Foul?

[dad4]

There are a number of proposals that have been floated to fix pks. The biggest objection has been moving the spot back would require redesign of countless pitches including in some countries that can’t afford it. But there are some other proposals going from least intrusive to most:

-let the goalkeeper move on the whistle.
-prohibit long run ups to strike the ball
-dfks for most fouls inside the box except for flagrant ones like a dogso handball or foul to injure; pks for the flagrants.
-move the spot back
-change the scoring for 1 for a pk, 2 for a goal and add a three pointer for distance.

Who is saying it is expensive to move the pk dot in low income countries?

Those fields are grass or dirt. The dot is white spray paint. Moving the dot costs about two cents worth of paint. Once cent of white paint, for the new dot. One cent of green or brown paint to cover the old dot. Takes about five minutes, including time to measure the new distance. Ten minutes if you want to move the penalty arc.

“We can’t afford to move the pk dot on cheap fields”. Really? Unless it is a million dollar artificial turf field, it’s essentially free.

 

[espola]

There are a number of proposals that have been floated to fix pks. The biggest objection has been moving the spot back would require redesign of countless pitches including in some countries that can’t afford it. But there are some other proposals going from least intrusive to most:

-let the goalkeeper move on the whistle.
-prohibit long run ups to strike the ball
-dfks for most fouls inside the box except for flagrant ones like a dogso handball or foul to injure; pks for the flagrants.
-move the spot back
-change the scoring for 1 for a pk, 2 for a goal and add a three pointer for distance.

"moving the spot back would require redesign of countless pitches"

????

In every field I laid out the spot was painted.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Who is saying it is expensive to move the pk dot in low income countries?

Those fields are grass or dirt. The dot is white spray paint. Moving the dot costs about two cents worth of paint. Once cent of white paint, for the new dot. One cent of green or brown paint to cover the old dot. Takes about five minutes, including time to measure the new distance. Ten minutes if you want to move the penalty arc.

“We can’t afford to move the pk dot on cheap fields”. Really? Unless it is a million dollar artificial turf field, it’s essentially free.

And the arc at the top of the box, right?

 

[kickingandscreaming]

In terms of a push in a back I think there is a big difference when someone is running and gets pushed in the back. I think we can all agree that's more dangerous as someone's momentum is used against them and gets launched. In the case of this video, both players were fighting for position and the attacker was backing into defender. In my mind both players were both fighting fairly for position.

Looks like she extended her arm. Hey, I’ve seen more than that let go outside the box. Doesn’t mean I agree with it. I’d like to see them use the basketball rule they had back in the day (not sure what it is now) where the defender could use their forearm (bent at the elbow) in the back of the opponent to hold them off but couldn’t extend their arm at the elbow to push off with the hand, or it was a foul.

In my limited experience with the actual soccer rules for a foul, their appears to be more discretion left to the ref in soccer versus “American” sports.

 

[espola]

And the arc at the top of the box, right?

Also painted, and no more complicated to draw than the center circle.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Also painted, and no more complicated to draw than the center circle.

I was simply pointing out an omission.

 

[watfly]

There are a number of proposals that have been floated to fix pks. The biggest objection has been moving the spot back would require redesign of countless pitches including in some countries that can’t afford it. But there are some other proposals going from least intrusive to most:

-let the goalkeeper move on the whistle.
-prohibit long run ups to strike the ball
-dfks for most fouls inside the box except for flagrant ones like a dogso handball or foul to injure; pks for the flagrants.
-move the spot back
-change the scoring for 1 for a pk, 2 for a goal and add a three pointer for distance.

Are pks broken? Other than maybe loosening up some of the restrictions on keeper movement, is there a demand or need to completely change part of the game?

Looks like she extended her arm. Hey, I’ve seen more than that let go outside the box. Doesn’t mean I agree with it. I’d like to see them use the basketball rule they had back in the day (not sure what it is now) where the defender could use their forearm (bent at the elbow) in the back of the opponent to hold them off but couldn’t extend their arm at the elbow to push off with the hand, or it was a foul.

