Chris Foy on the Crawley penalty

[Martin Shaw]

Chris Foy concurs that it should not have been a penalty for Crawley

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... sunderland

[wayno cordiniho]

Patently never a penalty and luckily we didn’t suffer because of it. Hope the assessor marked him down

[Rob]

If you pull the shirt of an opposing player inside the penalty area then you run the risk of a referee actually doing his job - on the basis that this sort of thing is rarely given we were clearly very unlucky but if referees applied the laws correctly then we would see this decision being given more often until eventually players realised a foul (which this was) in the area can cost you a goal. I accept all the counter arguments, mainly the fact few refs give this sort of decision, but it absolutely was a foul - where the ball was is utterly irrelevant in law, something Foy should know but appears to have forgotten in his retirement. Bottom line, we were unlucky that this referee actually did his job when most abdicate responsibility leading to the sort of fouls we see against Lucas, Aden and others almost every game - so what do we want, change the laws to allow shirt pulling, or we just accept these things are subjective? Remember, take a look at VAR and the disaster that is, trying to make factual decisions from subjective situations - in my view VAR should only ever be used for offside, ball in and out and serious foul play - trying to take out subjectivity will never, ever work. I'd much rather live with ref mistakes (they get over 90% of decisions right without VAR) and be able to celebrate goals, than have to wait 5 minutes before I know my team has scored. Be very careful what you wish for.

[georgefostersbeard]

Clough said that they had been told, when asking about similar events, that they were not looking at off the ball incidents in the area when the ball is a distance away.
Does this mean that there has been another of the famous refereeing directives put out and our ref chose to ignore it?
At the start of the season we were told that refs would be tough on feigning injury, time wasting etc. I wonder if this sort of thing was included in it. i.e. If a player throws themselves to the ground as though they have been shot when the ball is forty metres away, ignore it

[jpstags]

If you pull the shirt of an opposing player inside the penalty area then you run the risk of a referee actually doing his job - on the basis that this sort of thing is rarely given we were clearly very unlucky but if referees applied the laws correctly then we would see this decision being given more often until eventually players realised a foul (which this was) in the area can cost you a goal. I accept all the counter arguments, mainly the fact few refs give this sort of decision, but it absolutely was a foul - where the ball was is utterly irrelevant in law, something Foy should know but appears to have forgotten in his retirement. Bottom line, we were unlucky that this referee actually did his job when most abdicate responsibility leading to the sort of fouls we see against Lucas, Aden and others almost every game - so what do we want, change the laws to allow shirt pulling, or we just accept these things are subjective? Remember, take a look at VAR and the disaster that is, trying to make factual decisions from subjective situations - in my view VAR should only ever be used for offside, ball in and out and serious foul play - trying to take out subjectivity will never, ever work. I'd much rather live with ref mistakes (they get over 90% of decisions right without VAR) and be able to celebrate goals, than have to wait 5 minutes before I know my team has scored. Be very careful what you wish for.

Written just like a ref would.

[Bradders]

If you pull the shirt of an opposing player inside the penalty area then you run the risk of a referee actually doing his job - on the basis that this sort of thing is rarely given we were clearly very unlucky but if referees applied the laws correctly then we would see this decision being given more often until eventually players realised a foul (which this was) in the area can cost you a goal. I accept all the counter arguments, mainly the fact few refs give this sort of decision, but it absolutely was a foul - where the ball was is utterly irrelevant in law, something Foy should know but appears to have forgotten in his retirement. Bottom line, we were unlucky that this referee actually did his job when most abdicate responsibility leading to the sort of fouls we see against Lucas, Aden and others almost every game - so what do we want, change the laws to allow shirt pulling, or we just accept these things are subjective? Remember, take a look at VAR and the disaster that is, trying to make factual decisions from subjective situations - in my view VAR should only ever be used for offside, ball in and out and serious foul play - trying to take out subjectivity will never, ever work. I'd much rather live with ref mistakes (they get over 90% of decisions right without VAR) and be able to celebrate goals, than have to wait 5 minutes before I know my team has scored. Be very careful what you wish for.

You're saying that refs should make objective decisions based on rules taken literally, and then criticise VAR for trying to do exactly that.

The way the football rules are written infers a lot of interpretation, so they cannot always be regarded as a basis for objective decisions. The rules of golf leave very little room for ambiguity, because they've been developed to cover almost every specific situation that's ever had to be judged. Football hasn't gone that way, which means that the rules are quite brief but not always sensible in all situations. Hence needing a lot of input from refs during games.

As for VAR, yes it's a terrible implementation. It could be solved overnight by accepting that the official may have simply not observed the incident, or had his view impeded, and allow a second opinion where appropriate.

No slow motion, perhaps just one replay from each camera angle AT FULL SPEED. If the second opinion is inconclusive then the referee's original decision takes precedence.

Even with offside. If the player wasn't clearly offside during a full speed rerun, then he isn't actually gaining any genuine advantage. It's ridiculous to claim that a player has gained an unfair advantage by having a boot three inches further forward when running full pelt twenty yards from goal. If there's no clear visible advantage gained at full speed, then a linesman was correct to keep his flag down, even if technically the player was a few inches the wrong side when checked via technology.

That would mean any check can only take a few moments, and it's no more than another referee having a quick look from another angle. The game should only be held up if there's a serious incident that ref hasn't noticed. If a player scored a goal after an offside or other offence, the check should be complete before the ball is back in play.

Slow motion is highly misleading in a lot of cases, and should never be used by referees.

[Captain Cunno]

If you pull the shirt of an opposing player inside the penalty area then you run the risk of a referee actually doing his job - on the basis that this sort of thing is rarely given we were clearly very unlucky but if referees applied the laws correctly then we would see this decision being given more often until eventually players realised a foul (which this was) in the area can cost you a goal. I accept all the counter arguments, mainly the fact few refs give this sort of decision, but it absolutely was a foul - where the ball was is utterly irrelevant in law, something Foy should know but appears to have forgotten in his retirement. Bottom line, we were unlucky that this referee actually did his job when most abdicate responsibility leading to the sort of fouls we see against Lucas, Aden and others almost every game - so what do we want, change the laws to allow shirt pulling, or we just accept these things are subjective? Remember, take a look at VAR and the disaster that is, trying to make factual decisions from subjective situations - in my view VAR should only ever be used for offside, ball in and out and serious foul play - trying to take out subjectivity will never, ever work. I'd much rather live with ref mistakes (they get over 90% of decisions right without VAR) and be able to celebrate goals, than have to wait 5 minutes before I know my team has scored. Be very careful what you wish for.

Written just like a ref would.

A ref from the 70s not up with all the latest rules aswell.

[steve-hymas]

I was still looking where the free kick was being taken from . If the ref thought there was a bit of pushing and shoving in the area he should have warned the players before the free kick as we see week in week out .If not it will be a penalty on nearly every corner and free kick .several penalties in every game . Ridiculous

[Martin Shaw]

Rob, see: EFL Magazine winter edition
https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-m ... 3b7c86.pdf

page 17
PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones:
"High threshold is a working
title for the identification
of key match decisions. For
each decision, there are four
principles – what are the
actions of the defender in
that challenge, what are the
motivations of the attacker,
what is the degree of contact
and is there a consequence? If
there is no consequence to any
minimal context, the preference
is to allow play to continue.
This is why we’ve seen a lot more
penalty appeals not necessarily
being penalised with a penalty
kick. Across the board, there
have been fewer penalty kicks"

So Foy was quite correct. And Simpson was not correctly applying the "High threshold"

By the way, Mike Jones makes reference to the "behind the whistle" series by Foy in his article, so I think we can take it that that series is sanctioned by, and a mouthpiece for, PGMOL.

I do agree with you though that we definitely do not want VAR in League Two.

[Birminghamstag10]

There were a number of bizarre decisions made by the referee at the weekend. I remember one where he played an advantage to Crawley, let them play on until they lost the ball and then pulled it back. Another was when a Crawley player went down in the centre circle, thought it was a foul and caught the ball in his hands twice, but the ref let us get possession back and didn't blow up for handball.

The ref didn't cover himself in glory at all in that game, and the penalty decision was just one of a number of suspect and often weird decisions. Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome of the result, however if we end up losing out by a goal diff of '1' like last season......

[HitchcocksShins]

Chris Foy? What's a British cycling Olympian passing comment about football reffing for??

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

Chris Foy? What's a British cycling Olympian passing comment about football reffing for??

