Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity Rule Revisited
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1219753/GRAHAM-POLL-Sorry-Fabio-referee-spot-Robert-Greens-red-card-Ukraine.html
Some comments here highlight a key problem:
[quote name='Graham Poll']...stated at half-time that he felt that both a dismissal and penalty are too harsh in such instances.
But given that only 75 per cent of penalties are converted in the Barclays Premier League, you can see that if the penalty was the only sanction then more players would be tempted to bring down opponents as they were about to score.
It is vital that referees correctly differentiate between a goalkeeper bringing an opponent down with a mistimed tackle and an attacker forcing contact with a prone goalkeeper.
[/quote]
[quote]The idea of a penalty being enough punishment always annoys me. It isn't punishment. The attacking player is in a position where he can score. That get's stolen from him by a player breaking the law. The penalty gives it back, but it doesn't mean the other player has been punished for breaking the law.
If someone steals your car, the police give it back, how is that punishment for the thief?
Cards and sendings off have to be used to punish the player for cheating. The penalty has to be given to give back to the attacking team what the other side tried to cheat them out of.
[/quote]
The main defence of this rule appears to be the automatic assumption that if a defender or keeper commits a foul on someone who is through on goal, it must be a deliberate attempt to cheat by stopping the other person from scoring.
In reality there's such a thing as a mistimed effort to get the ball, or an accidental collision with a player, and I can't see how this can suddenly cease to be the case just because the person who commits the foul happens to be the last defender.
The mind boggles at how effective the "the rules are right because the rules say so" approach can be at removing logical thinking from the equation.
I actually think the idea of making professional fouls a sending off offence is sound, but the implementation of this rule has resulted in the term "professional foul" being defined far too libertally. Imagine if, in Formula One, they brought in a rule to stop moves like Schumacher on Villeneuve in Jerez 1997, where if A tries to overtake B and gets the line into the corner but B doesn't allow enough room and they collide, B must be disqualified for three races for denying an Obvious Overtaking Opportunity... Even the FIA wouldn't be so stupid as to pass a rule like that, but that's what the Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity is like.
Some comments here highlight a key problem:
[quote name='Graham Poll']...stated at half-time that he felt that both a dismissal and penalty are too harsh in such instances.
But given that only 75 per cent of penalties are converted in the Barclays Premier League, you can see that if the penalty was the only sanction then more players would be tempted to bring down opponents as they were about to score.
It is vital that referees correctly differentiate between a goalkeeper bringing an opponent down with a mistimed tackle and an attacker forcing contact with a prone goalkeeper.
[/quote]
[quote]The idea of a penalty being enough punishment always annoys me. It isn't punishment. The attacking player is in a position where he can score. That get's stolen from him by a player breaking the law. The penalty gives it back, but it doesn't mean the other player has been punished for breaking the law.
If someone steals your car, the police give it back, how is that punishment for the thief?
Cards and sendings off have to be used to punish the player for cheating. The penalty has to be given to give back to the attacking team what the other side tried to cheat them out of.
[/quote]
The main defence of this rule appears to be the automatic assumption that if a defender or keeper commits a foul on someone who is through on goal, it must be a deliberate attempt to cheat by stopping the other person from scoring.
In reality there's such a thing as a mistimed effort to get the ball, or an accidental collision with a player, and I can't see how this can suddenly cease to be the case just because the person who commits the foul happens to be the last defender.
The mind boggles at how effective the "the rules are right because the rules say so" approach can be at removing logical thinking from the equation.
I actually think the idea of making professional fouls a sending off offence is sound, but the implementation of this rule has resulted in the term "professional foul" being defined far too libertally. Imagine if, in Formula One, they brought in a rule to stop moves like Schumacher on Villeneuve in Jerez 1997, where if A tries to overtake B and gets the line into the corner but B doesn't allow enough room and they collide, B must be disqualified for three races for denying an Obvious Overtaking Opportunity... Even the FIA wouldn't be so stupid as to pass a rule like that, but that's what the Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity is like.
5 Comments
Recommended Comments