The penalty kick law

[Elite_Pie]

Ok , I'm stupid ( deliberately ) , your idea has my full backing . I can't believe I thought it might be subjective, silly me . Anyway , time for all hands to turn in . I do hope your brilliant idea receives the support it deserves.

ps. I do hope you find someone else to argue with tonight , if not, I pitty your Mrs!

What a pathetic individual you are. You accuse me of looking for arguments, yet it's apparent to anyone reading that you haven't considered the topic at all, you've merely seen who has posted it and decided to take the opposite view.

[DomdomPie]

I’ve often thought that being awarded a penalty kick when running away from goal (but still in the box) is a daft rule. If it’s the same for both sides though, I suppose it’s as fair as any other rule.

[tarquinbeech]

I'm a bit of a traditionalist, so I'm usually against any changes to the laws of the game. The awarding of penalty kicks however has concerned me for many years. This isn't specifically about today's game (although I think it provides a perfect example of my point), as I realise it will work in our favour as often as it works against us. My bone of contention is the punishment fitting the crime. If there is a clear goalscoring opportunity denied by foul play then a penalty kick is the correct decision. An average percentage of a penalty kicks resulting in a goal is around 80%, but what were the chances today? An innocuous ball bouncing around the edge of the box, I'd say they had a 2-3% chance of a goal if the alleged offence hadn't happened. But that 2-3% chance turns into an 80% chance once the ref decides to blow his whistle. I propose a first and second degree offence in the box, much like the murder or manslaughter charge in statute law. Where the offence is clearly deliberate to deny a goalscoring opportunity, that is punished by a penalty kick from 12 yards. A more dubious offence like today should result in a second degree penalty kick which is taken from the edge of the box (18 yards) or the mid point of the arc around the box (22 yards), take your pick.

Memo to FIFA, I am available for other advice without the need for the customary brown envelopes.

What I think is........ if you have a peno shout turned down, you get a free peno shout in the 2nd half....a bit like Paddy Power at Chelters.....you can play them one at a time, or save them up until you get 4 or 5...each peno shout is worth 10 yards closer to the goal.....so if you cash in all 5 at once, you can tap it over the line with your todger...not yours, obviously, E~lite......mine!

Is this the silly season?....if so, this is my suggestion.....females will flock to ML....trust me.

[slack_pie]

I get your point Elite, and I do agree - there's a massive difference between hacking someone down when through on goal and someone kicking the ball against your hand on the edge of the box. Yesterday highlighted this, as it seemed such an absurd way to throw away a win. One ball-to-hand incident on the edge of the box undermining all the good defensive work before hand, let alone the effect that two points dropped could have on our season. Doubt it would ever happen though, and I can see why. Generally I prefer to keep it simple and not mess with the rules, and I also quite like the controversy - it's much more interesting than VAR. But yeah, yesterday was really tough to take.

[Frigiliana Pie 1]

It’s an interesting idea, though I think that had it been in force when Notts drew at Oldham on the last day of 2013/4 we’d have been relegated that day. I don’t think refs would have too much difficulty in deciding which grade of penalty to award - they already have to decide what is a goal scoring opportunity, when deciding whether to show a red or yellow card and usually get it right.

If this rule was ever introduced, I’d like to see penalty shootouts taken from the longer distance, as the outcome would then depend on ability to score rather than someone making a horrible miss.

[sidders]

I'm a bit of a traditionalist, so I'm usually against any changes to the laws of the game. The awarding of penalty kicks however has concerned me for many years. This isn't specifically about today's game (although I think it provides a perfect example of my point), as I realise it will work in our favour as often as it works against us. My bone of contention is the punishment fitting the crime. If there is a clear goalscoring opportunity denied by foul play then a penalty kick is the correct decision. An average percentage of a penalty kicks resulting in a goal is around 80%, but what were the chances today? An innocuous ball bouncing around the edge of the box, I'd say they had a 2-3% chance of a goal if the alleged offence hadn't happened. But that 2-3% chance turns into an 80% chance once the ref decides to blow his whistle. I propose a first and second degree offence in the box, much like the murder or manslaughter charge in statute law. Where the offence is clearly deliberate to deny a goalscoring opportunity, that is punished by a penalty kick from 12 yards. A more dubious offence like today should result in a second degree penalty kick which is taken from the edge of the box (18 yards) or the mid point of the arc around the box (22 yards), take your pick.

