Question Number: 31838

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/28/2017

RE: Rec Adult

Russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

Is this a clear straightforward penalty, or, is it that the attacker made a penalty out of it.

With the aid of remote in hand, is it clear that the defender took out the attacker. I'm not sure.

Fast forward to 3.13

http://www.fullmatchesandshows.com/2017/09/27/cska-moscow-vs-manchester-united-highlights/

Certainly. the defender by going to ground made it easier for the attacker to make something of it, and easier for the Match crew to think there is something there. Maybe there was something there.

I'm not saying it is not a penalty, (if I was that defender, I'd probably have to accept the decision as I really should not have got myself into such a position), but I think it is a good sequence that as a neutral observer, makes you ask questions.

Did the defender actually connect with the attacker?
Did the attacker fall over the defender?
Did the defender obstruct the attacker?
Did the defender change his line in a way to deny the attacker to get to the ball " the attacker was between the ball and the defender !

Certainly, by sliding on the ground, the attacker could not put his feet in a position to stay upright and move to the ball, but if the defender was standing and his feet were in the same positions that the attacker needed to put his feet - is that a crime - the LOTG say everyone is entitled to their place on the FOP.

I cannot not help but think that if not for the Goal Line assistant who was quick to point to the spot, the CR might have let this one slide.

Maybe it is a straight forward penalty 'every time' (as some of the panel like to say).
Maybe there are legitimate questions to ask.
Maybe the answers all lead to the same result.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
In real time this would have looked like a penalty. Officials as yet in the CL do not have video technology to review decisions. The fact the Blue defender does not get much if any contact on the ball the chances increased significantly of a foul being called. Had Blue managed to kick the ball away on the challenge it would not IMO been given. As it turned out the no apparent contact on the ball on the first attempt with the ball not moving anywhere plus the contact then on the attacker was always going to run a very high risk of a foul. Also there was not much complaint from Blue as it would have looked a foul.
Maybe look at it another way. Had it not been given there would have been greater question marks on why it was not given.
Pro players know that not getting the ball in challenges with contact most times ends up going against them. You may be right in that on his own with only an AR this might not have been given as benefit of contact on the ball might have bern given.