Question Number: 30001

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/19/2015

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

Keen to hear the panels thoughts on the two penalties awarded in a recent A-League match.

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/588696643951/Wellington-Phoenix-v-Sydney-FC

Sitting in the comfort of the armchair with the remote in hand, I see both as questionable.

The first happens where the the ball is at, while the second is more of an 'off the ball' moment.

Maybe there is merit in the second, but even then, if you are gong to call that, I think you cheeks are going to be tired by the end of the match.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

That was quick! The match only ended a few hours ago!

While I am an Australian referee, I don't follow either team so I can consider myself neutral here.

I'm aware of some of the complaints around the first penalty. Have a look at this video - http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/sydney-fc-penalty-video-andrew-hoole-sees-controversial-penalty-saved-against-wellington-phoenix/story-e6frf4gl-1227679459533 - apologies to the majority of our users not based on Australia as you may not be able to view ths video.

This video shows a front-on view of the penalty. There, you can see very clear contact between the defender's knee as he's sliding and the attacker's back foot, definitely enough to throw him off his stride, hence that's a clear penalty for me.

Some people are calling it a dive despite that; they claim that the player looks like he's preparing to go to ground before the contact. Without getting into a complex discussion or whether being fouled while taking a dive is a dive or a foul, I don't think there's enough evidence to accuse him of initiating a dive - while it does look like he may be starting to lower himself, I believe he may have been about to slide for the ball. His hips seem to drop a bit, but he doesn't appear to be shifting his weight forwards as players normally do on a dive, nor is he putting his arms out in front to protect himself. So, easy penalty for me. Not that this player also dropped his hips a bit lower a moment before as he attempted to accelerate as well, as he avoided the prior defender.
The defender make a very ordinary tackle, attempted to pull out but still collected his opponent.
Something else to look out for a is a player kicking the ground to fall in a natural fashion.
The front foot does kick into the ground, but I froze the video at the moment of contact, and he's flat footed then, so it kicks into the ground as a result of the foul.
For the second one, the defender had his arms all over the top of the attacker, and that was preventing him from running past. I can't imagine why that wouldn't be a foul. At first I wasn't convinced, I thought the attacker was trying to push through the defender, lost his footing and the arm was fairly inconsequential. But then I realised he tried to move behind the defender and was stopped by an arm basically around his head, clear foul.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
From what I see here I would have no complaint with the referees onfield calls.
On the first one I cannot see the referee not awarding it. Blue defender comes across, commits to a challenge and then realises at the last moment he is not going to get the ball so he tries to pull out. Yellow knows that there is going to be contact so he allows that to happen and then goes down. It is a soft one yet the fault lies with Blue as he allowed the contact to happen with a slide tackle that always ran a high risk of a foul once the ball is not played. If it was not given the referee would be berated for not doing so. The ref does not have the luxury of multiple reviews.
On the second one it is a penalty. The Blue defender probably felt that like in many of these situations that the holding foul with the arms around the Yellow attacker would not be called. It is holding so well done to the referee for being brave in making the call. In the replays and slow motion again it looked like Blue helped the situation as he made little effort to avoid the defender. Again in real time and in a match with multiple things going on the referee will have seen the arms raised around the Yellow shirt which will look like a foul. Had the Blue defender went down under Yellow which does happen it makes it more difficult to discern who then is the guilty party.
I think the game needs to clean up these type of situations by taking the appropriate action. It is now a plague on the game and many of these are not called. If more penalties were awarded it soon stop the raised / wrapped arms which lead to these situations.
What both point to is that players now exaggerate fouls to ensure they are seen by the officials and called. The penalty call that was not given was an example of that. From a defending point of view if you allow the question to be asked you may not like the answer. Plus while the viewing public might not like it when players *help* the call the onus is still on the defenders not to ask the question of then referee.
I saw a poll on a site which asked if it was a penalty and the following options
Yes, there was clear contact &
No, Hoole made the most of it
I think if one removes the Yes and No from the questions that one finds the answer. There was clear contact & Hoole made the most of it
On the holding ones it is so prevalent in the game that on another day another game this would not be called either because the referee did not see it or unsure of what happened. The game needs to get tough on these and if the calls increase the behaviour would stop.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
Merry Christmas!
As you say the view from the armchair we can be very reflective and using the stop start pause rewind buttons, not under any pressure to deliver an instant decision, we will see enough to wonder hmmmm? The moment you review a situation in postgame review you are under a critical technology bias. The exaggerated theatrics , the conditional responses by those affected by contact and those initiating contact have been created to cause nothing but confusion in arriving at clear unaffected judgement decisions. Also in isolating just the two PKs we do not see the other calls or non calls made throughout the match to give context?

Brave decision on the first one, marginal contact by the defender's knee catching the attacker's trailing foot who looked unlikely to score but could have saved the ball for a cross. The key point here is it was the attacker flicking the ball to the lef,t not the defenders out stretched leg, thus zero ball contact. If the ball was unrecoverable, as it was destined to go out of play I might not make that PK call but since it affected a possible scoring outcome one cannot fault the referee who was in a decent position to ensure there was contact.

I am not as convinced as my colleagues on the 2nd PK.
They see holding but both players are doing that, what I fail to see is the push or throw that results in the attacker winding up on the ground? It certainly appears as if the attacker is leaning in on the defender with his arms around the defender as much as the attacker's arms are draped on his shoulders. It appears as if the attacker is actually intent on sliding down the attackers side?
There is no hesitation by the CR but I am with the defender on the incredulity of that being totally his fault. But then all players now are adapt at selling a call as well as manufacturing a few as well. One can only hope those playing have some integrity and the CR a good angle of view! I did not see the AR flagging the 2nd PK but perhaps the CR was in radio contact.
Cheers