World Cup Japan Penalty Semi Final

[one]

That's my point, who would tactically foul someone in the area.
With the exception of handballs on the line (Suarez, Phil Neville etc), an infringement in the box is never tactical.

So are you saying holding an opponent for example is not tactical (intentional)? You may change you mind if you look at this penalty @ 1:20

 

[McTavish]

Can you point me to the directive or point in the LOTG where it states that?

I've seen it in writing when regarding holding - but never for another foul.

I'll therefore stick with what I've known since 1995 - and it never being a PK

The Referee allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been
committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original
offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time.

 

[deusex]

So are you saying holding an opponent for example is not tactical (intentional)? You may change you mind if you look at this penalty @ 1:20

Ah I did completely forget about holding offences, what you show is a penalty and a caution (what was she thinking?)
Okay, to revise my statement:
I'd say 90% of non-holding fouls in the area shouldn't receive a caution

 

[AlexF]

The Referee allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been
committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time.

So...

That says to me you give advantage for the push, and if the team doesn't get an advantage to penalise the original offence. AT THE POINT OF THE FOUL (ie, outside of the penalty area).

Holding is explicitly mentioned in the Laws as a continuing foul (ie, starts outside, ends inside, therefore penalty). That's on pg 118 of the 14-15 Laws.

No other foul has that mention.

 

[McTavish]

That says to me you give advantage for the push, and if the team doesn't get an advantage to penalise the original offence. AT THE POINT OF THE FOUL (ie, outside of the penalty area).

I would suggest that a penalty is an advantage over a DFK on the edge of the area. Therefore, an advantage has accrued and you ignore the push outside the penalty area and penalise the push inside the penalty area.

 

[MalB]

Lol

 

[one]

Ah I did completely forget about holding offences, what you show is a penalty and a caution (what was she thinking?)
Okay, to revise my statement:
I'd say 90% of non-holding fouls in the area shouldn't receive a caution

With a bit of negotiation we may have a deal.

At the upper end of grassroots, semi-pro and upwards you get quite a few crafty/sneaky players. They knowingly/intentionally commit fouls in desperation, in the PA, hoping you miss it (similar to holding).

Are you happy to take that percentage down to about 70% ?

 

[AlexF]

I would suggest that a penalty is an advantage over a DFK on the edge of the area. Therefore, an advantage has accrued and you ignore the push outside the penalty area and penalise the push inside the penalty area.

So, that's all fine and good... if there are _TWO_ pushing fouls.

If there's one push, the foul happens when the push occurs (which, btw, is when contact is initially made).