My thoughts exactly.

[pemill]

We can talk about refs all the time but why on earth did Akins feel the need to impede him, like Clough pointed out the ball was 35 yards away.

[cassellswasmagic]

We can talk about refs all the time but why on earth did Akins feel the need to impede him, like Clough pointed out the ball was 35 yards away.

True…yet Akins gets constantly fouled and nobody seems to see it…strange!

[Rob]

Rob, see: EFL Magazine winter edition
https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-m ... 3b7c86.pdf

page 17
PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones:
"High threshold is a working
title for the identification
of key match decisions. For
each decision, there are four
principles – what are the
actions of the defender in
that challenge, what are the
motivations of the attacker,
what is the degree of contact
and is there a consequence? If
there is no consequence to any
minimal context, the preference
is to allow play to continue.
This is why we’ve seen a lot more
penalty appeals not necessarily
being penalised with a penalty
kick. Across the board, there
have been fewer penalty kicks"

So Foy was quite correct. And Simpson was not correctly applying the "High threshold"

By the way, Mike Jones makes reference to the "behind the whistle" series by Foy in his article, so I think we can take it that that series is sanctioned by, and a mouthpiece for, PGMOL.

I do agree with you though that we definitely do not want VAR in League Two.

Obviously ignoring the board children, this does not mean Foy is right in the laws of the game - there is nothing in the laws that make the decision on Saturday incorrect. I repeat that we were unfortunate that this referee chose to give this decision when the vast majority, including me, would not have given it and I agree entirely with what Steve has written - if every referee did this then we'd end up with 15 penalties a game. My point, missed by one or two, is that in law the decision was correct and if (god forbid) we get VAR they would absolutely not have overturned it. Had Akins not pulled him back, completely unnecessarily in my opinion, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Bradders, the issue I have with VAR is not the subjectivity (though of course it is an added layer of subjectivity), it is the time it takes and how it absolutely ruins the moment of joy when a goal is scored. I'd hate it if we had it, though I do like the automated offsides and the chip in the ball for out of play - both could have helped us in the past!

[georgefostersbeard]

Rob, isn't this where this a tension between the laws of the games and how they are applied. The application of the high definition statement would mean that you are right in that by the rules of the game it should have been a penalty but Foy is right in that by applying the thresholds as set out by the PGMOL, he would not have given the penalty.
This tension is why we had a game where two players were booked for kicking the ball away or delaying the taking of a free kick and then the next game these offences were totally ignored.

[Rob]

Rob, isn't this where this a tension between the laws of the games and how they are applied. The application of the high definition statement would mean that you are right in that by the rules of the game it should have been a penalty but Foy is right in that by applying the thresholds as set out by the PGMOL, he would not have given the penalty.
This tension is why we had a game where two players were booked for kicking the ball away or delaying the taking of a free kick and then the next game these offences were totally ignored.

Yes it is, in fact the advice to referee's is now becoming a longer read than the actual rules and soon they will need to add a day to referee course just to brief the changes as and when they come in! I would imagine at his debrief the ref and his observer would have discussed the decision and suspect the observer would have been of the same view as all of us.

You saw one of our very best referee's on Sunday not send off Nunez but send off Dalot, which of course provoked strong debate - in my view both should have been sent off, indeed Nunez should have had 3 yellow cards! It's therefore always going to be the case that the utopia of consistency is never going to be reached and in searching for it you run the risk of ruining our game. The other issue of course is that so few people now want to go into refereeing (or remain in refereeing) that the standard is falling, the pot is smaller and so we have far more inexperienced referees at the top level.

[Martin Shaw]

Rob, you have replied to my post yet completely ignored the comments by PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones, which were the whole point of my post!

[Rob]

Rob, you have replied to my post yet completely ignored the comments by PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones, which were the whole point of my post!

Sorry I thought I had but will try to do so in a more detailed way. I'll start by repeating that I do not think it was a penalty, I would not have given it, nor would most referee's.

