Aston Villa News 24/7It happens in almost every televised game. A tasty tackle is made, bodies go flying and the commentators confidently call the incident a foul. Then we see a replay, in slow motion, possibly from a different angle and we hear “oh, he got a touch on the ball first”. It’s repeated to the point that the average football fan, and presumably those repeating this meme, actually believe that a glancing blow between the leather of boot and ball are enough to negate what happens immediately afterward. Not so.
Stuart James of the Guardian believes that the penalty was “erroneously awarded“. I stumbled on a Blues blog which also feels that “the referee erroneously awarded the home side a late penalty“. I’ve searched Joys & Sorrows and do you know how many times the various authors have used the words “erroneous” or “erroneously” to date? You do, don’t you? Yes, just the once! It could be a coincidence, but I’m going to go ahead and assume that the author has read James’ piece in the Guardian and is now simply parroting it on the blog.
Ever one to think outside the box, I’m going to do something different. Crazy even. I’m going to look at what the rules say. I know, hand me my Aviators and call me Maverick.
It’s The Law
The FIFA Laws of the Game state that there are 10 infringements that the referee must award a direct free kick for and if that infringement takes place in the penalty box, then a penalty must be award. I used Webb’s failure to award us a penalty at Wembley as an example of referees being more willing to view an incident as an infringement outside of the box, but are reluctant to see the same type of incident as a foul when it takes place in the box. Presumably because of the consequences.
Here’s what FIFA have to say:-
FIFA
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
- kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
- trips or attempts to trip an opponent
- jumps at an opponent
- charges an opponent
- strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
- pushes an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
- tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
- holds an opponent
- spits at an opponent
- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
FIFA refer to these rules as “the six” and “the four”. For the first six rules, the referee is required to assess how the incident took place, but for the second set; “the four”, the referee is only required to decided whether it took place or not, the how is irrelevant.
I’ve added emphasis to the rule I believe that frequently sends so many the wrong direction. It says quite clearly “contact with the opponent before touching the ball“, so if the opposite is true, the ball was touched before the opponent, the other nine infringements can’t possibly relevant and it’s not a foul, right?
To answer that, we might ask James Milner what he thinks. After John Terry made the tackle below, he protested his innocence. On what basis? I can only assume that he thought he touched the ball first. He may well have done, but it doesn’t change the fact that Milner was lucky not to have his leg broken a fraction of a second later.
Sorry James, he got a nick on the ball before he slammed his studs into your shin. Play on!
Interpreting The Rules
You might think I’m being a little facetious with this example; clearly Terry has gone in recklessly, studs up and over the top of the ball, but actually I’m not. Phrases such as “studs up” and “over the top of the ball” are common vernacular and we all understand their meaning, but they don’t appear anywhere in the rules. Neither does “last man” if you’re interested.
The beauty of this game that we love is its simplicity; anyone can play it anywhere there is a little space and ball. That simplicity is reflected in a rule book that runs to only 43 pages, but such simplicity is open to interpretation and that’s where referees come in. They don’t do so without guidance though. The quotes in this post from the FIFA Laws of the Game take up a single page, there is one more that deals with indirect free kicks in the same fashion. The material used to educate referees on the rules contained within those two pages stretches to 81 pages.
Referees view the game through their own framework and translate that back to the actual rules, simple as they may be.
Hypothetically Speaking
Let’s take a recent high profile incident that everyone has an opinion on; the Ryan Shawcross / Aaron Ramsey incident. Regardless of the view on how that incident took place, the overwhelming majority of observers believe it was a foul. Some kind of 50/50 perhaps, but a foul nonetheless.
Imagine that Ramsey arrived a fraction of a second later and didn’t poke the ball away before Shawcross’ boot came swinging through to connect with his shin. Imagine if Shawcross had got a touch on the ball first, but still followed through and broke Ramsey’s leg all the same. Then what? Is it no longer a foul because he touched the ball first?
‘Ah’, you say, ‘that’s why we have terms such as “careless”, “reckless” and “excessive” at the referee’s disposal.’
‘Exactly’, I say.
After The Touch
In this situation, what happened after Roger Johnson got his touch on the ball is extremely relevant. So slight was Johnson’s touch that it takes a view or two of the replay to see it. So slight, in fact, that he didn’t really dispossess Gabby of the ball, it was still right there to be played. As a professional footballer, a striker to be specific, I’m quite certain that Gabby had every intention of playing the ball so tantalizingly close to him in front of goal, but he had his legs unceremoniously taken from underneath him.
Maybe Graham Poll explains it better (thanks to regular reader anotherjames for the tip):-
And I agree, the protests were over the top. The same goes for the players and manager taking turns to berate him after the final whistle. Nothing to do with the opponent here, I really do hope that action is taken.
