Is This A Penalty? [R]

[MassachusettsRef]

Not looking to criticize Hauge here, at all. I just think that this incident can generate a lot of discussion insofar as what we look for when judging penalty decisions against goalkeepers.

Here's the incident, from today's Andorra - Russia match: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3jpoe_andorra-rusia_sport

Hauge's decision, as you can tell, was to award the penalty. He also cautioned the Andorran keeper.

I'm not looking for "wow, he got that wrong!" or "absolutely it's a penalty!" I think that, instead, we can discuss what factors you'd consider in making such a decision because although it is, of course, one unique incident--there are a lot of attacker/goalkeeper incidents that are similar to this.

I've already watched it a few times and made my judgment, but I'll reserve comment for now in order to not stifle any discussion.

[refereejoe]

Not very certain this is a penalty. To me it appears the attacker embellishes, and in doing so he hits the keeper in the head. That's not to say the keeper would have brought the attacker down regardless, but I can't tell from the camera angle if that would be the case.

I tend to call a penalty if the keeper doesn't get the ball, and in doing so he wipes out the attacker. It sort of is similar to judging a slide tackle:

- Does the player get the ball before contacting the opponent?
- Is any contact created part of the natural follow through from the tackle?
- Was the tackle performed safely, in that no studs are exposed or "extracurricular" movement performed (think purposely trailing a leg, or coming in unneccesarily fast/hard, etc)?

I also go with my gut on most tackles like this. There's a difference between the goalkeeper sliding out and grabbing the ball, causing the attacker to fall over him, versus the goalkeeper sliding out with his studs exposed and contacting an attacker at his knees despite getting the ball.

But, I tend to favor the attacker in nearly any case where the goalkeeper tackles him or her without getting the ball, regardless of how contact is made. If the attacker in this video does not actually dive and is tripped by the forehead of the keeper, or he would have been tripped by the keeper anyway and is just trying to sell the call, it is a penalty kick to me. Just not very sure either of those happened from the video alone.

[nanuk_svk]

I think it's penalty... the goalkeeper miss the ball

[CanadaFTW]

That sure looked like a penalty to me. I can see why someone would hesitate due to the player playing the ball fairly uselessly, but the ball is still in play when the keeper gets the player. If this was a slide tackle at midfield it is an easy call, so it should be in the area as well.

On a related note, and I don't have a video link, but what about the penalty for shirt pulling that England got (called by the assistant as well). The play was a cross for a poor position that was caught easily by the keeper. But, a Croatian held the shirt of Dafoe I believe running for the ball. Dafoe had 0 chance of getting to the ball before the keeper.

[Ref Flunkie]

I'm sure I would have called it a penalty if I was watching it live and where the CR is, but after watching the replays a few times and thinking about it, I would say it is a no-call. The two factors that go into my decision is that the attacker plays the ball well away from everyone and anyone with no hope of scoring or finding a teammate. At this point he then basically sidesteps the GK and brings his foot into the GK (into his head) and falls to the ground. I don't think the GK "gets" the attacker as much as the attacker "gets" the GK. These two things would lead me to be more inclined NOT to call the PK. I'm with refereejoe on this one....but again, if I saw this at full speed and only once, I would probably give the PK (much to my chagrin after seeing the replay)

[macheath]

I'm sure I would have called it a penalty if I was watching it live and where the CR is, but after watching the replays a few times and thinking about it, I would say it is a no-call. (snip)...

Exactly where I came out. From the ref's position, and the speed of the play, it looks like the keeper grabs the attacker's leg and pulls him down. If you slo-mo it about four times, from a different angle, doesn't look like that--keeper is lowering his hands to the ground, and attacker trips over them. But, just like RefFlunkie, I probably would have called it in the run of play, and I certainly don't fault the call. This is a great clip--shows how hard some of these calls are in a match at full speed, rather than a clip showing a very obvious decision.

[Gary V]

I thought the keeper embellished - to me it looked like he tripped the player with his hands, and then grabbed his head as if he had been kicked/kneed.

Why didn't the keeper get sent off for DOGSO?

