Question Number: 31826

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/25/2017

RE: Adult

Douglas Wix of Liverpool, Merseyside United Kingdom asks...

At the weekend the referee gave a penalty to Leicester when imo mignolet & vardy collided after mignolet had made clear contact with the ball. So who was at fault---mignolet fouling vardy or vardy fouling mignolet? So ref gives(wrongly imo a penalty),but only a yellow to mignolet-why wasnt it red then if it was goal scoring opportunity? Anyway alls well that ends well & justice was done when mignolet saved the pen. Also he didnt move before ball was kicked-something very rare indeed as you know from my previous questions. Thanks in advance.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Douglas
Thanks for the question
Playing the ball is not an out clause for no foul being committed. Law 12 makes it clear that if a player tackles or challenges for the ball in a careless or reckless manner it is a foul punished by a direct feee kick or penalty kick. Many many years ago it was written that making contact first with the player before the ball was a foul. The incorrect assumption was made that if the ball was touched first that it was not a foul. That is what helped lead to the myth and that wording which was removed as it was being interpreted incorrectly with its unintentional consequences. It still hangs around today although increasingly I do hear that in the modern game that such tackles are being correctly commented on as foul play.
So while Mignolet might have got a touch on the ball yet the manner in which he challenged Vardy was certainly a foul. Move this type of challenge out anywhere on the field and there would be no question that it would be a foul every single time. So no question for me it was a foul on Vardy who tried to play the ball and most certainly a caution if not even a red card for serious foul play.
As regards the card for Mignolet the decision was 100 % correct ( assuming no Serious Foul Play) in that the DOGSO Law 12 has now been changed in that once a penalty has been awarded on a clear challenge for the ball it is NO longer a red card. Had the same foul happened outside the penalty area or it was SFP it would have been a red card. The view is that the penalty kick restores the goal scoring opportunity although as it was pointed out to me that because the penalty was saved Mignolet benefitted significantly from that law change which seems unfair. That is the current law as outlined by Referee Grove and with 8 out of ten penalties converted it perhaps does not arise all that often.
You will note though that there were at least 3 Liverpool players insude the penalty area before the kick. That technically is also a retake. Mignolet IMO decided that Vardy was going down the middle so he had no need to move. To get a sporting chance of a save left or right a GK has to make a step off the line which is the benefit that us given. The difficulty is the degree of the movement.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Doug,
No it was a pretty clear foul , if the foul was inside the PA the PK is now considered the obvious scoring opportunity so it was NOT denied just ahem delayed! This LOTG change was to stop the send off of players who were trying to legitimately challenge! Plus then get scored upon anyway. I think PKs are about 75 to 80% converted?
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Doug,
Ah, the old, 'But I got the ball, ref!' myth. If it were legal to get something on the ball while in the process, wiping out the opponent as well, the pitch would be littered with bodies on a regular basis. Getting the ball (even getting the ball first) is not a guarantee of a legal challenge. In fact the easiest way to get the ball when challenging an opponent for it is to take the man at the same time - but that doesn't make it OK.

As to the card colour, as my colleagues have pointed out, the Law says that:

''Where a player commits an offence against an opponent which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball''