A&H

Millers v Shrews

The Referee Store
Kes said:
You probably would as a neutral but it's about it being a fair "penalty" after a foul or transgression has occurred.

How would you feel if you were just about to sidefoot the ball into the net during play and were cynically scythed down by an opponent, preventing the goal being scored? Which would you prefer to even up the balance? A straight shot from 12 yards out with the GK on his line or a run on goal from 35 yards out, against the clock, with the GK moving towards you? They're hardly the same thing .... ;)
Click to expand...
It depends on the penalty though? You can make a very convincing argument that a KFTPM is an overly harsh punishment for a lot of offences - a trip that's only just inside the edge of the PA, a soft push when jockeying for position, the classic "hit it past the keeper and then draw a contact with no chance of getting the ball".... I'd happily see a lesser penalty introduced for non goalscoring opportunity fouls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Kes said:
You probably would as a neutral but it's about it being a fair "penalty" after a foul or transgression has occurred.

How would you feel if you were just about to sidefoot the ball into the net during play and were cynically scythed down by an opponent, preventing the goal being scored? Which would you prefer to even up the balance? A straight shot from 12 yards out with the GK on his line or a run on goal from 35 yards out, against the clock, with the GK moving towards you? They're hardly the same thing .... ;)
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, nobody is proposing, or has ever proposed the 35-yard shootout as a replacement for a penalty kick during normal time. They were used as a way to resolve a drawn match, instead of a penalty shootout.

Edit: OK - I see @GraemeS has just proposed that. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Sheffields Finest said:
It's broke if referees are ignoring the actual offence!!!
Click to expand...

Who’s complaining..

56 pens scored in the prem last season, how many of those incurred encroachment during the process? I would hazard a guess a fair few but the goal was scored & the outcome of the spot kick wasn’t influenced by the violation in question.

Now if the ref blew everytime last season he spotted encroachment & ordered a re take it would get ridiculous & cause uproar imo.

Sometimes common sense outways the letter of the law, I think encroachment that’s had no bearing on the outcome of a penalty is one of them.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peter Grove said:
Not according to the IFAB's Fair Play website - it's one of the proposals on there, mainly to prevent encroachment by outfield players at penalties.
Click to expand...

The below is the proposal is it?


The solution to the encroachment problem is simple....make all other players except for keeper and penalty taker stand in centre circle as for KFTPM. If the penalty is scored fine, we go to kick off. If missed or saved, a goal kick is given (only one shot allowed, no rebounds). It wont prevent refs letting keepers get away with coming yards off the line, but will solve a host of other problems.
 
Why have the laws of the game at 200 pages. After all every referee has common sense right? Just a couple pages of main principals of the laws is good enough and leave the rest to the referees.

I guess the point I am trying to make is we have a case of almost every referee consistently and knowingly ignoring a law that is written in black and white (no opinion of the referee involved there). And everyone is happy to go along with it. Something is clearly broken. Either changes the law to how it is practiced or enforce the application of it as it is written. Otherwise it makes a mockery of having any laws in place. Why have any laws if we are going to pick and choose the ones we want to apply.
 
Men in Black said:
The below is the proposal is it?

The solution to the encroachment problem is simple....make all other players except for keeper and penalty taker stand in centre circle as for KFTPM. If the penalty is scored fine, we go to kick off. If missed or saved, a goal kick is given (only one shot allowed, no rebounds). It wont prevent refs letting keepers get away with coming yards off the line, but will solve a host of other problems.
Click to expand...
Well, not exactly - but at least in terms of the outcome it is. You would either have a goal, or a goal kick. It doesn't say the other players have to stand in the centre circle. The actual wording is:
[A]t most penalty kicks, players from both teams enter the penalty area before the kick which annoys people as referees rarely punish them, often because their focus is on the kicker and goalkeeper.

This problem could be removed by making every penalty kick a ‘kick from the penalty mark’ i.e. the kicker either scores or it is missed/saved. If the kick is not successful, the referee would stop play and award a goal kick.
Click to expand...
 
one said:
Why have the laws of the game at 200 pages. After all every referee has common sense right? Just a couple pages of main principals of the laws is good enough and leave the rest to the referees.

I guess the point I am trying to make is we have a case of almost every referee consistently and knowingly ignoring a law that is written in black and white (no opinion of the referee involved there). And everyone is happy to go along with it. Something is clearly broken. Either changes the law to how it is practiced or enforce the application of it as it is written. Otherwise it makes a mockery of having any laws in place. Why have any laws if we are going to pick and choose the ones we want to apply.
Click to expand...

Leave off @one It’s a game played by humans & ref’d by a human.

A referee goes into every game with integrity & tries to the best of there ability to apply the law, on the odd occasion common sense out weighs the law... not cheating not picking or choosing just plain common sense.