[CanadaFTW]

I thought the keeper embellished - to me it looked like he tripped the player with his hands, and then grabbed his head as if he had been kicked/kneed.

Why didn't the keeper get sent off for DOGSO?

I would have a hard time calling DOGSO since the attacker's touch on the ball was somewhere between bad and useless.

[Kebbie Gazauzkas]

I think that Koldo Alvarez manages to get to the ball first and I am not completely sure whether he actually brings down the Russian forward. Not a penalty, imo, but I am not too certain..

You could compare the situation with this penalty call (not clear whether the Bulgarian goalie trips the Belarussian attacker):

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TdkVfKUcXE8 (first 50 seconds of the clip)

[Ref Flunkie]

I thought the keeper embellished - to me it looked like he tripped the player with his hands, and then grabbed his head as if he had been kicked/kneed.

Why didn't the keeper get sent off for DOGSO?

Yeah the ball was well gone when the "foul" occurred, so no way you can give DOGSO there.

[MassachusettsRef]

I'm sure I would have called it a penalty if I was watching it live and where the CR is, but after watching the replays a few times and thinking about it, I would say it is a no-call. This is sort of where I came down.

Watching it the first time, I said it was a penalty, absolutely. And I definitely would have called it live.

But the replays made me think--a lot. I didn't come down absolutely with a "no call." But, there are several factors I started considering, which I didn't when it first happened. And I'm wondering if people think we should be considering these factors.

As was said, the Russian attacker gets to the ball first and plays it forward and to the right, essentially to nowhere. It's not a shot on goal and it's not a pass, either. He just gets there first and plays it away from the keeper so the keeper can't hit it (and for this reason, I also agree there's no chance at DOGSO, even if it is a penalty). The Andorran goalkeeper is coming forward, attempting to get to the ball first and make the save/clear. He gets beat by a half-step and they collide. As was said, at midfield, this is a foul. If a player plays the ball away and gets taken out, it's a foul.

But, here, are there special circumstances? Do we give the keeper a bit more latitude because he has to come forward to attempt a save? I know it doesn't give the keeper free reign to take out the attacker, but do we take into account that the Russian played the ball to the side purely so that he could get taken out? What I mean is this: if the Russian tried to play the ball around the keeper (but still into his attacking path) or had taken a shot, it would have absolutely struck the goalkeeper in some manner. In other words, he would have made the save or, possibly, it could have hit him and deflected in. But no matter what, we would subsequently be talking about a legal play on the ball and there would have been no penalty. So, to me, the fundamental question is this (which I haven't been able to answer):

Is what the Russian did (playing a ball to absolutely nowhere in order to assure the goalkeeper didn't touch it) a smart, cunning play, in order to draw the foul? Or, is it essentially a form of simulation because it's turning a legal collision into dubious contact? I know that second question sounds weird, but it's the best way I can phrase it--I think most people will understand what I'm asking.

[ref47]

didn't the attacker play the ball to the side to prevent the keeper from getting to the ball? and, if the attacker could have maintained control of the ball (if not hit by the keeper), wouldn't that have been a good move? or, did the sideways play of the ball give it over to the defense with little chance the attacker could maintain control?

i don't believe that trying to keep the ball away from the keeper allows the keeper the ability to make unnecessary contact with the attacker. particularly if the contact prevents the attacker from following the ball.

[nonya]

With the benifit of a good replay angle and the ability to pause the video it is absolutely a penalty. If you stop the video at 0:27 you see the goalie come out and go after the right side of the attacker, however the ball is and was for a couple of seconds before, on his left side. Even though the player pushed the ball to the left, the goalie made no attempt for the ball but took out the player, good call.

[Ref Flunkie]

didn't the attacker play the ball to the side to prevent the keeper from getting to the ball? and, if the attacker could have maintained control of the ball (if not hit by the keeper), wouldn't that have been a good move? or, did the sideways play of the ball give it over to the defense with little chance the attacker could maintain control?

i don't believe that trying to keep the ball away from the keeper allows the keeper the ability to make unnecessary contact with the attacker. particularly if the contact prevents the attacker from following the ball.

