A&H

Penalty kick or not?

This is a massive hole in the LotG and the most significant case in the EPL was Pickford causing VVD’s long term injury.

There’s nothing in the LotG that says it’s not a foul if you are trying to make a save/block, and yet fouls while saving/blocking in and around the box are not penalised or expected to be penalised - though the same thing 30 yards from goal will be penalised.

This is nonsense. It encourages fouls by GKs in particular, puts GKs in more dangerous situations and disadvantages attackers.

It seems such any easy win to clarify this - make it clear that saves/blocks can be fouls, that the correct restart should be applied (e.g. ball in play) .. we’d get more consistency, less injuries and more goals.


The OP is not going to be a penalty for most referees. I would have to be there and decide on context. But it really should be fixed!
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
I don't quite think that's a fair comparison.

Pickford vs VVD was SFP, was missed in part due to being related to actions after an offside and was also roundly agreed to be a bad mistake to have been missed by the officials and VAR. That doesn't require a law or culture change to be penalised, it requires VAR officials to be better at implementing the existing expectations.

Particularly following on from that high profile incident, I would argue that an expectation already exists that SFP/VC ARE to be punished even after a shot is taken and even if they don't result in a penalty/FK to the attacking team.

Conversely, what we're pretty much discussing here are if standard non-card fouls when the ball is gone need to be penalised more often. That I do think requires a change in approach, and would be something you'd expect to see brought in at a break between seasons, complete with referees doing that thing where they apparently go around and tell all the clubs what they'll be doing next season.
 
I don't quite think that's a fair comparison.

Pickford vs VVD was SFP, was missed in part due to being related to actions after an offside and was also roundly agreed to be a bad mistake to have been missed by the officials and VAR. That doesn't require a law or culture change to be penalised, it requires VAR officials to be better at implementing the existing expectations.

Particularly following on from that high profile incident, I would argue that an expectation already exists that SFP/VC ARE to be punished even after a shot is taken and even if they don't result in a penalty/FK to the attacking team.

Conversely, what we're pretty much discussing here are if standard non-card fouls when the ball is gone need to be penalised more often. That I do think requires a change in approach, and would be something you'd expect to see brought in at a break between seasons, complete with referees doing that thing where they apparently go around and tell all the clubs what they'll be doing next season.
Hmm... I don't agree. I think that players also do not expect fouls to be given at saves/blocks - and especially after they have shot or scored - and we all see that forwards are AMAZING at staying on their feet when they score - or getting up off the floor when they score - even if they have just been reckless'd or SFP'd by two defenders and a goalkeeper.

The current situation does make it easy for referees though - ball in the net or shot flying wide, great, I don't have to make a decision about a foul, card or penalty. Path of least resistance. Job done. We are all complicit here. Point stands. It just seems daft - after what... 20 years of outlawing the challenge from behind - we still haven't outlawed the challenge from behind when in the act of shooting/scoring... so daft when it would mean more goals!
 
Maybe. I can't off the top of my head think of anything since Pickford v VVD that should have resulted in a YC/RC for reckless/dangerous play after a shot - my instinct is that they are now more likely to be punished with cards at least, even if the possible penalty shouts might still get glossed over and even if we don't actually see it much.

That incident has made people aware that cards can still happen for post-shot contact, but clearly reckless or dangerous challenges like that at the top level aren't actually that common. You're not wrong on the question of non-reckless penalties, but I don't think it's that helpful to bring VVD into that discussion.
 
The Pickford one was very different as he has absolutely scissored him and caused a serious injury.

I've given one of these, i.e. penalty for the foul after the shot has been got away, in an FA Cup game and I can say with absolutely certainty that it isn't expected by players. When you have one team in your face and the other laughing you know you've surprised everyone.
 
This is a massive hole in the LotG and the most significant case in the EPL was Pickford causing VVD’s long term injury.

There’s nothing in the LotG that says it’s not a foul if you are trying to make a save/block, and yet fouls while saving/blocking in and around the box are not penalised or expected to be penalised - though the same thing 30 yards from goal will be penalised.

This is nonsense. It encourages fouls by GKs in particular, puts GKs in more dangerous situations and disadvantages attackers.

It seems such any easy win to clarify this - make it clear that saves/blocks can be fouls, that the correct restart should be applied (e.g. ball in play) .. we’d get more consistency, less injuries and more goals.


