The modern penalty

[NorCalBlue]

What about restricting penalties to fouls committed inside the 6 yard box?

I like the idea of only giving pens for the denial of a goal-scoring opportunity. They already use this to decide cards, so why not just expand it to penalties. This way you'd get a penalty for a foul outside the box after a breakaway, but you wouldn't for incidental contact on a player going nowhere, but just inside the box.

For the fouls/handling in the box that don't deny a goal-scoring opportunity, give a direct free-kick from anywhere they like outside the box.

And while I'm on a roll, anyone caught diving with no contact at all is sent off and then summarily executed at dawn the next day. It might seem a bit harsh, but it'd certainly put a stop to it.

 

[mrbelfry]

Dunno why people talk about giving City a penalty is a good thing. If I'm a defender and see Foden gliding into the box with the ball at his feet I'm better off just taking him out rather than letting him get the shot away.

 

[aguero93:20]

And while I'm on a roll, anyone caught diving with no contact at all is sent off and then summarily executed at dawn the next day. It might seem a bit harsh, but it'd certainly put a stop to it.

Sterling shot at dawn after being taken out when the ref develops temporary blindness, I see that as a drawback with this plan.

 

[Patientman63]

At some point, match officials started to consider "contact" in the area as a foul, when it actually isn't. You can have fair, harmless, innocuous contact in a defender trying to win a ball that does not constitute a foul, and that needs to be recognised.

Use VAR if you have too, maybe apply a "grade" to the level of contact, say grade 1 is a fart near a player who drops like he's shot, to a 5, a full on un-arguable clean out of a player. Grades 1 to 3 are not considered severe enough contact to warrant a penalty, with 4 and 5 given as penalties. Let the ref explain the grade. It won't solve the issue, it will always be someone's opinion, but it will (hopefully) get rid of the powder-puff "fouls" currently being given as penalties.

 

[NorCalBlue]

Sterling shot at dawn after being taken out when the ref develops temporary blindness, I see that as a drawback with this plan.

Yes, on reflection, it would give the Hateful 8 and PiGMOL the opportunity to kill most of our players before we're halfway through the season. Might set us back a bit.

 

[jacko74]

I suppose the logical conclusion is that ultimately if they're going to be giving penalties for the slightest of contact in the area then as defender you might as well just go the whole hog and take the attacker down anyway as you've got nothing to lose, the punishment (i.e awarding of a pen) will still be the same whether you haul the player to the floor or lightly brush his shoulder with your hand.

 

[KS55]

In my opinion 80% of penalties should be indirect free kicks

Imo, 80% of penalties should be Play On

 

[mccity]

At some point, match officials started to consider "contact" in the area as a foul, when it actually isn't. You can have fair, harmless, innocuous contact in a defender trying to win a ball that does not constitute a foul, and that needs to be recognised.

I agree here, but it needs to be said that the precedent started because these fouls were being given outside the area at first. We've been seeing soft freekicks for a long time. And if they're giving those it's only a matter of time before they'd give the ones inside the area too.

My point being, I think the issue is more with fouls in general than penalties.

 

[Patientman63]

I agree here, but it needs to be said that the precedent started because these fouls were being given outside the area at first. We've been seeing soft freekicks for a long time. And if they're giving those it's only a matter of time before they'd give the ones inside the area too.

My point being, I think the issue is more with fouls in general than penalties.

Completely agree.

A pet hate of mine is a defender being caught running back towards his own goal with the ball at his feet. In the old days it was a risky situation, no defender likes facing his own goal, it's risky, but not so much nowadays. Just wait till you feel the breath of the closing player behind you, then drop with a piercing shriek onto the ball. The momentum of the player behind you will cause him to tumble over you in a big heap, so it looks like a foul, sounds like a foul 'cos of the shriek, and hey-presto, a free kick is given, the pressure is off. Its cheating. Plain and simple, and like a said above, with VAR intervention, can be proved (or disproved).

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I agree here, but it needs to be said that the precedent started because these fouls were being given outside the area at first. We've been seeing soft freekicks for a long time. And if they're giving those it's only a matter of time before they'd give the ones inside the area too.

My point being, I think the issue is more with fouls in general than penalties.

Absolutely correct imo and PiGMOL and their referees are at fault by continually failing to do their job properly. They were supposed to be clamping down on " diving " but there are so many clear examples now that the result has become farcical and is totally ruining the game. Rags and dippers have specialists in this field now with the result being the number of penalties awarded to them.

It is so easy for the cheaters to " win " these non-fouls by simply stopping in their tracks when already having lost control of the ball, or making no attempt to control the ball, and the ref gives a foul . Backing in is rewarded due to incompetence for exponents of this particular trick , Harry Kane take a bow.

But it isn't only the favoured teams which benefit , and the game is poorer for it imo.

I actually believe that Mike Riley and the influence which PiGMOL has upon the game in general is continually helping to reduce the standards of refereeing, with their application of VAR being a serious example.