harsh but it's the nature of the game.

If they weren't harsh you see players practicing how to make accidental handballs.
 
Grinner said:
Yeah let's give refs even more decisions to make while players crowd them and pundits/fans/managers moan about them.

Leave it alone.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As it is rules are as per Ref's interpretation, now if they change penalty rules even more headaches for ref.

If a player crosses the ball and it ends up in hand ball, then penalty can't be given as it isn't a clear goal scoring opportunity, same with when player from wing position beats the defender, then defender can foul him without ending up giving penalty.

Something like this
14875407856566.jpg
 
I suggested somewhere else that some penalties could count as half a goal or something & was probably correctly laughed at.

But it's quite a lot about protecting attackers who are likely to score from devious defending activities as well, isn't it?

I like my penalties 100 % clearcut - or at least if a soft one gets given early in the game, I expect the same standard to apply down the other end.

We can expect to see more of them with VAR on the prowl, obviously.
 
The alternative is to give a direct free kick for any infraction within the box. Now if the infraction is closer to goal, scoring the free kick will be more of a formality than the resulting penalty in the incumbent scenario.

If the infraction is further away, it still doesn't solve the problem. A wall will definitely defeat the purpose as all angles to goal will be adequately blocked due to the ball's proximity. If the wall is removed, then the goal keeper will have to deal with multiple angles on the ball without having any support from his team mates. For this scenario, the probability of getting goal will not depend on the level of infraction but again on the position it happened in.

Therefore, to eliminate such inconsistencies and to make the game simpler for both free kick takers and the goal keepers, I feel it is best to keep it standard i.e., put the ball on a predetermined spot and then shoot.
 
On another forum I saw it suggested that every foul anywhere on the field should be a penalty.

It would soon put a stop to unfair defending they reckoned.
 
Intentional foul in the box or super obvious goal scoring penalty = penalty. Unintentional foul = direct freekick with no wall and keeper must be at least ten yards away or on the goal line. Not perfect but the stupid foul on the corner of the penalty box should not count as a penalty.
 
I made this exact thread about 3 years ago. I don’t have a solution/alternative but I certainly share the sentiment. A free shot at goal from 12 yards actually rarely fits the crime from what I see. A crowded box is still a long way from goal more often from not, and there was no real goalscoring chance before the pen.
 
The introduction of VAR does make it more possible to classify the severity of fouls in the box.

However the problem is that it will unnecessarily complicate things even further. The referees have a hard enough time making such decisions, so it might be best to just leave it as it is.

kthanksbye said:
Football needs penalty corners like hockey. :drool:
Click to expand...

You may not know this, but it used to a thing for the MLS back in the 1990s. Good old Americans! :)

 
Last edited:
Dudu said:
The introduction of VAR does make it more possible to classify the severity of fouls in the box.

However the problem is that it will unnecessarily complicate things even further. The referees have a hard enough time making such decisions, so it might be best to just leave it as it is.



You may not know this, but it used to a thing for the MLS back in the 1990s. Good old Americans! :)

Click to expand...


Not these, like the ones taken in field hockey, in hindsight, I should've mentioned the word field.

 
I think hands is the only problem. In my opinion, it should almost never be given as a penalty, unless it's blatantly on purpose. It's simply too cheap a goal to get for something that's so accidental and doesn't necessarily coincide with a goal-scoring opportunity, in fact it seldom does. And with VAR you get way too many of these soft, random penalties. They simply decide way too much considering how random they are.

The opportunity to give more indirect free-kicks in the box would go some way. But I'd prefer it if we just acknowledged that 999 times out of a 1,000, a handball in the box is accidental and shouldn't decide a match.
 
Jev said:
I think hands is the only problem. In my opinion, it should almost never be given as a penalty, unless it's blatantly on purpose. It's simply too cheap a goal to get for something that's so accidental and doesn't necessarily coincide with a goal-scoring opportunity, in fact it seldom does. And with VAR you get way too many of these soft, random penalties. They simply decide way too much considering how random they are.

The opportunity to give more indirect free-kicks in the box would go some way. But I'd prefer it if we just acknowledged that 999 times out of a 1,000, a handball in the box is accidental and shouldn't decide a match.
Click to expand...

Defenders should know by now about hand balls in the box, they should also know about grappling and short pulling and they surly should know about going in wreaklesly or going to ground to soon. The truth is most players still think they can get away with it. Penalties are mostly there as a deterant.
 
I somewhat agree with this, but what you suggest will leave more room for interpretation and a big part of all the shite refs get is due to their interpretation of rules. Look at the handball in the final. Even after watching the situation 50 times, experts are still quite divided on whether it's a penalty or not. Fouling at the edge of the box resulting in a penalty is harsh, but players know this going in to a challenge. The rules are clear, it's inside it's a penalty. If you put goal scoring opportunity in to the equation people will argue whether something was a chance or not.

meh, I don't know.
 
