We might as well decide penalty decisions with the toss of a coin

[Herr Tubthumper]

Following the Matt Derbyshire/Kelvin Davis tangle Nigel Adkins said 'I have seen the video and it's definitely not a penalty' whilst Steve McClaren said 'We have seen it again and it was absolutely blatant.' Obviously they both cannot be right. And we had a similar dichotomy of views with Calderon's Sunderland stumble. Having re-read the FIFA and Football League rules and directives regarding penalties and rerun the video many times I am convinced Calderon had no case for a penalty; but many many supporters with presumably the same evidence hold the opposite view.

As fans, players, coaches and managers with years and years of experience can view the same incident and judge it so differently might we be better off calling a claim with a coin?

And what is a penalty? Does anyone really know? And please please please do not use the word contact in your reply. This word is not mentioned in the rules and really does need to be removed from the lexicon of football. It's a red-herring; contact itself does not necessarily mean a penalty otherwise, for example, all corners would result in a spot kick. Too many people are hoodwinked by the words of washed up ex-pros masquerading as pundits on Sky tv. And a few have been shown to not really know the rules.

Anyway, I have just had a toss and I was right about Calderon. Heads it wasn't a penalty. Case closed. Now that was easy.

 

[Bean]

It always amuses me how the two managers ALWAYS have contradicting views on a given penalty in the game

 

[Seagull kimchi]

Definition of a penalty, simple - a foul committed in the box.

Definition of a foul - less simple.

 

[beorhthelm]

it would be nice once in a while for a manager to say "yeah, that was a bit of a poor challenge and we'll be addressing that in training". you wonder sometime if they really dont see it and therefore arent working to improve technique.

i notice some players place their arms clearly behind their back when a going to block crosses, so some managers/coaches must be working on avoiding penalties.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Sorry i tossed a coin and it was a penalty to calderon, however i didnt need a coin because it WAS a penalty.

 

[Acker79]

Th calderon incident was viewed by everyone except you and the ref as a penalty, and the ref may have changed his mind after viewing replays (he should definitely realise he shouldn't have booked Caldy. There was contact and fifa say if there's contact it can't be a dive), neutral reporters and commentators all say it was a pen.

Your other example doesn't show that penalties are hard to call, but that managers (and players and fans) would rather display ignorance/bias than criticise their players for either diving or breaking the laws of the game.

 

[Easy 10]

And this is why TV replays can never be introduced to decide penalty calls.

Ever.

 

[seagullmouse]

It is impossible for managers/fans to be objective but they never seem to notice it. Its not like they are lying its just that each person interprets events in their own way and alongside emotions/experiences etc. Agree it makes for comical viewing though, Manager A: defo pen, Manager B: defo dive.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Th calderon incident was viewed by everyone except you and the ref as a penalty, and the ref may have changed his mind after viewing replays (he should definitely realise he shouldn't have booked Caldy. There was contact and fifa say if there's contact it can't be a dive), neutral reporters and commentators all say it was a pen.

Your other example doesn't show that penalties are hard to call, but that managers (and players and fans) would rather display ignorance/bias than criticise their players for either diving or breaking the laws of the game.

Actually, it's not true that it was Notters and the ref. A few others and I on that thread also thought the correct decision was no penalty. When did FIFA say it can't be a dive if there is contact?

Law 12 of the game states: "Any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the referee, must be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour". It makes no mention of contact meaning a player could not be booked.

Back to the main talking point, we really don't know what effect video evidence would have unless we test it out in a few games, and refine its use in response.

If all penalty decisions led to a flick of a coin, you'll merely get an appeal every second the ball is in the area.

 

[Acker79]

Actually, it's not true that it was Notters and the ref. A few others and I on that thread also thought the correct decision was no penalty. When did FIFA say it can't be a dive if there is contact?

According to Graham Poll:

FIFA don't help either with the advice that if there is any contact between players then the referee should not caution for simulation.

Read more: Graham Poll: Luka Modric and David Bentley didn't dive | Mail Online

The overwhelming majority of people believed it was a foul. There was definite contact that tripped Calderon. Tripping or attempting to trip = foul. If you want to be picky and include the whole 'careless, reckless, or excessive force' bit too, then you either deliberately trip someone or you did it by accident and were careless.

My point being, it wasn't as ambiguous an incident as HT made out. Most people (including the neutrals) saw it and agreed it should have been a pen.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Thanks for the link. And i agree, that on balance, more people on NSC expressed the view that it was a penalty than those that thought it should be no penalty.

In that article you cite, that advice that FIFA give does not change that the fact that the law is open to penalising a playing for diving even if there is contact. How it occurs to me is that Fifa are pussyfooting around the whole issue with a ridiculous half-way house: that if there is contact, there is sufficient doubt not to book a playing for diving.

So, using the advice, if the ref felt there was contact but it was not a penalty, he could not book Calderon for diving even if he awarded a free-kick to the defending side.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

It was a good point that Graham Poll makes that players have to take responsibility for making it hard for referees to get decisions right.

Given that players ought to know that many refs are aware of the 'archer's bow' being a telltale sign of simulation, Calderon only has himself to blame for performing it and arousing the suspicion of the referee.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My point being, it wasn't as ambiguous an incident as HT made out. Most people (including the neutrals) saw it and agreed it should have been a pen.

Are you contradicting yourself? Is it ambiguous if the people who saw it are divided about the outcome?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I agree with the OP. According to the sages of Match of the Day and Sky Sports and so on, if a player takes a massive swan dive and manages to touch the keepers leg with his trailing foot in doing so, its a penalty and red card. If the player takes a massive dive and just misses the keepers leg with his foot, he's a dirty cheat and that kind of behaviour has no place in our game.

The law and punditry is so biased towards the striker its no wonder there are so many dubious penalties. I found that Calderon thread amazing that everyone was arguing how one tiny bit of contact that occurred when Calderon was already going down was somehow evidence of a foul, not a dive.

 

[alan partridge]

it would be nice once in a while for a manager to say "yeah, that was a bit of a poor challenge and we'll be addressing that in training". you wonder sometime if they really dont see it and therefore arent working to improve technique.

i notice some players place their arms clearly behind their back when a going to block crosses, so some managers/coaches must be working on avoiding penalties.

I've noticed that recently too. Is it a newish thing? Never noticed it before.

 

[alan partridge]

they should get a ref on match of the day as a pundit. Might be interesting.

I'm a bit tired of hearing about every f***ing decision. I blame wall to wall coverage. And thick managers.

 

[bhaexpress]

Never mind penalties the dumbest remark of the weekend was Steve Cotterill saying that Lawrence's first tackle didn't warrant a booking, it was disgraceful.

 

[Simster]

On the subject of penalties, can someone tell me how a defender elbowing a striker in the face inside the box, and drawing a large amount of blood from the striker's jaw is NOT a penalty?

 

[mune ni kamome]

I have just watched the football league show on iplayer and on at least 5 occasions I found myself saying "no surely he's not going to give a penalty for that". It's getting ridiculous. Did anyone else hear the commentator on Match of the day say "there was contact so he's entitled to go down" Er no he's not! That is still simulation or cheating as I call it.

 

[Sheebo]

I'm still angry at the Orient one a few yrs back where Davies was wiped out and their bloke would've been sent off. Gus sent to stands I believe.