A&H

NOR v ARSE

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
Level 7 Referee
Penalty retake, correct in law but harsh on the keeper! (Encroachment)
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
I don't think it was for the GK - else he'd have been cautioned immediately (something I understand IFAB want to removed incidentally). It was for the defender who then ran in and cleared the ball.
 
No problem with the retake, they have been clear that they will check VAR and retake if the offence materially affects the outcome. Given Aarons cleared the ball it can't be argued that he didn't materially affect the outcome. I actually initially thought it was for Krul, in which case he would have been off as he was cautioned before the first penalty was taken.

Where there is a problem is how Maclean wasn't sent off. That was a shocker of a challenge, and a typical one where a player overruns the ball then lunges. Appears that VAR didn't even review it, it really is impossible to know what they will and won't get involved in on any given weekend.
 
As @RustyRef said, it was #2 from Norwich, Aarons.

He encroached and interfered (he was the one who cleared the rebound).

That's the line that was drawn in the sand last year. I'm shocked that you haven't kept up with this stuff.
Eh, I said it was correct in law, how is that not keeping up with the blooming law???
 
I don't think it was for the GK - else he'd have been cautioned immediately (something I understand IFAB want to removed incidentally). It was for the defender who then ran in and cleared the ball.
If he had been the one penalised and got a yellow for it, things would have got very interesting - he'd just been cautioned about 30 seconds earlier for either delaying the restart or dissent.
 
The problem I have with this is it seems to overly favour the attacking side.

If the Arsenal player encroaching had got the ball and scored then the penalty would presumably also have been retaken (like with the James Maddison one last week) as both players had.

But if the penalty had been scored then no retake would have been ordered by VAR.

I think it should either be that VAR orders the penalty to be retaken regardless of outcome if both teams have players encroaching or if an attacking player scores from the rebound after encroaching then the penalty is disallowed, regardless of if the defending team also encroached. That would at least keep the 'direct impact' clause balanced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The problem I have with this is it seems to overly favour the attacking side.

If the Arsenal player encroaching had got the ball and scored then the penalty would presumably also have been retaken (like with the James Maddison one last week) as both players had.

But if the penalty had been scored then no retake would have been ordered by VAR.

I think it should either be that VAR orders the penalty to be retaken regardless of outcome if both teams have players encroaching or if an attacking player scores from the rebound after encroaching then the penalty is disallowed, regardless of if the defending team also encroached. That would at least keep the 'direct impact' clause balanced.
Goals = £$€
Nothing else matters
 
The problem I have with this is it seems to overly favour the attacking side.

If the Arsenal player encroaching had got the ball and scored then the penalty would presumably also have been retaken (like with the James Maddison one last week) as both players had.

But if the penalty had been scored then no retake would have been ordered by VAR.

I think it should either be that VAR orders the penalty to be retaken regardless of outcome if both teams have players encroaching or if an attacking player scores from the rebound after encroaching then the penalty is disallowed, regardless of if the defending team also encroached. That would at least keep the 'direct impact' clause balanced.

Not really a VAR issue, but a Law 14 issue. The "only if it matters" way of looking at encroachment came long before VAR, and has always had this asymmetry. (I suppose the difference with VAR is that it makes it harder to only see the attacker's encroachment when the attacker gains an advantage.) These issues are one of the reasons some are advocating for PKs to be dead when missed instead of continuing play.
 
Not really a VAR issue, but a Law 14 issue. The "only if it matters" way of looking at encroachment came long before VAR, and has always had this asymmetry. (I suppose the difference with VAR is that it makes it harder to only see the attacker's encroachment when the attacker gains an advantage.) These issues are one of the reasons some are advocating for PKs to be dead when missed instead of continuing play.

It was always very rare that encroachment was penalised before VAR was introduced though.

The general principle of:
Attacker encroaches - indirect free kick (if missed) or retake (if penalty directly scored)
Defender encroaches - penalty retaken (if missed) or goal stands (if penalty scored)
both sides commit offence - penalty retaken regardless of outcome

is not an unreasonable approach.

But with VAR 'regardless of outcome' is essentially changed to 'if penalty is missed and encroaching player has direct impact' because VAR will never intervene if penalty goes straight in.
 