In my limited experience with the actual soccer rules for a foul, their appears to be more discretion left to the ref in soccer versus “American” sports.

Not a bad idea regarding forearm.

There is far more discretion in soccer than "American" that's why so many American have trouble with it. Rightly or wrongly, its by design. 1) you have one person calling fouls as opposed to American sports with multiple foul callers, so you have a psuedo "check and balances" in American sports 2) stops and starts are not an inherent part of soccer, the emphasis is on game play and flow. So the emphasis (at least with good refs) is on maintaining game flow and to err on the side of not calling fouls, particularly trifling fouls. If fouls were called as often as parents wanted it would be a very slow game.

 

[dad4]

Are pks broken? Other than maybe loosening up some of the restrictions on keeper movement, is there a demand or need to completely change part of the game?


Not a bad idea regarding forearm.

There is far more discretion in soccer than "American" that's why so many American have trouble with it. Rightly or wrongly, its by design. 1) you have one person calling fouls as opposed to American sports with multiple foul callers, so you have a psuedo "check and balances" in American sports 2) stops and starts are not an inherent part of soccer, the emphasis is on game play and flow. So the emphasis (at least with good refs) is on maintaining game flow and to err on the side of not calling fouls, particularly trifling fouls. If fouls were called as often as parents wanted it would be a very slow game.

I don’t think the game slows down when a ref calls it tight. He calls a few fouls in the midfield in the first five minutes. After that, players adjust.

The slow games I see are the out of control ones that need to be reigned in. The ref calls almost nothing the first half, and the fouls keep getting rougher. Eventually, the ref decides to calm things down, but it takes a lot more calls to get the same effect. The players are trying to avenge earlier fouls, and no one really believes the ref when he tries to use his voice.

 

[Grace T.]

Are pks broken? Other than maybe loosening up some of the restrictions on keeper movement, is there a demand or need to completely change part of the game?


Not a bad idea regarding forearm.

There is far more discretion in soccer than "American" that's why so many American have trouble with it. Rightly or wrongly, its by design. 1) you have one person calling fouls as opposed to American sports with multiple foul callers, so you have a psuedo "check and balances" in American sports 2) stops and starts are not an inherent part of soccer, the emphasis is on game play and flow. So the emphasis (at least with good refs) is on maintaining game flow and to err on the side of not calling fouls, particularly trifling fouls. If fouls were called as often as parents wanted it would be a very slow game.

The argument is they almost always lead to an automatic goal because the distance isn't a sufficient time for the keeper to react, particularly if the striker is going to do a long run up.

If we are going to revise them, I tend to favor the first minimalist solution: just let the goalkeeper move on the whistle. The fear is the goalkeepers are just going to rush the strikers for old timey MLS 1 v 1s and that will alter the game. Unless the striker takes a real long wind up, the goalkeeper would be insane to do that. Letting the goalkeeper move on the whistle will also therefore decrease these long run ups taken by strikers without having to put some artificial number on it like 3 steps.

 

[dad4]

The argument is they almost always lead to an automatic goal because the distance isn't a sufficient time for the keeper to react, particularly if the striker is going to do a long run up.

If we are going to revise them, I tend to favor the first minimalist solution: just let the goalkeeper move on the whistle. The fear is the goalkeepers are just going to rush the strikers for old timey MLS 1 v 1s and that will alter the game. Unless the striker takes a real long wind up, the goalkeeper would be insane to do that. Letting the goalkeeper move on the whistle will also therefore decrease these long run ups taken by strikers without having to put some artificial number on it like 3 steps.

What’s the objection to an “old timey“ 1v1 instead of a pk? 1v1 is much more fun to watch.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

What’s the objection to an “old timey“ 1v1 instead of a pk? 1v1 is much more fun to watch.

I prefer it but I regularly spout sacrilege about changing soccer rules to "improve" the game.

 

[watfly]

The argument is they almost always lead to an automatic goal because the distance isn't a sufficient time for the keeper to react, particularly if the striker is going to do a long run up.