The threshold is subjective and down to a referee's interpretation, taking the the four points Jones makes about threshold and applying them to this instance, from the referee's perspective, not ours:

what are the actions of the defender in that challenge - he pulled the player back to stop him from finding space in the area where the ball may have been played
what are the motivations of the attacker - to find space before the cross came in
what is the degree of contact - there was clear contact
is there a consequence - the ball had not been played into the area so there was no consequence, however, had it been played into the area, the forward had been taken out of play

As I say, the above is not my interpretation but could be the sort of thing the referee could have been thinking. It remains subjective and I repeat again had it gone to VAR it would not have been overturned as the decision was correct in law.

[Bradders]

The "no consequence" point is the issue. Because of the high threshold, the penalty shouldn't have been given because there was no consequence.

You may think that it's a simple matter of applying the rules, but as the rules are too basic there has to be a level of interpretation and guidance to deal with situations where the rules are likely to bring the game into disrepute.

[Martin Shaw]

Rob, you have replied to my post yet completely ignored the comments by PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones, which were the whole point of my post!

Sorry I thought I had but will try to do so in a more detailed way. I'll start by repeating that I do not think it was a penalty, I would not have given it, nor would most referee's.

The threshold is subjective and down to a referee's interpretation, taking the the four points Jones makes about threshold and applying them to this instance, from the referee's perspective, not ours:

what are the actions of the defender in that challenge - he pulled the player back to stop him from finding space in the area where the ball may have been played
what are the motivations of the attacker - to find space before the cross came in
what is the degree of contact - there was clear contact
is there a consequence - the ball had not been played into the area so there was no consequence, however, had it been played into the area, the forward had been taken out of play

As I say, the above is not my interpretation but could be the sort of thing the referee could have been thinking. It remains subjective and I repeat again had it gone to VAR it would not have been overturned as the decision was correct in law.

I disagree, and clearly PGMOL do as per Foy's article, which is plainly endorsed by PGMOL as I said.

Foy said "I don't think the actions of the defender meet the required threshold for a clear holding offence with impact".
I agree with that, the touch from Akins was not sufficient to justify Campbell going down, in my opinion. He barely touched him.

[Rob]

Rob, you have replied to my post yet completely ignored the comments by PGMOL National Group Director Mike Jones, which were the whole point of my post!

Sorry I thought I had but will try to do so in a more detailed way. I'll start by repeating that I do not think it was a penalty, I would not have given it, nor would most referee's.

The threshold is subjective and down to a referee's interpretation, taking the the four points Jones makes about threshold and applying them to this instance, from the referee's perspective, not ours:

what are the actions of the defender in that challenge - he pulled the player back to stop him from finding space in the area where the ball may have been played
what are the motivations of the attacker - to find space before the cross came in
what is the degree of contact - there was clear contact
is there a consequence - the ball had not been played into the area so there was no consequence, however, had it been played into the area, the forward had been taken out of play

As I say, the above is not my interpretation but could be the sort of thing the referee could have been thinking. It remains subjective and I repeat again had it gone to VAR it would not have been overturned as the decision was correct in law.

I disagree, and clearly PGMOL do as per Foy's article, which is plainly endorsed by PGMOL as I said.

Foy said "I don't think the actions of the defender meet the required threshold for a clear holding offence with impact".
I agree with that, the touch from Akins was not sufficient to justify Campbell going down, in my opinion. He barely touched him.

Do you mean Jones' article, I am not sure that Foy's comments on Sky are PGMOL endorsed?

I do not think VAR would have seen it as a clear and obvious error, you do, that's clearly subjective and I guess we'll never know. Foy didn't say what he thought VAR would have done as far as I'm aware. At least we do agree it should not have been given in the first place and that the last thing we need is VAR!

[Martin Shaw]

I did mean Foy's article. Mike Jones made reference to the "behind the whistle" series by Foy in his article, so I think we can take it that the series is sanctioned by, and a mouthpiece for, PGMOL.

[Rob]

I did mean Foy's article. Mike Jones made reference to the "behind the whistle" series by Foy in his article, so I think we can take it that the series is sanctioned by, and a mouthpiece for, PGMOL.

OK, I haven't read the article just the bit you posted but I'm not sure I follow that it is a mouthpiece for PGMOL, the Howard Webb/Michael Owen programme is, but this and the Dermot Gallagher one on SSN I don't think are officially sanctioned by them, but I don't really know to be honest.

[Martin Shaw]

Dermot Gallagher is not sanctioned by PGMOL I agree. I believe this series by Chris Foy is.