I disagree that it is VAR that changed it to looking at direct impact--that is what has actually been called in professional games for a long time. The only times I have seen it called at any level (by experienced referees . . . ) is when either a player who encroached got to the ball or the player encroaching got so far in (like near the penalty mark) that it was blatant and distracting to the GK or kicker. And those were rare. As far as I can tell, they still are very rare. VAR's impact on PK retakes has been primarily on GK movement, which is a different issue. (I don't recall another example of non-GK encroachment being called via VAR, though I assume it has happened.)

I believe, but am not sure, that it was Bob Evans who wrote about a game in the old NASL in the US (the 70s or so) when the league had said to refs that they should be strictly enforcing encroachment. He followed the instruction. I believe it resulted in half a dozen retakes of the same PK. :eek: Try that in one of your games!:eek::eek: (Better be able to outrun them to your car. . . .) The instructions to referees changed after that game . . .
 
Well, I'd suggest the reason it is quite rarely penalised is because it's quite rare that a goalkeeper saves a penalty, the ball remains in play and either:

a. an attacking player who has encroached scores the rebound
b. a defending player who has encroached is able to immediately clear the ball.

But when either of these happens I'd suggest it's quite common for retakes to result. We've seen it three times in the PL this season already, with West ham V Man City on the opening day, Brighton V Leicester last week and Norwich V Arsenal at the weekend (none of which were initially given by the referee.)

I'm not sure there'd even have been three penalties retaken because of encroachment since the 2010 World Cup so it's definitely having an impact. When encroachment has been penalised in the past it often seems to me to be when the penalty has been scored - I remember Mike Dean doing this twice in a West Ham V Chelsea game 10 years ago and Keith Stroud infamously incorrectly gave an indirect free-kick instead of a retake when Newcastle played Burton in 2016. And certainly I remember some obvious examples where an encroaching player in the past has clearly had a major impact but wasn't penalised, such as Vertonghen in the NLD last season and a goal that Defoe scored when Spurs beat Reading 6-4 in a classic game.
 
I'm not quite sure why there's so much debate on this as regards the use of VAR.The VAR protocol is quite clear and unequivocal on this issue:

Encroachment can only be reviewed if:
• an attacker who encroached scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored
• a defender who encroached prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball in a situation where a goal might be scored
 
I'm not quite sure why there's so much debate on this as regards the use of VAR.The VAR protocol is quite clear and unequivocal on this issue:
I think what irritates and confuses the “normal” viewer of this is that when VAR can, can’t or won’t review something seems completely arbitrary to the bloke in the stands or pub, and equally the commentators. No one’s done a good job communicating anything to anyone.
 
I'm not quite sure why there's so much debate on this as regards the use of VAR.The VAR protocol is quite clear and unequivocal on this issue:

Oh there's no doubt that the VAR protocol is clear.

My point is that the balance seems unfiar in the application. Last week, an attacking player scored from a rebound and the penalty was retaken because there were also defenders who had encroached. This week, a defending player cleared the rebound and the penalty was retaken even though there also attackers who had encroached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Oh there's no doubt that the VAR protocol is clear.

My point is that the balance seems unfiar in the application. Last week, an attacking player scored from a rebound and the penalty was retaken because there were also defenders who had encroached. This week, a defending player cleared the rebound and the penalty was retaken even though there also attackers who had encroached.
I don't understand - that's always been the way it worked, ever since a provision on encroachment was first brought in. If players from both sides encroach, the penalty is retaken, no matter what the outcome. Since both sides have offended against the Laws of the Game you can't single one of them out, you just have the kick retaken. That is (and has always been) the only solution available in the law.
 
I don't understand - that's always been the way it worked, ever since a provision on encroachment was first brought in. If players from both sides encroach, the penalty is retaken, no matter what the outcome. Since both sides have offended against the Laws of the Game you can't single one of them out, you just have the kick retaken. That is (and has always been) the only solution available in the law.

But VAR intervention isn't 'no matter what the outcome' - it would be fine if it did that. VAR will never intervene if the penalty is scored directly, even if both teams had players encroaching. Thus, it's not a balanced implementation. The initial outcome has to be the goalkeeper saves the penalty before there's any chance of VAR intervening.

The penalty on Sunday would not have been retaken if it had gone straight in, even though both teams were shown to have players encroaching. Thus, the VAR protocol seems rather skewed - it doesn't apply the 'regardless of outcome' phase and it also doesn't completely apply the 'direct' impact' part because an encroaching defender who didn't have a direct impact will be penalised if an encroaching attacker has a direct impact by scoring a rebound.
 
Back
Top