Penalties…what can we do?

[Bs4Red]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

 

For anyone that knows the rules, if he hasn’t touched Nakhi it would be an indirect free kick as its a technical foul not a penal foul. 
 

The second one, if that’s a pen we are having 10 a game for both sides. Nothing too it. 

[BS15_RED]

I hate to say it, but if VAR was in use in the Championship then we 100% get at least one of those given to us. Both would be given as fouls anywhere else on the pitch without any fuss.

[BTRFTG]

Both incidents were pens from where I was sitting in The Dolman.

I'm fairly sure the reason they weren't given was only minutes earlier Wells (and others) spent ages berating the referee for two claimed infringements (one also inside the box,) that were nothing of the sort. Doesn't make it right but we make a rod for our own back. 

Officials have cottoned on to the fact Weimann, Wells, Scott, Sykes & Pring all have a propensity to throw themselves over then  vigorously complain when not given the decision they've decided they deserve, or in Scott's case get penalised for the inevitable handball given as he's out to grab the ball even before hitting the deck.

Yes its cheating, yes other teams do it, but they do it better than us. Stop crying wolf and I think we'll start to get that we deserve.

[Bs4Red]

2 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Both incidents were pens from where I was sitting in The Dolman.

I'm fairly sure the reason they weren't given was only minutes earlier Wells (and others) spent ages berating the referee for two claimed infringements (one also inside the box,) that were nothing of the sort. Doesn't make it right but we make a rod for our own back. 

Officials have cottoned on to the fact Weimann, Wells, Scott, Sykes & Pring all have a propensity to throw themselves over then  vigorously complain when not given the decision they've decided they deserve, or in Scott's case get penalised for the inevitable handball given as he's out to grab the ball even before hitting the deck.

Yes its cheating, yes other teams do it, but they do it better than us. Stop crying wolf and I think we'll start to get that we deserve.

If he didn’t make contact with wells face it’s not a penalty. Other one, we’d have 10 a game.

[1960maaan]

For me, 2 Pens. The only thing I can say in defence of thee Ref is he may not have seen the massive tug on Well's shirt .
The other one is dangerous play, at the very least. If you can cancel out a goal for it (overhead kick etc) then you can give a Pen.

 

I couldn't get a good grab of the shirt pull, but it's pretty obvious. Can't see the Refs view which would be the only excuse.

 

 

[Bs4Red]

11 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

For me, 2 Pens. The only thing I can say in defence of thee Ref is he may not have seen the massive tug on Well's shirt .
The other one is dangerous play, at the very least. If you can cancel out a goal for it (overhead kick etc) then you can give a Pen.

 

I couldn't get a good grab of the shirt pull, but it's pretty obvious. Can't see the Refs view which would be the only excuse.

 

 

Again. If he didn’t make contact with Nakhi it’s not a penalty. Learn the rules

[Lack of Action Man]

My feeling is that we just do not get into the box anywhere near enough via a direct (or slight diagonal) run to be in with a penalty shout. Most of our box entries (Christ, I’m starting to sound like LJ) come as a result from crosses or opportunistic balls, but often not from incisively working our way beyond the last man (or into the danger area).

 

 

[MarcusX]

3 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

 

I think this was a foul by Wells first, or at worst 50/50. He runs into the defender, then there’s a shirt pull but then Wells throws himself to the ground.

the first one for high foot was stone wall for me though

[Wrongagain]

9 minutes ago, Bs4Red said:

Again. If he didn’t make contact with Nakhi it’s not a penalty. Learn the rules

? Then how come cards get handed out all over the pitch for tug backs?

[Bs4Red]

1 minute ago, Wrongagain said:

? Then how come cards get handed out all over the pitch for tug backs?

Because there is contact. It’s a crap rule. But that’s how it is. 

[MarcusX]

42 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

Talking of pens

I see James Tavernier scored his 47th !!!! pen for Rangers today

Thats  47 in 250 odd games over 7 seasons

Big clubs with big crowds get more pens Simple Refs bottle it

Were more, less or the same number of penalties given during the covid seasons?

