24 Aug 2016 15:44:01
For anyone who's interested in the "grappling in the box" debate, here's what I understand from the FIFA Laws of the Game.
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven 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
Tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
Holds an opponent
Spits at an opponent
Handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
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.
So, it would seem that the Shawcross penalty decision (holding an opponent) was absolutely correct.
As for the Sterling penalty decision (pushing an opponent) , the referee must have considered it careless, reckless or using excessive force. Hmmm - was it really?
Holding, spitting and deliberate handball are always free-kicks under the laws.
The other fouls (kicking, tripping, striking, pushing, etc. ) all have to be considered careless, reckless or excessive by the referee to be free-kicks. That's why physical contact is still permitted under the laws if the referee considers it not careless, not reckless and not excessive.
As long as all referees are consistent and honest in applying the laws, then I see no cause for complaint.
24 Aug 2016 17:27:08
Hope tackling an opponent is wrong. its not footie without a good old tackle.
24 Aug 2016 19:03:43
dentielad: if you read it, you'll see that tackling is only an offence if the referee considers it to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.
24 Aug 2016 19:38:28
The sterling penalty was given as the result of him not attempting to play the ball and only play the man. it is due to the fact that he stood facing away from the ball and didn't look at it once, he only tried to impede the player.
24 Aug 2016 20:28:07
blueray: so, according to the laws I've listed, was it for pushing and was it careless, orreckless, or with excessive force? If it was onbstruction, that's surely an indirect free kick offence.
24 Aug 2016 20:36:07
blueray: my bad! Just re-read the laws for 2016-2017 and I now agree with you that he was penalised for "impeding an opponent with contact" :-)
24 Aug 2016 21:57:35
Sorry sid. didn't read it properly.
24 Aug 2016 22:16:30
No problem Sid. i can't remember where i heard the law, think it was on sky sports ref watch on Monday morning. they basically explained that if you watch it, sterling had his back to the ball and was just trying to stop his opponent from getting it, rather than trying to win it himself. looked harsh enough because he didn't really obstruct shawcross but he definitely made no attempt to play the ball either.
25 Aug 2016 12:36:27
Does this have any effect a defender shielding the ball out? Who makes no attempt to play the ball.