The OP is not going to be a penalty for most referees. I would have to be there and decide on context. But it really should be fixed!
Except that, as you note, it already is in in the Laws. This isn’t a hole in the Laws, so much as an expectation that has grown despite the Laws. It starts with trifling, gets fueled by avoidance of tough calls, and became what the game expects. Though I also think you overstate it—I think it’s more about an overly high threshold than a complete free shot.
 
Then what is the offence?

Trip from a late tackle that missed the ball. Same as anywhere else on the field.

Again, how is that different from a player tapping it past the full back to go bolting down the wing only to be tripped by a the fullback attempting a slide tackle but missing the ball?
 
Trips are only offences if careless, of course.

And it's different because he's not tapping past, he is shooting. The GK is making a save. They are conceptually distinct.

It's readily accepted that sometimes saves are not successful. It's also readily accepted, I would suggest, that if an attacking player runs into the GK in their attempt to save a shot, then the GK is not committing a foul unless there is some aggravating feature. Again, what can you say is careless about the GK actions? He has not dived towards the attacker, merely to the path of the ball.
 
Trips are only offences if careless, of course.

And it's different because he's not tapping past, he is shooting. The GK is making a save. They are conceptually distinct.

It's readily accepted that sometimes saves are not successful. It's also readily accepted, I would suggest, that if an attacking player runs into the GK in their attempt to save a shot, then the GK is not committing a foul unless there is some aggravating feature. Again, what can you say is careless about the GK actions? He has not dived towards the attacker, merely to the path of the ball.

I can see we're going to agree to disagree. I can't see how anywhere else on the field that wouldn't be foul.

Take that tackle and put it outside the 18 where the player is shooting and then gets wiped out afterwards and tell me that wouldn't be given as a foul.
 
Trips are only offences if careless, of course.

And it's different because he's not tapping past, he is shooting. The GK is making a save. They are conceptually distinct.

It's readily accepted that sometimes saves are not successful. It's also readily accepted, I would suggest, that if an attacking player runs into the GK in their attempt to save a shot, then the GK is not committing a foul unless there is some aggravating feature. Again, what can you say is careless about the GK actions? He has not dived towards the attacker, merely to the path of the ball.
I think we're getting to the crux of the difference of opinion now. You see an attempted save as a fundamentally different action to an attempted tackle. A number of us see it as effectively the same. And interestingly you talk about 'making a save' when in the OP, the GK actually did no such thing (which is probably why the question was then posed as to whether it'd be different if the GK managed to touch the ball in some way shape or form).

The GK is fully entitled to try and make a save ... however, just like those who try to make a fair tackle, if they fail to play the ball and instead collide with an attacker who HAS played the ball then they should expect to face the consequences of that failure. To illustrate the point further, imagine if a defender dived headlong in an attempt to block a shot but missed the ball completely and took out another attacking player ... you'd sympathise with them but give the FK / penalty regardless. Why are we seeing the GK as a 'special case', when in reality the only thing that differentiates them from other players is that it is legal for them to use their hands in their own penalty area??
 
This is now rather hypothetical. The OP GK did not dive headlong into another player. His movement was across the path of the striker and not towards him. If anything, the striker has run into the GK.

For me, if the GK is doing something they would be expected to do, we should be cautious before identifying what they do as careless simply because there is contact.

I'm certainly not saying that a save cannot turn into a CRUEF trip, but that this one is not.
 
This is now rather hypothetical. The OP GK did not dive headlong into another player. His movement was across the path of the striker and not towards him. If anything, the striker has run into the GK.

For me, if the GK is doing something they would be expected to do, we should be cautious before identifying what they do as careless simply because there is contact.

I'm certainly not saying that a save cannot turn into a CRUEF trip, but that this one is not.
Ok, glad we are now on the same page that an attempted save generally runs a risk of turning into a CRUEF offence. And happy to agree to disagree with regard to this one specific incident, it's the principle that matters most to me. My only lingering doubt is whether you still regard GKs as some kind of 'special case'. GKs are expected to make saves, defenders are expected to make tackles. Just because these things are expected of those players, the fact still remains that if they fail in their attempt, in either case significant contact with an attacker who has played the ball is highly likely to be (at least) Careless.
 
Late to the party.
I'll allow some contact for a keeper coming out making a save.
This is way beyond what is acceptable.
He absolutely clatters him.
Penalty.
 
Back
Top