Also as an aside, why are so many people referring to the shirt pull as the first and the high foot as the second? Unless I’m losing the plot the high foot definitely happened first?

[BTRFTG]

19 minutes ago, Bs4Red said:

If he didn’t make contact with wells face it’s not a penalty. Other one, we’d have 10 a game.

They're Laws, not rules. The difference is important.

When considering careless or reckless behaviour (in this case one might debate which it is but it's certainly one or the other given the unnatural position of the foot and the lack of control in the challenge,) Law 12 requires no contact to be made, only intention to be there.

Only should the official have considered Wells to have been impeded in the challenge, altering his position to avoid injury, would this not have been a penalty, though in such case Law 12 requires the award of an indirect free kick.

[italian dave]

35 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

For me, 2 Pens. The only thing I can say in defence of thee Ref is he may not have seen the massive tug on Well's shirt .
The other one is dangerous play, at the very least. If you can cancel out a goal for it (overhead kick etc) then you can give a Pen.

 

I couldn't get a good grab of the shirt pull, but it's pretty obvious. Can't see the Refs view which would be the only excuse.

 

 

The shirt pull. We have the advantage of replays, freeze frames, both of which we can study again and again. The referee had none of that. And even then it’s not that clear that it was in the penalty area. 

12 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Were more, less or the same number of penalties given during the covid seasons?

Also as an aside, why are so many people referring to the shirt pull as the first and the high foot as the second? Unless I’m losing the plot the high foot definitely happened first?

I think because that’s the order in which videos of the two incidents were posted earlier in the thread. 

[MarcusX]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

They're Laws, not rules. The difference is important.

When considering careless or reckless behaviour (in this case one might debate which it is but it's certainly one or the other given the unnatural position of the foot and the lack of control in the challenge,) Law 12 requires no contact to be made, only intention to be there.

Only should the official have considered Wells to have been impeded in the challenge, altering his position to avoid injury, would this not have been a penalty, though in such case Law 12 requires the award of an indirect free kick.

It’s a direct free kick if the offender intends to make contact, eg if a player runs past you and you try and trip them but miss and don’t make contact it could still be a foul.

I thought contact was made though as Wells was holding his head? Could have been trying it on though?

One thing it shouldn’t have been is just “play on”.

@italian davethat makes sense!

[steviestevieneville]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

I think this was a foul by Wells first, or at worst 50/50. He runs into the defender, then there’s a shirt pull but then Wells throws himself to the ground.

the first one for high foot was stone wall for me though

Good to see we’re not all city blinkered but , live at the game I’m 100% it was a pen . 

[ExiledAjax]

10 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

As I said in the matchday thread, the laws are so clear on the high kick. These are the pertinent sections of the Laws that show it's a clear penalty offence. As stonewall as scything someone down when one on one.

It's clearly reckless, or at the very least careless to raise your studs with power, to head height so near to an opponent's head.

Law 12

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• jumps at Yes
• kicks or attempts to kick Yes
• tackles or challenges Maybe
• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed Yes
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned Yes. So yellow card as well.

Law 14

A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.

And for the shirt pull see Law 12 again which also demands a direct free-kick for holding an opponent or impeding an opponent with contact where it's careless, reckless, or with excessive force - that shirt pull is clearly impeding Wells and it's excessive force imo.

Law 14 then applies as above.

Both are penalties by the letter of the law.

I look forward to us adding two shiny new apology letters to our Big Wall of Apology Letters.

@Bs4Red the relevant parts of the Laws are as above, which I posted earlier. @BTRFTG has ably summarised them as well.

There's no requirement for contact in the Laws and an attempt to kick an opponent is just as serious as actually kicking them. This results in a direct free kick, and if it occurs in the box then it's a penalty.

The high kick is a stonewall, definite penalty.

The shirt pull I accept there's more debate over, but in my opinion on a strict reading of the Laws it is also a penalty.

[cidercity1987]

At least nice City have managed to include the penalty shouts in the highlights this time, unlike usual.

The shirt pull isn't a blatent pen for me, the high foot more so a pen but there seems to be an unwritten rule that defenders can do what they want when the attacker is shooting.

