Question Number: 29902

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/9/2015

RE: EPL Professional

Bob Mahnger of Vancouver, Canada asks...

http://footyroom.com/stoke-city-1-0-chelsea-2015-11/
Hey Refs,
How is this not a penalty?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Bob
For a penalty kick to be awarded a player must commit one of the ten penal foul listed in Law 12 and they are
# kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
# trips or attempts to trip an opponent
# jumps at an opponent
# charges an opponent
# strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
# pushes an opponent
# tackles an opponent
# holds an opponent
# spits at an opponent
# handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
Now Referee Anthony Taylor decided that none of these 10 fouls happened nor did the attempt to foul happen either. Loic Remy jumped over the Stoke City goalkeeper making no contact with him, he stumbled, regained his footing and then tried to score.
Now when I first saw this I was of the opinion that it could have been impeding the progress of an opponent which means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. That has an INDIRECT free kick restart and in the modern game it is now rarely if ever given. Coupled with the fact that the player continued on to get a shot away and the goalkeeper was doing what he is expected to do which is to save the ball it would have been a strange outlier decision by the referee in the modern game.
Now I listened to some unreasoned arguments at the weekend particularly from Alan Shearer on MOTD who suggested that as the goalkeeper IMPEDED the player that it should be a penalty even if there is no contact?? When was impeding ever a penal foul? Even under the old obstruction rule which was removed from the Laws in 1997 impeding would not have been a penalty. At least Ian Wright in rebuttal of Shearer suggested that we would be getting into murky waters on no contact penalties in those situations. So there are two obvious flaws here in the Shearar and others arguments of a penal foul. Did the Stoke keeper intend to foul through an attempt to kick, trip or strike and on what basis in Law can the referee call a penalty kick when there is no contact and where there is no attempt to foul.
Now I applaud Loic Remy's sporting behaviour to try to score. He could easily have decided to take one for the team as suggested by Gary Lineker and allowed himself to be contacted by the goalkeeper with no jump after getting the ball past him in which case it would have been a stonewall penalty and also a dismissal for denying a goal scoring opportunity. That though did not happen.
Put it another way. Say a forward sees a defender coming to make a slide tackle at half way and he pushes the ball past the defender just before he begins his slide and then jumps over him with no contact whatsoever with the attempt to play the ball only, stumbles somewhat, regains his footing when he gets past him and then passes the ball away is that going to be called as a foul??
Now if a player came to deliberately foul an opponent with a dangerous slide tackle that risked injury to an opponent then that is entirely a different matter and clearly would be a foul. In fact the Stoke GK when he realises that he is not getting the ball pulls his leg down which allows Remy to hurdle him.
Now my final point is lets say Referee Taylor awarded the penalty for this incident there would have been a furore that the GK never touched the opponent and how could it be a foul. It would have been seen as an otherwise reasonable slide attempt to win the ball by a goalkeeper doing what he does and a penalty would be a decision that the referee could not sell and one that he would be berated for.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Bob,
The reason it was not a penalty is the referee in the match choose not to award one!

The fact that one could choose to see it as one has created a furor across the discussion boards of the officiating world.

The referee judged it was a fair challenge to get to the ball by the keeper.
The referee adjudged the attacking player in leaping over the prostrate keeper was trying to play the ball around the keeper and decided he was not fouled

The idea that this was an attempt to trip is being put forth as a possibility but I will agree with my colleague Ref McHugh and state I see this at BEST as a impeding violation outside the PA given it was done by the keeper inside his PA as an attempt to make a save with no contact.

I find no fault in the referees decision simply to allow play to proceed. A credit to the striker for not trying to whine about it,. I did see a few Chelsea players gesticulate and make a few grumblings noises but the goal kick was a reasonable call in my opinion.


Cheers