Even if you were able to construct an argument that Johnson’s touch, as fine and imperceptible as it was, actually did dispossess Gabby of the ball, is it not possible that the referee felt that Johnson had tripped an opponent in a manner he determined to be careless or reckless?
I think that’s possible and the rules do not say anything about that no longer being an infringement if the ball has been nicked away first. In fact, what they do say, specifically in relation to awarding a penalty, is this:-
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.
Sorry Blues fans and pundits who feel this was “erroneous”. It wasn’t, it was a penalty.
Just like it should have been a penalty at Wembley against Chelsea.
You might also like...
12 Comments to “The “Erroneous” Penalty And Parroting The Pundits”
Leave a Reply
Excellent article, very “don shades” maverick
Cheers
I’ve watched the replay over and over, but I still can’t see where he touched the ball.
The missus tells me he did and other Villa fans agree, so I must be blind.
Whatever, in real time it was a blatant pen to me, no question whatsoever.
I don’t even care if he touched it, the contact wasn’t enough to justify him taking Gabby out, so it’s a no-brainer to me.
But the problem comes when you ask yourself how you would feel if it happened against us.
Here, I have sympathy with the scum.
Couple that with the fact that they didn’t deserve to lose the game and you know what?
It feels even sweeter
Cue the “laughing policeman”.
The defender did touch the ball and if he’d smacked it into the stands then I would agree it wasn’t a penalty. But the ball was still in play, Gabby would have reached it and turned inside to shoot or pass across the penalty box to a waiting Carew. He was stopped from doing so by having his legs taken away so it was a foul and therefore a penalty.
I’ll disagree. No doubt that will label me “not a proper fan”, so be it.
1. Yes it is “possible that the referee felt that Johnson had tripped an opponent in a manner he determined to be careless or reckless”… but 99% of the time (completely taking this incident aside) if the same tackle was repeated all over the pitch he would be in a minority of 1. See below.
2. Was Roger Johnson “careless or reckless” is the ONLY point in the rules that is relevant – like the pundits that you correctly point out make up their own rules like “last man”, Graham Poll is also making up his own rules: Nowhere at all in the rules does it say anything about the ball “remaining within playing distance” as having any relevance I am affraid. Even if it had gone 20 yards away to the corner flag it would remain a penalty if (and only if) the referee’s opinion was that it was “careless or reckless”.
[Check out Mr Poll's comments on any game (Wembley for example) if you don't believe that all he ever does is agree with what the referee said at the time, no matter how ridiculous!]
3. If you believe a defender (whoever and for-whoever) is “careless or reckless” when seeing an opponent going in on goal makes a last ditch tackle to nic the ball away, gets the ball first, not from behind and slides through without feet raised or studs showing… then you have never played the game at any level. It is what footballers are told and trained to do, it is a skill.
4. On this occassion Roger Johnson was, in my begrudging opinion, careful, well timed and genuinely tried to win the ball; certainly not reckless or over the top. As such if not “carless or reckless or excessive force” and not taking the player before the ball – by the rules it is not a foul in the penalty area or anywhere on the pitch.
Not “erroneous” but it shouldn’t have been given as a penalty.
Be careful what you try and justify – it will come back to haunt you! Start expecting 10 times as many penalties if you believe this analysis justifies a foul, and start expecting a namby pamby non-contact game.
It was a penalty. It was a penalty only because the referee gave it as a penalty, and that is all that counts. Don’t try and justify it by extrapolating a dodgy view of the rules, it doesn’t matter, it was 1-0.
Anyway, did everyone miss what was really important? … Macleish saying in the post match interview that people had been on about “the bigger clubs getting the decisions” and it happened again.
So there you have it straight from the Blues manager… Villa are the big club in Birmingham.
: )
i think you may have missed the point of the post. i’m not attempting to justify the decision so much as dispel the nonsense that some kind of feint touch on the ball before clattering into a player means it is not a foul.
if you feel that such a touch disqualifies any possibility of there being a foul, then there is nothing to discuss.
that is wrong. it is repeated over and over by the pundits, but it is still wrong i’m afraid. just as you don’t actually have to make contact on a player for it to be a foul, touching the ball first doesn’t automatically negate contact either.
i’ve attempted to show that there are several reasons, in the rule book and out of it, that can still justify calling it a foul despite the contact on the ball. i’m not explicitly offering an explanation for the referee’s decision, just offering alternatives to the “he touched the ball first” meme.
i’ll accept that citing graham poll may give the impression of an appeal to authority here, but it was just a minor, almost anecdotal part of my argument. it’s unfortunate that you’ve chosen to focus on that so vehemently.
on the flip side, you appear to be appealing to his non-authority; since he’s been wrong in the past, he’s not to be trusted in this case. no, sorry, he’s perfectly correct when he says that the ball was there for gabby to play, but he was unable to do so on account of the 12 stone man chopping through his legs.