If we are going to revise them, I tend to favor the first minimalist solution: just let the goalkeeper move on the whistle. The fear is the goalkeepers are just going to rush the strikers for old timey MLS 1 v 1s and that will alter the game. Unless the striker takes a real long wind up, the goalkeeper would be insane to do that. Letting the goalkeeper move on the whistle will also therefore decrease these long run ups taken by strikers without having to put some artificial number on it like 3 steps.

I'm trying to figure out the thought process here based on the evolution of this thread.

Is the idea that since PK's are so automatic that if we made them less automatic, refs might be willing to call more fouls in the box? I think there is this false assumption that if the play in question were outside the box that it would clearly be a foul. I don't think that is the case in this situation. The referee's on here that have responded seem to be unanimous in their opinion that this isn't a foul.

 

[watfly]

I prefer it but I regularly spout sacrilege about changing soccer rules to "improve" the game.

What, are the annual changes to the handball rule not enough for you?

 

[espola]

I prefer it but I regularly spout sacrilege about changing soccer rules to "improve" the game.

The penalty kick came about as a change in the laws of the game. A long time ago (1891) but still a change.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

What, are the annual changes to the handball rule not enough for you?

Ha! Enough for me to know that I don’t know the rule anymore.

 

[espola]

The argument is they almost always lead to an automatic goal because the distance isn't a sufficient time for the keeper to react, particularly if the striker is going to do a long run up.

If we are going to revise them, I tend to favor the first minimalist solution: just let the goalkeeper move on the whistle. The fear is the goalkeepers are just going to rush the strikers for old timey MLS 1 v 1s and that will alter the game. Unless the striker takes a real long wind up, the goalkeeper would be insane to do that. Letting the goalkeeper move on the whistle will also therefore decrease these long run ups taken by strikers without having to put some artificial number on it like 3 steps.

The 1v1 method allows the keeper to move, but also allows the shooter to have more than one touch.

BTW, I like that better.

 

[JumboJack]

No foul, play on.

 

[Phoenix Soccer Dad]

I tip my cap to the referee here ... action is around the five yard line, he starts around the 29 when the ball is played in, ends up inside the 20 with a great angle on the contact. He's clearly working hard to get the best view.

I don't have a foul here. Yes there's some contact from behind but given the age level I don't see enough.

The context of the game - what's been called, what are kids playing through, what are they expecting to be called - is helpful in these situations. Tough to look at a short clip and make a black / white decision.

I can see the argument the other way but I wouldn't give it.

 

[whatithink]

The argument is they almost always lead to an automatic goal because the distance isn't a sufficient time for the keeper to react, particularly if the striker is going to do a long run up.

If we are going to revise them, I tend to favor the first minimalist solution: just let the goalkeeper move on the whistle. The fear is the goalkeepers are just going to rush the strikers for old timey MLS 1 v 1s and that will alter the game. Unless the striker takes a real long wind up, the goalkeeper would be insane to do that. Letting the goalkeeper move on the whistle will also therefore decrease these long run ups taken by strikers without having to put some artificial number on it like 3 steps.

I hadn't seen or read anywhere that there's was any controversy over PKs. The whole point of them being close to auto goals is that the offense would likely have been a goal, had it not occurred. Surely if you make it harder to score, then it will just result in more PKs.

Anyway, if they are going to make it harder, then I'd favor an auto red for the person who gave it away, irrespective of the offense.

 

[dad4]

I hadn't seen or read anywhere that there's was any controversy over PKs. The whole point of them being close to auto goals is that the offense would likely have been a goal, had it not occurred. Surely if you make it harder to score, then it will just result in more PKs.

Anyway, if they are going to make it harder, then I'd favor an auto red for the person who gave it away, irrespective of the offense.

The trouble is, when the only available penalty is too severe, referees won't apply it.

An auto-red just makes it worse. You put the ref in a position with no middle road: Play on, or decide the game. Horrible choice.

 

[zebrafish]

The trouble is, when the only available penalty is too severe, referees won't apply it.

An auto-red just makes it worse. You put the ref in a position with no middle road: Play on, or decide the game. Horrible choice.

True, but as a defender you also have to know that a foul in the box is terrible for your team. It is a clear shove in the back. PK for me all day.