No need to re write the law book just come to the realisation that it’s a human in the middle & not a robot, on the odd occasion under certain circumstances the letter of law may not be the best course of action.

If u programmed a robot to carry out the lotg & sent him out onto the field of play you would probably end up with 7v7 10 pens & 500 free kicks is that what u would prefer?
 
Men in Black said:
Leave off @oneIf u programmed a robot to carry out the lotg & sent him out onto the field of play you would probably end up with 7v7 10 pens & 500 free kicks is that what u would prefer?
Click to expand...

Then that is a problem with the LOTG, not our problem. Ref what is there in front of you, according to the LOTG as they stand. It is not our job to pick and choose which bits we like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
alexgr said:
Then that is a problem with the LOTG, not our problem. Ref what is there in front of you, according to the LOTG as they stand. It is not our job to pick and choose which bits we like.
Click to expand...

I agree but every pro game if u re-watched it and noted down when a law was broken & not blown up by a ref you would run out of paper.

I’m saying that if u blew for every violation to the letter of the law you’d collapse & need a ventilator.
 
Men in Black said:
Leave off @one It’s a game played by humans & ref’d by a human.

A referee goes into every game with integrity & tries to the best of there ability to apply the law, on the odd occasion common sense out weighs the law... not cheating not picking or choosing just plain common sense.

No need to re write the law book just come to the realisation that it’s a human in the middle & not a robot, on the odd occasion under certain circumstances the letter of law may not be the best course of action.

If u programmed a robot to carry out the lotg & sent him out onto the field of play you would probably end up with 7v7 10 pens & 500 free kicks is that what u would prefer?
Click to expand...
This argument would stand if the referee make mistakes in applying a law or don't apply it on the odd occasion due to circumstances. But when a certain law is never applied, its not about being human or applying common sense. Its about either the law not being written correctly or not enforced correctly.
 
Peter Grove said:
Well, not exactly - but at least in terms of the outcome it is. You would either have a goal, or a goal kick. It doesn't say the other players have to stand in the centre circle. The actual wording is:
Click to expand...

My tongue in cheek comment was in response to frog marching 18 players down the field & telling them to sit in the centre circle, I’m just baffled at how the re start would look if the pen was missed.

Even the idea you have stated makes little sense 18 players on the edge of the box waiting for a possible goal kick, it all sounds to far fetched.

In any case VAR will be involved before long & ruin the whole thing anyway, u’ll end up with a pen re taken 6 times.
 
one said:
This argument would stand if the referee make mistakes in applying a law or don't apply it on the odd occasion due to circumstances. But when a certain law is never applied, its not about being human or applying common sense. Its about either the law not being written correctly or not enforced correctly.
Click to expand...

I’m sure there is not encroachment on every pen taken it’s just why cause chaos when nobody has been wronged.

Way way down on my list of laws that need looking at if at all.
 
Men in Black said:
I’m sure there is not encroachment on every pen taken it’s just why cause chaos when nobody has been wronged.

Way way down on my list of laws that need looking at if at all.
Click to expand...
But they wrote a law to fix the problem and you're / he is blatantly choosing to ignore its use, you then ask yourself, then whats the point of many of the others if thats the same. I never had a problem with 99% of the laws, it was the ceremonial stuff that I wasn't too keen on.... (But that's why I wasn't promoted!! I know!!!) :foot:. Of course Laws have got leeway but the picture is pretty out there as text book encroachment!!! :)
 
Men in Black said:
My tongue in cheek comment was in response to frog marching 18 players down the field & telling them to sit in the centre circle, I’m just baffled at how the re start would look if the pen was missed.
Click to expand...
The restart, if the penalty was missed, would look like a goal kick - because that is what it would be.
Men in Black said:
Even the idea you have stated makes little sense 18 players on the edge of the box waiting for a possible goal kick, it all sounds to far fetched.
Click to expand...
This is not an idea I have stated, it is a proposal on an IFAB website. I'm not saying I'm in favour of it but I don't see that having a bunch of players (it wouldn't be 18, in any scenario I can imagine) on the edge of the area waiting for a possible goal kick is that much different than the same players waiting on the edge of the area for a possible goal.
 
Peter Grove said:
The restart, if the penalty was missed, would look like a goal kick - because that is what it would be.

This is not an idea I have stated, it is a proposal on an IFAB website. I'm not saying I'm in favour of it but I don't see that having a bunch of players (it wouldn't be 18, in any scenario I can imagine) on the edge of the area waiting for a possible goal kick is that much different than the same players waiting on the edge of the area for a possible goal.
Click to expand...

Wait and see I guess but a pen is a pen, I fear one day we won’t recognise the game we all love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top