 

[1960maaan]

9 hours ago, Bs4Red said:

Again. If he didn’t make contact with Nakhi it’s not a penalty. Learn the rules

What like these *rules ? 
From 

What constitutes a dangerous play in soccer?

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

*******

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

* Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

* Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

 

In your 'rules' are you allowed to throw a punch, but you only get sent off if you connect ? And Nakhi has to lose an an before you get a free kick. I've seen plenty of free kicks where no contact is made and fouls given, and a fair few goals chalked off for dangerous play from an overhead kick

 

*laws 

Edited November 13, 2022 by 1960maaan

[italian dave]

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

What like these *rules ? 
From 

What constitutes a dangerous play in soccer?

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

*******

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

* Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

* Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

 

In your 'rules' are you allowed to throw a punch, but you only get sent off if you connect ? And Nakhi has to lose an an before you get a free kick. I've seen plenty of free kicks where no contact is made and fouls given, and a fair few goals chalked off for dangerous play from an overhead kick

 

*laws 

You may be right about the laws, but that’s rarely how they’re interpreted. ‘Making contact’ is often seen, rightly or wrongly, as what determines the outcome. How many times do you hear comments like ‘lucky he didn’t make contact’ whether it’s about a tackle, punch (or hands generally outstretched towards an opponent) or squaring up and moving the head. 

Against Sheff U there was a ‘tackle’ on Semenyo no more than 5 minutes before Tanner’s sending off offence that was every bit as reckless as Tanner’s but went entirely unpunished because their player was deemed to have got the ball first. 

[Super]

10 hours ago, Maltshoveller said:

Talking of pens

I see James Tavernier scored his 47th !!!! pen for Rangers today

Thats  47 in 250 odd games over 7 seasons

Big clubs with big crowds get more pens Simple Refs bottle it

Surely that's a case of one of the best teams in a pretty poor league.

[1960maaan]

15 minutes ago, italian dave said:

You may be right about the laws, but that’s rarely how they’re interpreted. ‘Making contact’ is often seen, rightly or wrongly, as what determines the outcome. How many times do you hear comments like ‘lucky he didn’t make contact’ whether it’s about a tackle, punch (or hands generally outstretched towards an opponent) or squaring up and moving the head. 

Against Sheff U there was a ‘tackle’ on Semenyo no more than 5 minutes before Tanner’s sending off offence that was every bit as reckless as Tanner’s but went entirely unpunished because their player was deemed to have got the ball first. 

You're absolutely right, but it's still an offence. I think contact usually makes it worse. That challenge on Williams was a shocker , but another indication of how bad Refs can be. That "lucky he didn’t make contact’ comment ha been used to point out that an attempted "challenge" could have been a leg breaker, 
If the guys makes contact , it's potentially very serious. Face/eyes Vs studs is never going to end well. At least the Ref was consistent , he didn't give a similar decision on the Dolman touchline, can't remember who the City player was but he had to pull his head away from a high boot. It is reckless and dangerous play.
I think they were both 100% Pens, though I can see how the two people there to stop these things missed it. We don't seem to get the 70/30 shouts, let alone the 50/50 ones.

[Son of Fred]

A good debate chewing over our "little problem"..differences of opinion as always - although something I think we all agree on is at least one of the shouts from yesterday has to be given??....

Who needs penalties anyway

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

‘Making contact’ is often seen, rightly or wrongly, as what determines the outcome. How many times do you hear comments like ‘lucky he didn’t make contact’ whether it’s about a tackle, punch (or hands generally outstretched towards an opponent) or squaring up and moving the head. 

The problem is that contact does create a direct free kick offence, but it's not a requirement for one.

People focus on contact or no contact as that's easier, but you don't have to have contact. IIRC we saw that with the Hull penalty against us back in August. Contact was minimal, but it was seen as a careless/reckless attempt to trip the Hull player, and so it was a penalty.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a quick look at some records.

Are we talking League only or all competitive games? Read online that Galway went 72 without, dunno if just League or Cups etc too.

Anyway Port Vale went maybe 59 League games without one from late April 2021 to late September, mid October 2022...73 in all competitions!