Memo to FIFA, I am available for other advice without the need for the customary brown envelopes.

I think this is sound. I have often thought that not all penalties were equally deserving but I couldn't work out how that might be reflected on the field of play. Your idea to go for two different spot kicks (12 yards and 20 yards seems about right) is much fairer. Incidentally, did you win the argument with Mrs Elite last night?

[ancientpie]

Isn't there a two tier punishment already in operation? with some offences it is just a pen with others it is also a red card I think that this is fair enough.

[slack_pie]

Isn't there a two tier punishment already in operation? with some offences it is just a pen with others it is also a red card I think that this is fair enough.

There is, but I think the OP's point is that a penalty, which 4 out of 5 times means a goal, is a bit harsh for a handball on the edge of the box.

[upthemaggies]

The rules are a farce. Penalties are a pathetic way of encouraging more goals to be scored in the game, they should only be given if somebody has been clearly been hacked down before a clear scoring opportunity, not slight contact and certainly not ball to hand.
If you pass back to the goalkeeper in the box and he picks it up then it's a free-kick inside the area, so not every offence in the box is an auto spot kick.

I really do think, with the introduction of VAR, that refs should no longer be allowed to awared them. The attacking team should have to make an appeal for a penalty for VAR to review and if it's a false claim then there should be strong punishments to make teams think twice about appealing. We need to reduce the amount of pens in the game. Score goals properly, beautiful goals, not these low-skill lotteries from 12 yards.
Less pens, more proper goals please.

[seriouspie]

I'm a bit of a traditionalist, so I'm usually against any changes to the laws of the game. The awarding of penalty kicks however has concerned me for many years. This isn't specifically about today's game (although I think it provides a perfect example of my point), as I realise it will work in our favour as often as it works against us. My bone of contention is the punishment fitting the crime. If there is a clear goalscoring opportunity denied by foul play then a penalty kick is the correct decision. An average percentage of a penalty kicks resulting in a goal is around 80%, but what were the chances today? An innocuous ball bouncing around the edge of the box, I'd say they had a 2-3% chance of a goal if the alleged offence hadn't happened. But that 2-3% chance turns into an 80% chance once the ref decides to blow his whistle. I propose a first and second degree offence in the box, much like the murder or manslaughter charge in statute law. Where the offence is clearly deliberate to deny a goalscoring opportunity, that is punished by a penalty kick from 12 yards. A more dubious offence like today should result in a second degree penalty kick which is taken from the edge of the box (18 yards) or the mid point of the arc around the box (22 yards), take your pick.

Memo to FIFA, I am available for other advice without the need for the customary brown envelopes.

Good idea to me youth and your 2-3% to 80% explains your theory very well in simple terms. Yes I like it and also like the "secondary" distance for "grade 2" penalties but would suggest the 18 yard line be the distance. The arc I seem to remember is a 22 yard radius from the centre of the 12 yard penalty spot over which no player may encroach until the kick has been taken. This radius may need to be extended if a "grade 2" kick were to be taken from 18 yards so the kicker had room to take the kick.

Talking about being a traditionalist got me thinking about measurements. You can't beat the old Imperial and why we went metric I'll never know. We still have most road signs in miles, pints of ale and in engineering a thousandth of an inch is more fine than plus or minus a millimetre! Take your sport, it's still measured in good old fashioned Imperial e.g. 22 yards (cricket pitch length) X 10 = 220 yards which equals 1 furlong. 8 furlongs = 1 mile or 1760 yards. At sea we have Imperial used, 12 inches = 1 foot. 6 feet = 1 fathom. I bought a new hearth rug from a well known retailer last week. I wanted a 5' X 3' and chose one that looked slightly narrower but asked the girl to measure it as I don't understand all this centimetre crap. She laid the tape across the rug and said it was 80 cm. I said this looked narrower than 3' but she proudly showed me the tape which showed 30". She genuinely thought the 30" meant 3' and I had to explain that 30" is 2'-6". I didn't embarrass the lass and bought the carpet - as being 6" less in width didn't really matter. So it seems to me there will always be Metric and Imperial used so why not teach both?