Should there be penalty goals? | Vital Football

Should there be penalty goals?

Detritus

Detritus

Vital Squad Member
Croatia denied a certain goal. Defender not sent off and penalty awarded. As Gary Neville said, it was a gamble by the defender which paid off. But should Croatia be awarded a penalty goal instead of a penalty?
 
Detritus said:
Croatia denied a certain goal. Defender not sent off and penalty awarded. As Gary Neville said, it was a gamble by the defender which paid off. But should Croatia be awarded a penalty goal instead of a penalty?
Click to expand...

No, because he made a fair attempt to get the ball.
 
I think if the goal is completely certain before a foul/handball - like Suárez in 2010, then the goal should be given and the player sent off for trying to cheat.

If there’s any kind of doubt, then a penalty is the only way to settle it.
 
Nope. Another of those ideas that sounds good on the face of it but one day a situation will come along where it's debatable whether a goal would have been certain or not.
 
For me, handball within 2 yards of the line should be a goal awarded and a red card. Restart play with a kick-off to the conceding team.
 
LSB2 said:
No, because he made a fair attempt to get the ball.
Click to expand...
This is a decision us referees have to now make and it's difficult to decide what is genuine. After seeing last nights penalty it does look genuine.
 
I also saw the keeper was two or three yards off his line when he made the save from the penalty.
 
I think that was a poor rule change (surprise surprise!).
Defenders making last ditch tackles should know they are on a knife edge. Taking away the red card simply means defenders can dive in no matter their chance of winning the tackle and not receiving their due punishment. I can’t recall a large number of games ruined by the last defender getting sent off so seems an unnecessary change.
 
nibbles said:
I think that was a poor rule change (surprise surprise!).
Defenders making last ditch tackles should know they are on a knife edge. Taking away the red card simply means defenders can dive in no matter their chance of winning the tackle and not receiving their due punishment. I can’t recall a large number of games ruined by the last defender getting sent off so seems an unnecessary change.
Click to expand...
If that challenge was outside the area it would still be a red card. The law change was only for inside the penalty area.

I agree it worth a gamble by the defender to see if the referee given them the benefit of the doubt.

The more i look at that incident last night the more i think the defender had no genuine chance of getting the ball.

Maybe a red card would have been the correct verdict.

I wonder if the VAR system had been used the verdict would have been different.
 
nibbles said:
I can’t recall a large number of games ruined by the last defender getting sent off so seems an unnecessary change.
Click to expand...

No, but there were plenty of games that were ruined by the goalkeeper getting sent off if you disagreed with the referee's decision to give a penalty.
 
wxgill said:
I wonder if the VAR system had been used the verdict would have been different.
Click to expand...

It was suggested that VAR was used but the VAR team decided the referee got the decision right and so didn't advise a look at the touchline TVs.
 
So what you are saying is VAR was used, but on viewing it those monitoring chose not to recommend the referee to review it.
 
Every event is viewed by the VAR panel, and then it is either up to them to say to the ref if they've seen something he hasn't, or if the ref is unsure of an even himself, then he will ask the panel to view it. It is still up to the ref to make the final decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.