Then proceeded to get 2 in a game and 3 in the next 8 League games overall.

League games wise it's 50 so far, 54 in all competitions. Fairly sure Burnley went sometime without one too but not able to find more detail on that one.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Think will also restart the shots taken to penalties awarded data at some stage ..suspect we are a massive outlier.

[Olé]

Building on my last bit of penalty geekery on OTIB: 

 

Of the 108 teams to have played since the start of LAST season in either the EFL Championship or one of Europe's big 5 leagues, City are the 11th most fouled, have had 30th most touches in opposition boxes, but rank dead last for penalties awarded.

 

 

[ExiledAjax]

11 minutes ago, Olé said:

Building on my last bit of penalty geekery on OTIB: 

 

Of the 108 teams to have played since the start of LAST season in either the EFL Championship or one of Europe's big 5 leagues, City are the 11th most fouled, have had 30th most touches in opposition boxes, but rank dead last for penalties awarded.

 

This is more like what we need to show an oddity. It's a shame we don't have similar data for previous teams that have gone as long as we have without a penalty. There are a few, we're getting near, but are not quite at, recors breaking levels of scarcity.

I cannot subscribe to any kind of refereeing conspiracy, and I do believe it is just a very unusual sequence of very bad or unlucky refereeing decisions, but it is undoubtedly in the realm of the ridiculous now, and I do think the Club and Pearson/Gould should be publicly calling it out. Fines be damned.

[Cowshed]

17 hours ago, Harry said:

I think we’re never going to get a penalty again. 
We need to start influencing these referees. They’re probably not aware that we haven’t had one since 1947. 
We need to laminate this photo and stick it on all 4 walls of the officials changing room. We should also have Jason Euell have a laminated copy and show it to the 4th official every time we have a shout turned down. 
They need to know. 
This pic was based on stats in August. I’m sure our line is off the chart now…..

 

 

 

Focus on behaviours that make success more likely. Don’t wee yourself about it (penalties)  Back to focus on behaviours that make success more likely those controllables of possession, chance creation versus the uncontrollables e.g. refs who are not out to get Bristol City. 

 

[Chivs]

13 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

They're Laws, not rules. The difference is important.

When considering careless or reckless behaviour (in this case one might debate which it is but it's certainly one or the other given the unnatural position of the foot and the lack of control in the challenge,) Law 12 requires no contact to be made, only intention to be there.

Only should the official have considered Wells to have been impeded in the challenge, altering his position to avoid injury, would this not have been a penalty, though in such case Law 12 requires the award of an indirect free kick.

I appreciate these clarifications. Must be hard on the refs, who presumably know the rules, hearing the crowd baying who likely don't. Having said that, could this be an opportunity to influence refs? When Wells is kicked, the club puts the relevant laws on the screen whilst the announcer says "<cough>on the screen ref. </cough>"

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is more like what we need to show an oddity. It's a shame we don't have similar data for previous teams that have gone as long as we have without a penalty. There are a few, we're getting near, but are not quite at, recors breaking levels of scarcity.

I cannot subscribe to any kind of refereeing conspiracy, and I do believe it is just a very unusual sequence of very bad or unlucky refereeing decisions, but it is undoubtedly in the realm of the ridiculous now, and I do think the Club and Pearson/Gould should be publicly calling it out. Fines be damned.

Nice work, thanks.

Another factor occurs to me, though not one amenable to statistical analysis.

PGMOL have said this season that contact does not necessarily mean a foul (fair enough, it cuts out the "he felt contact so he was entitled to go down" nonsense ex-players spout) and that contact has to have consequences (also fair enough on the surface).

As usual though they have added another term that is open to a wide range of interpretations. How exactly do you define consequences? 

If there is a foul but a player struggles to stay on his feet and have a shot that goes wide are there therefore no consequences despite the fact that he would have had a better opportunity without the foul?

Or, topically, if a high boot catches a player in the face are there no consequences if he wasn't about to head at goal when he was kicked?

Has the inclusion of consequences in the guidance in fact given referees a get out of jail free card so to speak?