Paragraph 1 answers: Yes....Yes (but even if you remove the keeper contact, I don't think the attacker gets back to that ball)....Yes.

Paragraph 2: True, but the keeper has the right to his space. Just because the attacker runs into him does not mean it is a foul either. I guess my question here is, who really initiated the contact after the ball was played (I think the attacker did more then the GK)? Also, the attacker was going in the opposite direction of the played ball, correct? I thought the attacker played the ball off to his right and then went left of the keeper and was "fouled". I saw no way in the world that the attacker could have continued on to play that ball.

[Ref Flunkie]

With the benifit of a good replay angle and the ability to pause the video it is absolutely a penalty. If you stop the video at 0:27 you see the goalie come out and go after the right side of the attacker, however the ball is and was for a couple of seconds before, on his left side. Even though the player pushed the ball to the left, the goalie made no attempt for the ball but took out the player, good call.

You really think a GK has the reaction time to make a move for a ball played 1 yard in front of him? A GK is coming out and making himself as big as he can and hoping (praying) that the ball hits him. I don't see how you can use the GK's reaction to THE BALL after it is played to judge a penalty in this case. I do see how you can use the player's reactions to each other (does the GK go through the attacker vs. holding his position....does the attacker just plow right into the GK or make a legitimate attempt to continue playing the ball/make a tactical move). I think this is what we should be judging on this play.

[Alberto]

I tend to think the correct call here is a goal kick. It looks to me like the Russian player lets his right leg go limp to try and sell the foul. He was attempting to play the ball, the keepers hand and arms were low eenough that he could have easily raised his leg six inches and would have never been touched. The fact that the keeper grabs his head disturbs me. I doubt there was any contact between the strikers foot and the keepers head. Nor do I think there was any contact on the strikers thigh or quad. Simulation and meals made of this situation by both players. Poor attempts at gamesmanship.

[nonya]

I'm just saying, that looking at the video, I dont think the GK ever made an attempt to go after the ball, because he didnt move towards the ball, he moved towards the player.

To me, did he tackle his opponent to gain posession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball?

From what I saw, he did, therefore it is a PK.

[colins1993]

No penalty IMO.
Restart: Goal kick.

[lmorin]

I tend to think the correct call here is a goal kick. It looks to me like the Russian player lets his right leg go limp to try and sell the foul. He was attempting to play the ball, the keepers hand and arms were low eenough that he could have easily raised his leg six inches and would have never been touched. The fact that the keeper grabs his head disturbs me. I doubt there was any contact between the strikers foot and the keepers head. Nor do I think there was any contact on the strikers thigh or quad. Simulation and meals made of this situation by both players. Poor attempts at gamesmanship.

The keeper was going for the ball. Attacker touched ball away from keeper who slid into the path of the attacker. Keeper did not grab attacker or contact him so robustly that he was thrown off track. I'm not even sure the keeper was moving when the contact (if there was any) actually occurred. Rather, attacker's left foot is extended beyond keeper, but then allowed to trail as the rear foot makes questionable contact with the keeper. The fact that the attacker declined to land on his front foot which was totally unimpeded by the keeper means that it was pure fakery on the attacker's part. He had removed himself from the play by touching the ball out of his own line of movement. Therefore, any minor contact was of no consequence. I'd have yellowed the attacker for USB.

[colins1993]

The keeper was going for the ball. Attacker touched ball away from keeper who slid into the path of the attacker. Keeper did not grab attacker or contact him so robustly that he was thrown off track. I'm not even sure the keeper was moving when the contact (if there was any) actually occurred. Rather, attacker's left foot is extended beyond keeper, but then allowed to trail as the rear foot makes questionable contact with the keeper. The fact that the attacker declined to land on his front foot which was totally unimpeded by the keeper means that it was pure fakery on the attacker's part. He had removed himself from the play by touching the ball out of his own line of movement. Therefore, any minor contact was of no consequence. I'd have yellowed the attacker for USB.

Succinctly put.
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile

Label me biased but I assume the forwards are looking for penalties in these particular types of plays.