Soft fouls in the penalty box

[haven]

One trend I've been noticing of late (ok, it's probably not a trend, but I've been paying more attention to it of late) is how teams learn to "test" a ref with fouls in the penalty box.

Sooner or later, a player commits a foul in the penalty box that would be called anywhere else on the pitch. The ref lets it go, because it was (a) unintentional, (b) soft, and (c) it would be inequitable to award a penalty for such a minor infraction. Emboldened, the physical level of play in the box escalates - nothing that the ref must call - but fouls that would be called anywhere else.

My question is: what's the proper solution for the ref? Should he call the box as strictly as the rest of the pitch (we'd probably be seeing several penalties a game, like New England/DC United). Should he wait until there's an accumulation of fouls? Or should he just continue to let the softies go?

I like option #2 best - which is sort of a cop-out. I mean, there's either a foul...or there's not a foul. It seems very cynical to "add up" a few soft penalty box fouls before giving a penalty. But I think it's the most practical. You don't call fouls for fun, but to deter illegal actions that give an unfair advantage. Soft fouls, especially once a team learns they'll get away with them, can really change the course of a game. And teams shouldn't profit from illegal (especially intentional) action.

Some refs take this tack - but quite a few seem to just let all these fouls go entirely. And that really spoils the game. I know a game isn't all about goals, but when scoring chances are continually foiled by soft fouls in the box, something needs to be done.

Agree? Disagree? Anyone have another solution?

[Auriaprottu]

Not a ref, so I might be given some crap for expressing this opinion, but:

Fouls are fouls. Call 'em all -wherever they occur- and eventually teams will get the message that they must develop defending skill rather than defending strength. Do anything else, and they will be emboldened and skilled players have no room to operate. This is when the diving begins. The excessive contact has taken a lot of the beauty out of the Game played by Pele.

[king_saladin]

A foul shouldn't be judged on whether or not it was in the box. The punishment is set in the rule book, and it shouldn't be relevant to the ref. Officiating in most pro leagues seems pathetic.

Just actually punish players for diving. If you can't do it in the game, use video review and ban them. That would solve half the problem.

I typically see about 5-10 should-be penalites for every actual penalty decision, when I watch football.

[haven]

A foul shouldn't be judged on whether or not it was in the box. The punishment is set in the rule book, and it shouldn't be relevant to the ref. Officiating in most pro leagues seems pathetic.

Just actually punish players for diving. If you can't do it in the game, use video review and ban them. That would solve half the problem.

I typically see about 5-10 should-be penalites for every actual penalty decision, when I watch football.

So you'd be ok with 4-5 penalties being awarded in an individual game?

I've no doubt that calling penalties would deter some conduct. But a great many fouls are completely incidental, especially hand balls (seem to be 1-2 handballs in the box in most games that are complete accidents).

Do we really want to see many games decided by how many, sometimes unavoidable, technical fouls occur in the box? I agree with you in principal...but think the impact on the game could be quite negative, with results randomized ( in a 5-3 game one team scores 2 goals from open play and one penalty, the other team never gets a sniff of goal from open play, but gets 5 penalties all on ticky-tack fouls in the box that were entirely unintentional)

[king_saladin]

So you'd be ok with 4-5 penalties being awarded in an individual game?


That would be the fault of the defenses.

If people are so uncomfortable with the idea of penalties being awarded where they are deserved, maybe change the rule for such indirect contact or incidental handballs (something that doesn't stop a big goal scoring oppurtunity) to be indirect free kicks?

You think the impact of actually properly officiating a game would be negative. I think the impact of letting defenders cheat is negative. If penalties were actually awarded, the amount of fouls would be a lot less. Most fouls in the box are committed on purpose, knowing they won't get called. Or at least overly aggressive play that they shouldn't be doing.

[haven]

You think the impact of actually properly officiating a game would be negative. I think the impact of letting defenders cheat is negative. If penalties were actually awarded, the amount of fouls would be a lot less. Most fouls in the box are committed on purpose, knowing they won't get called. Or at least overly aggressive play that they shouldn't be doing.

As I said, I agree with you in principle. I just am not sure I like the practical ramifications of it.

I do like your idea of changing the "penalty" for some penalty box fouls. For example, clearly accidental handballs maybe should be worth only an indirect free kicks.