InLevyITrust said:
Defenders should know by now about hand balls in the box, they should also know about grappling and short pulling and they surly should know about going in wreaklesly or going to ground to soon. The truth is most players still think they can get away with it. Penalties are mostly there as a deterant.
Click to expand...
Know about what? To saw off their arms? Most of the times it's entirely accidental. There has been given at least a handful of penalties this WC where it was just completely random. The arms have to be somewhere.
 
It's not clear to me yet whether the penalty should be only because of deliberate handball or not.The penalty yesterday may have been given because Perisic's hand was in the way. It can even be clumsy. But ultimately the hand stopped the ball from entering the box so it goes down as a penalty even if it wasn't 100% deliberate. It wasn't too dissimilar to the one Pogba conceded against Liverpool at OT in 2017. That wasn't deliberate either but the hand stopped the ball from reaching the intended target. The rules are not crystal clear to me yet because we see penalties being given in both instances.
 
I'd say get rid of the penalty box. Clear goal scoring opportunities result in penalties regardless of where they are. Imagine a situation where a team has sent everyone forward for a last ditch corner. The defending team clear out to a striker who is the last man, but with 70 yards to go and he is hacked from behind.

There is a good argument to say a pen is a fair way to fix that or even a direct goal.

Fouls in box prior to ball arriving in the box result in a retaken corner/ free kick, or if the foul is against someone who had a reasonable opportunity to score its a penalty.

Bottom line the game should be designed to restore the position the team were in prior to the foul.
 
Would like something to change . As good as this world cup was, it was also the tournament of penalties. Felt like one a match!
 
Penalties are there to act as a deterrant for defenders. Remove them and all it does is ramp up the fouling and shirt pulling that happens everytime the ball goes in the box. I don’t think the game needs new rules that lessen the number of goals scored.
 
Two changes could improve the game IMO:

1) Make the penalty area less wide (slimmer?). Teams awarded a pen from the sides of the penalty area seems a bit “extreme” since it’s rarely a very dangerous situation (usually avoids a cross where chance of goal is low compared to pen etc)

2) Clarify handball rule. Generally there should be fewer penalties from handball than seen at this World Cup.

I also like pens only given for fouls stopping a goal scoring opportunity but then again it would just make the rules more fluffy.
 
Last edited:
adexkola said:
Within the box, a foul that denies a clear goal scoring opportunity, gets rewarded with a penalty. A foul that does not deny a clear goal scoring opportunity, gets a direct free kick at the spot of the infraction.
Click to expand...
Makes sense now that we have VAR.
 
I've felt for a long time that some penalties are awarded for not very much. Yesterday was a classic example. Kante (Was it Kante?) misses the ball from a French corner. . . It happens to then land on Perisic's hand (which was not in an unnatural position) . . . and France go 2-1 one for a penalty from a ridiculous situation.

The WC final was effectively decided from that decision as goals change matches and alter tactics. Now France may have won in the end had that ridiculous penalty not been given but we'll never know.
 
Penalty decisions will always be conveyed as either too harsh or too lenient depending on what side of the decision you happen to be on. In a hypothetical scenario where the Perisic penalty wasn't given, and Croatia went on to lift the world cup, I imagine there would have been an identical thread made questioning whether or not referees are too lenient when it comes to handballs in the box.

Personally, I'm happy with the current rule. Although intentionality is an almost impossible motive to accurately discern - even with VAR - I think it's the best foundation to work from. The most important thing to try and rectify is consistency. I think there was a Rojo handball earlier in the tournament very similar to the Perisic one yesterday not given, despite a check. These discrepancies will probably taper out as referees become more accustomed to VAR and the new rules, but for now consistency in line with the current laws is what officials should be aiming at.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
I'd say get rid of the penalty box. Clear goal scoring opportunities result in penalties regardless of where they are. Imagine a situation where a team has sent everyone forward for a last ditch corner. The defending team clear out to a striker who is the last man, but with 70 yards to go and he is hacked from behind.

There is a good argument to say a pen is a fair way to fix that or even a direct goal.

Fouls in box prior to ball arriving in the box result in a retaken corner/ free kick, or if the foul is against someone who had a reasonable opportunity to score its a penalty.

Bottom line the game should be designed to restore the position the team were in prior to the foul.
Click to expand...

You need to keep the box for the keeper but you are 100% right - It should restore the position of the team prior to the foul. A foul which prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity should always be a penalty. It would make it easier in one way for the ref with the hard to judge is the foul inside or was it outside the area. Plus players wouldn't just hit the deck whenever they're inside the area
 
You must log in or register to reply here.