Question Number: 22372

Law 5 - The Referee 10/26/2009

RE: Rec, Travel Under 17

Steven Bloom of McLean, VA USA asks...

While center refereeing a U13 girls travel game this weekend, I called a tripping call in the penalty area, which resulted via PK in what turned out to be the winning goal. The trip did not result in the player going down but she stumbled and lost control of the ball. It was not a flagrant foul but one I believed warranted a whistle. Another CR could have seen it differently. Mindful that the game should not be about the ref, my question concerns calling fouls inside the penalty box. Do you recommend a higher threshold for calling fouls in the penalty area that would result in a PK? Or do you believe that the same foul threshold applies across the entire pitch, with fouls called inside the penalty area resulting in the greater sanction of a PK?

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Well done for having the guts to make the difficult, significant, non-obvious call.

If the foul is careless at minimum, and affects play, it should be a penalty - it doesn't have to be an obvious, blatant penalty that blind Freddy can see. Even if you restrict your penalty decisions to those fouls you'll still receive argument anyway.

Ideally it shouldn't matter where on the field it occurs, a foul is a foul. However, sometimes I find myself making penalising relatively minor offences in the middle of the park more for the purposes of maintaining control than to address any real wrongdoing. Doing this can be smart refereeing, and you'll see this occur at all levels. If a relatively minor foul has little or no effect on play then the location may tip the balance towards non-interference on those borderline calls, but if play is definitely affected then you have no choice.

What you don't want to do is be inconsistent or inadvertently allow the players free reign to do whatever they like in the penalty area.

It takes guts to award a penalty when a foul was not blatant, and it sounds like you made a good decision. Be proud of yourself - some referees won't award a penalty unless the player goes to ground, which is ridiculous.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

I'm with those who believe a foul is a foul whether inside or out of the penalty area. The foul doesn't have to be 'worthy of a penalty kick' - - the framers of the law have already decided that any free kick foul is worthy.

Inside the penalty area, however, I want to KNOW it was a foul if I award a penalty kick. Outside the penalty area, I'm satisfied if I believe it was a foul. The difference for me is clarity, not severity.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Bloom
Reads to me like a penalty was the correct decision. The important part of penalty decisions is to be consistent. If you give what is termed a 'soft' one then remain consistent and award all similar ones.
Also as it is an important decision then it is vital that there is no doubt. Some challenges involve making contact with the ball and then there is contact with the player. In a split second it can be player and then ball or indeed a slip/fall by the attacker. If I am in any doubt I will not give it. In this case you were in no doubt that there was a trip so you made the correct decision.
Players will come to me and say that was a soft/harsh call and my answer is that 'it may be soft but it was a foul'.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

The opponent by fouling achieved the desired result to stop the opportunity to score. The fact the player only stumbled instead of winding up a pile of broken bones by the near post only mitigates the force used so no SFP here but certainly a foul!

Another issue, as a foul inside the penalty area it was close to goal, were there DOGSO criteria in effect? A pk foul if DOGSO criterion were met is a send off offence?

You did not plan or execute the foul the opponent did!

The player affected will appreciate the justice the law provides when unfairly denied their right to play fair and safe!
I do understand the sphincter tightening moments as play enters the penalty area so this is where focus, good angles, fitness and a diligence to understanding what fair play means to the teams playing within the protection and spirit of the laws.

You can not allow players to run amuck inside the PA anymore than outside the area.
Low level fouls at the midline are match control issues to settle the over aggressive or reign in constant ankle biting niggly fouls. You will note a higher physicality of contact at the elite level as usually both the defender and attacker will be push/shove, grab/ hold equally foul thus accepted and perhaps equally fair? In cases of trips or tackles where the contact seems relatively benign or you can tell the opponent is truly trying to take the ball fairly but may have marginally infringed the doubtful or trifling aspects must be weighed against the true cause and effect and the tolerance of you the referee within the laws and what the players accept as fair. The clarity and consistency issues my colleagues' mention is the sense to read the situation for what it is. FAIR or UNFAIR? I agree we like to be sure but we can not be scared!
Good job!

Cheers