What about merely giving a direct free kick for foul at the extremeties of the PK box when there's "no clear danger of an immediate goal" and the foul occurs outside of the 6 yard box or something like that coupled with an automatic yellow? I know you're getting into arbitrary rules right there, and excessive discretion...but sometimes penalties don't seem entirely equitable when they occur in the corner of the PK box, when there's not another attacker in site. Right now, refs usually just let it go - which isn't good either.

[Ombak]

What about merely giving a direct free kick for foul at the extremeties of the PK box when there's "no clear danger of an immediate goal" and the foul occurs outside of the 6 yard box or something like that coupled with an automatic yellow? I know you're getting into arbitrary rules right there, and excessive discretion...but sometimes penalties don't seem entirely equitable when they occur in the corner of the PK box, when there's not another attacker in site. Right now, refs usually just let it go - which isn't good either.That's irrelevant. For over 100 years a foul in the box has equaled a PK. Why should a defender now be rewarded for fouls that occur in a particular spot in the box, or feel he can get away with more because it will only lead to an indirect fk?

[haven]

That's irrelevant. For over 100 years a foul in the box has equaled a PK. Why should a defender now be rewarded for fouls that occur in a particular spot in the box, or feel he can get away with more because it will only lead to an indirect fk?

Because it's an improvement over the current system.

Not because the rules are inherently wrong, but because officials won't enforce them.

Right now, defenders "get away" with this conduct right now. But right now, they get away completely free. Referees are generally unwilling to give a penalty for such conduct that bears such little chance of leading to a goal. So the offender is actually able to get away with conduct that would be penalized anywhere else on the pitch.

If you want to stop this, you've got two alternatives: (1) start penalizing refs who don't call penalties often enough or (2) give the refs alternatives to the "harsh" result of a penalty.

I'm not really decided where I stand, but I do know this: too much conduct currently goes unpunished in the PK box. That's what I want FIFA to fix. The method...is open for debate, I think.

[RichardL]

I do like your idea of changing the "penalty" for some penalty box fouls. For example, clearly accidental handballs maybe should be worth only an indirect free kicks..
Accidental handball is not a foul. Never has been. Not even if it stops the ball on the goal line and prevents a certain goal.

'Intent', for all offences, is not a case of "was that player trying to cheat?" but merely "did that player do that action intentionally?" A mis-timed tackle is a foul as even though they player might not have intended to trip the player, his action of making the (poor) tackle was deliberate.

With handball the question is "did he deliberately place his arm in that position? - i.e. a position that you wouldn't naturally expect an arm to be in"

[haven]

With handball the question is "did he deliberately place his arm in that position? - i.e. a position that you wouldn't naturally expect an arm to be in"

Eh, the confusion is with my language, then. From what I understood, "deliberate" is different from "intent." You can "deliberately" put your hand in a position where it will touch the ball without "intending" to commit the offense of hand ball.

I sort of think of it as an absence of a specific intent requirement. You mean to commit the act itself, but not the consequence, sort of.

Regardless, this isn't really isn't the focus of my post :). Thanks for correcting any error, though.

[king_saladin]

What about merely giving a direct free kick for foul at the extremeties of the PK box when there's "no clear danger of an immediate goal" and the foul occurs outside of the 6 yard box or something like that coupled with an automatic yellow? I know you're getting into arbitrary rules right there, and excessive discretion...but sometimes penalties don't seem entirely equitable when they occur in the corner of the PK box, when there's not another attacker in site. Right now, refs usually just let it go - which isn't good either.

Aye, it could be a good idea, though the problem would be the interpretation. Though also as you say, the current system is full of interpretation variations.


With handball the question is "did he deliberately place his arm in that position? - i.e. a position that you wouldn't naturally expect an arm to be in"

There are more than one 'natural' arm positions in many cases. A defender could use different natural looking postures that are more/less likely to block the ball.

[Sagy]

Not a ref, so I might be given some crap for expressing this opinion, but:

Fouls are fouls. Call 'em all -wherever they occur- and eventually teams will get the message that they must develop defending skill rather than defending strength. Do anything else, and they will be emboldened and skilled players have no room to operate. This is when the diving begins. The excessive contact has taken a lot of the beauty out of the Game played by Pele.You are 100% correct, the first week or two we'll see 5+ PKs per game, after a month defenses will learn what they can and can do -> will be back to the same number of PK as today with less violence and more emphasis on skill. There is also a high likelihood that after the number of PKs is back to current levels, scoring will increase.