PGMOL go it alone with pens?

[santa sangria]

VAR set to end Premier League players ‘buying a penalty’ next season

Premier League referees will have to consider three criteria before giving a penalty while offside decisions will give forwards the benefit of the doubt again

www.theguardian.com

Interesting that we had the very lenient foul line in the Euros.
Now the prem will have New More Realistic Pens With Three Criteria.
I wonder what UEFA will come up with next?

 

[Murri O]

On paper sounds sensible.

 

[socal lurker]

Doesn't the second criteria (consequence of contact) encourage an attacker to go down?

I'm really not a fan of wide lines that a make a player onside; IMO, if we are adding gray areas for VAR, the answer should be that the call on the field stands. This is moving from correcting clear errors (well, we left that long ago) to reversing correct calls on OS because they were too close.

 

[Anubis]

Ludicrous if true. A penalty is simply a foul, difference being its committed inside the box. By adding the degree of contact, the referee now gets to choose if a penalty is just reward for the foul which has been committed. That is ( until now), not the referees business, we dont get to play judge and jury here, we see the foul, we penalise it, or not. The resultent penalty award is not our concern, slippery road if we are saying thats a foul but only a 4/10 foul so i cant give a pen, whereas the next tackle is a 7/10 foul so i can give it.
Yes mentally we all like a cast iron penalty, but only because we know no protests come from it.
if you would give it on half way, then, you give it in the box.

unless the lotg get reworded

 

[ARF]

Ludicrous if true. A penalty is simply a foul, difference being its committed inside the box. By adding the degree of contact, the referee now gets to choose if a penalty is just reward for the foul which has been committed. That is ( until now), not the referees business, we dont get to play judge and jury here, we see the foul, we penalise it, or not. The resultent penalty award is not our concern, slippery road if we are saying thats a foul but only a 4/10 foul so i cant give a pen, whereas the next tackle is a 7/10 foul so i can give it.
Yes mentally we all like a cast iron penalty, but only because we know no protests come from it.
if you would give it on half way, then, you give it in the box.

unless the lotg get reworded

I think any referees who says that they would give a 'minor' foul as a penalty the same as they would give it as a defensive free kick are fooling themselves.

 

[Anubis]

I think any referees who says that they would give a 'minor' foul as a penalty the same as they would give it as a defensive free kick are fooling themselves.

That would be us devising our own personal agenda, and not adhering to the lotg
Do the lotg make reference to where on the park the foull is committed?

no.

 

[JamesL]

That would be us devising our own personal agenda, and not adhering to the lotg
Do the lotg make reference to where on the park the foull is committed?

no.

No they don't.
But, don't try and pretend it doesn't happen. In fact, I'll go one better. I have been at training sessions where the FA have actively encouraged "safe refereeing" and "safe fouls" demonstrating where failure to. Do. So has lost control or lead to a KMI.
Fouls that you just would not give in a penalty area (which is never a safe foul to give save for obvious ones).

Whether you like it or not, we as referees, and football expects, a higher threshold for fouls in the penalty area.

 

[Anubis]

No they don't.
But, don't try and pretend it doesn't happen. In fact, I'll go one better. I have been at training sessions where the FA have actively encouraged "safe refereeing" and "safe fouls" demonstrating where failure to. Do. So has lost control or lead to a KMI.
Fouls that you just would not give in a penalty area (which is never a safe foul to give save for obvious ones).

Whether you like it or not, we as referees, and football expects, a higher threshold for fouls in the penalty area.

Penalties are like eggs
you get hard ones and soft ones, end of the day, they are both eggs.

the description of higher threshold supports the rationale that a player, whilst fouled in the box, must go down, in order to get the deserved pk.
If he is fouled, he is fouled, Requiring a greater degree of foul encourages the very theatrics we as referee ( hopefully) and football itself, frowns upon

 

[one]

How about if they just use the definition of careless like the rest of us?

Or how about still awarding the penalty if it's careless but the player doesn't go down?

Do we really need this new guidance? The laws are sufficient, just apply them 'properly'.

 

[es1]

Penalties are like eggs
you get hard ones and soft ones, end of the day, they are both eggs.

the description of higher threshold supports the rationale that a player, whilst fouled in the box, must go down, in order to get the deserved pk.
If he is fouled, he is fouled, Requiring a greater degree of foul encourages the very theatrics we as referee ( hopefully) and football itself, frowns upon

i dont think that's quite what @JamesL is getting at

without wishing to put words in his mouth, how often do you see a defender shielding the ball fall over under minimal / no contact from the attacker but immediately get an undisputed free kick?

you're never giving the same in the box are you?