lots of things aren’t in the rule book, that’s another point i’m making with this post, it’s down to the interpretation that referees are trained and educated to make. if you want an explicit rule book, it will be 500 pages and good luck using that on hackney marshes!
i’m afraid that when you suggest this is a thin end of the wedge that will lead to “10 times as many penalties” you’re offering a false dichotomy. in reality, it’s far more nuanced. in this case, the key point is that johnson’s touch on the ball was so slight that the majority of observers required several replays before they could see it.
in that case a) how can we expect a referee to see that contact first time, in real time? and b) how is contact on the ball that slight, so slight it doesn’t really dispossess the attacker of the ball, a “tackle” in any case?
football is, and hopefully always will be, a contact sport, but i don’t want players to have the ability to make tackles knowing full well that they will take the player out, but will do so with impunity by simply getting the slightest of touches on the ball.
ultimately, this isn’t new. it’s well known by defenders that if they’re going to make a challenge like this then they need to make damned sure that the contact on the ball is sufficient enough that the referee can see it.
in that respect, johnson failed. and, yes, i would feel the same at the other end of the pitch too.
I see where you’re coming from (I think). But the issue is NOT about being careless/reckless – it’s the bit that Dan highlighted in bold in the rules quoted from FIFA:
“A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
- tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball. (…)”
Johnson did tackle an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball.
‘But he touched the ball first’ I hear you say! This is what happened:
1. Gabby is through on goal
2. Johnson brilliantly (even carefully/skillfully?) touches the ball first with his tackle.
3. The ball is only lightly touched though, so – in Poll’s words, “Roger Johnson did play the ball first but it remained within playing distance of Gabriel Agbonlahor.” – i.e. After the Johnson’s touch, Gabby still has a chance at playing the ball.
4. Johnson’s momentum then causes him to collide with Gabby, thus robbing him of the chance to play the ball – and it is *at this point* that Johnson has fouled, since he has taken out our man.
So, yes, Johnson touches the ball ‘first’. But after touching the ball, it is still playable for Agbonlahor – it is at that point that Johnson contacts man ‘before’ ball.
I hope that makes it clearer?
OK, I completely understand your position. In esscence then there were 2 tackles, the first was OK because the ball was won but the second was a foul beccause he got Gabby not the ball.
Interesting. Lets just agree to have different opinions ammicably then, and it doesn’t really matter as even Fifa won’t change the 1-0 win!
Completely ignoring this occassion though, I would worry if everytime a well-timed tackle within a manly (!) contact sport was deemed to have knocked the ball into a position from which it could still be played – then this is actually always a foul. Fifa have done their best to outlaw most forms of the art of tackling, so I guess this would be a continuation of that policy with dozens more fouls in the game.
Personally I don’t like it, if I wanted to watch a sport where every contact between players was a foul one way or the other then I’ll convert to Basketball
Cheers James!
Convert to another sport?? Nooooo, neverrr!! hehe.
I’m glad you can at least understand Poll’s explanation now. I’m not entirely sure myself that that’s the way the rules ‘should’ be, or ‘should be interpreted’ – I was trying to show the logic behind the ref’s decision (from what Graham Poll had said). Though, if it favours the attacker (especially one in claret & blue), I’m all for it. The rules have always been too lenient on defenders.
If rules (or the application of the rules) on tackling (and things like shirt-pulling etc) became much tighter, defenders would just have to become better footballers – learning to tackle better, be more tactically aware, etc. It might ‘outlaw’ bad tackling, and tackling would be reduced briefly, but only while defenders learn to tackle better.
I think there will always be a debate between what we think football rules/interpretation ‘should’ be and what the rules & interpretations actually are. To be honest, that will always be part of the fun, as long as we don’t get too carried away with pushing either!!
I’m glad there is a little more acceptance of the referee’s viewpoint in the media now (Graham Poll has done wonders for this), though those in the media really need to sort out their understanding of what the rules actually say. It’s odd that only an ex-ref can explain why Atkinson gave the penalty.
That was a long comment… maybe I should just start blogging
“That was a long comment… maybe I should just start blogging”
i think that’s an excellent idea, i wish there were more independent villa bloggers out there! i would certainly do everything i could to help.
that said, if you just want to dip your toe in the water, i’m getting to the point where i’m thinking about looking for guest blog submissions, maybe even regular feature writers.
give it some thought. during the summer, we have the distraction of the world cup, but either side of that i have no intention of indulging in daily transfer rumour mongering, so it’s fair to say that i’ll be short on material anyway!
Ok sure. I’d be interested in guest blogging, time permitting. There may be a world cup going on this summer, but then I get married too, so not sure how much spare time I’ll have!
I’m well up for it in principle though. What’s the best way of contacting you about it or sending in a contribution? I assume you can see my email address as an admin if you wanted to email me.
sure can, i’ll drop you a line.