 

[JamesL]

i dont think that's quite what @JamesL is getting at

without wishing to put words in his mouth, how often do you see a defender shielding the ball fall over under minimal / no contact from the attacker but immediately get an undisputed free kick?

you're never giving the same in the box are you?

Oddly enough it was one of the exact scenarios I was thinking about.

I'm also not saying it's right or wrong, but it is what football expects/has come to expect. And I doubt it will ever change. It needs a class action. One referee isn't going to change things alone. I think the saying is something like those who stick their head above the parapet usually get it shot off.

 

[Anubis]

i dont think that's quite what @JamesL is getting at

without wishing to put words in his mouth, how often do you see a defender shielding the ball fall over under minimal / no contact from the attacker but immediately get an undisputed free kick?

you're never giving the same in the box are you?

that is indeed a good example.

bottom line remains tho as individual referees we have no need to rate the degree of foul based on it being in the box, the lotg ( as we have already cleared up) dont make allowance for this,

yes we all like a clear cut pk.
yes we dont want to be the only person to see the nudge
but no, the lotg as they are written do not allow for in, or outside the box.

User One sums it up nicely.

 

[Big Cat]

All a load of nonsense. Individual Leagues / Regions making stuff up
Put it in the book, phase out these interpretations and referee the game the same the world over, according to what's in the LOTG

 

[GraemeS]

*whispers* The penalty area should be a semi-circle......

 

[one]

*whispers* The penalty area should be a semi-circle......

Two quarter circles of 18 yard radius and posts as centre, and a straight line parallel to goal line connecting them. Oh wait.... That sounds like futsal.

 

[GraemeS]

Two quarter circles of 18 yard radius and posts as centre, and a straight line parallel to goal line connecting them. Oh wait.... That sounds like futsal.

Well yes, but I figured a semi-circle was a good way of introducing the concept and then we can gravitate to the actual correct shape at a later date!

 

[PinnerPaul]

I think any referees who says that they would give a 'minor' foul as a penalty the same as they would give it as a defensive free kick are fooling themselves.

That's true, but I tend to look at it like this.

For a foul in the middle of the park or a foul against a defender, we don't have to be so sure its a foul - wrong? - forgotten 3 seconds after the fk is taken.

Wrong for a penalty, it could be a game changer, makes the match much more difficult for most of us and and at the top level, pored over for days on end sometimes and examined in great detail.

Therefore, nor surprising and eminently sensible, that the 'bar for certainty' is set a lot higher for all of us when deciding on a penalty shout.

Lets not go down the quoting the LOTG word for word route, otherwise I'll be forced to bring up the 6 second law..........again!

 

[GraemeS]

That's true, but I tend to look at it like this.

For a foul in the middle of the park or a foul against a defender, we don't have to be so sure its a foul - wrong? - forgotten 3 seconds after the fk is taken.

Wrong for a penalty, it could be a game changer, makes the match much more difficult for most of us and and at the top level, pored over for days on end sometimes and examined in great detail.

Therefore, nor surprising and eminently sensible, that the 'bar for certainty' is set a lot higher for all of us when deciding on a penalty shout.

Lets not go down the quoting the LOTG word for word route, otherwise I'll be forced to bring up the 6 second law..........again!

But there's a difference between the question of how confident you are in a decision (where I agree it's fair to want to be more confident) and actually consciously changing your definition of what is/isn't a foul depending on which side of that white line it falls. What we're all discussing sounds like the former, what the PGMOL are proposing seems much more like the latter....

 

[Kes]

For a foul in the middle of the park or a foul against a defender, we don't have to be so sure its a foul - wrong? - forgotten 3 seconds after the fk is taken.

Wrong for a penalty, it could be a game changer, makes the match much more difficult for most of us

Therefore, nor surprising and eminently sensible, that the 'bar for certainty' is set a lot higher for all of us when deciding on a penalty shout.

Agreed.

It's for this very reason that (for example) when we're shown videos at seminars and development events showing potential/definite red card challenges and asked to decide whether we think it's red or yellow, the same principle applies when somebody says "erm ... orange!".

 

[socal lurker]

Another way of looking at it is that they are reminding refs not to call trifling fouls, at least not in the PA. But at the end of the day, the press release is a publicity stunt and what is going to matter is thes pecific training that is given to Rs and VARs. That's what is going to determine the calls on the field.

I'm wondering if what will mostly happen is that the VAR driven PKs that aren't "what soccer expects" are going to fade out a bit. But it's all guess work until it moves from a publicity piece to the field.