The "he got a touch on the ball" argument

[Martinez]

Been going over this since yesterday after a lot of pundits saying that our penalty was "harshly given" against Williamson since he seemed to get a touch on the ball. Obviously, a clear penalty to me, blue tinted specs never come off, but what does the rules actually say?

Let's say Williamson actually got a touch on the ball before clipping Tevez, should it then automatically not be given, even if he just nudges the ball in the same direction as the player he has brought down? I mean if he had touched the ball like he did and not touched Tevez at all, Carlos would still have a decent one on one with the keeper, since the touch was not enough to put the ball out of play.

I have seen penalties and free-kicks not been given in similar circumstances, with the same argument, which seems a real generalization

Can Anyone with refereeing experience and/or extra rulebook knowledge clearify, am I just misinterpreting?

[ruralblue]

Fuck it we got the points nothing can change that. Was it wasn't it bla bla fucking bla I for one ain't going to waste my life scrutinising it. If lady luck played a little part then so be it, many many times have things not gone for us. Until the pen we were far the better side passing, movement and pushing forward. For some reason after we just took our foot off the gas and let them come at us, end result a deserved goal for them. Second half we played much much better and Johno's goal got us where we now are 2nd.

[ashton287]

If it was berbatov they would be saying "At the end of the day he took the player, and it was an akward challenge in the box". Fuck them we got the penalty and we got the points. Nothing they can do about it but bitch like girls.

[CityFanFromRome]

I've watched it quite a few times and imho he doesn't even touch the ball, Tevez covers it with his foot, and the way I see it Williamson only got Tevez's foot with his tackle.

[john@staustell]

We've been denied clear penalties more than once this season, so what goes around etc...

[london blue 2]

Imo even if he touches the ball, he had to come through the back of the player (illegal challenge) to do so - therefore a foul!

Was outside the box though...

[Slim]

Imo even if he touches the ball, he had to come through the back of the player (illegal challenge) to do so - therefore a foul!

Was outside the box though...

That's the way I saw it, cept it was a penalty....cause we are due.

[london blue 2]

Imo even if he touches the ball, he had to come through the back of the player (illegal challenge) to do so - therefore a foul!

Was outside the box though...

That's the way I saw it, cept it was a penalty....cause we are due.

Amazes me that these so called experts dont know the fucking rules. A tackle from behind is a tackle from behind whether its in the box or in the centre circle. If it's an illegal challenge then it's a foul.

[Slim]

Imo even if he touches the ball, he had to come through the back of the player (illegal challenge) to do so - therefore a foul!

Was outside the box though...

That's the way I saw it, cept it was a penalty....cause we are due.

Amazes me that these so called experts dont know the fucking rules. A tackle from behind is a tackle from behind whether its in the box or in the centre circle. If it's an illegal challenge then it's a foul.

In truth I have seen them given and not, in fact in the Chelsea-Arsenal game later on there was a very similar incident, can't remember who was involved, but it wasn't given and again the tackler went through the player to get the ball.

[TheGOAT]

The tackle starts outside the area but he actually takes the player out well inside the box. It's a clear penalty! The only thing that is questionable is why the fuck was he not shown a red card!? Not a single word has been said about this!! How can the referee explain the yellow card, its as clear a goal scoring opportunity as your going to get!

[GavinSE1]

So, generally speaking, what is the rule regarding tackles in which the defender gets a touch on the ball? The Laws of the Game don't seem to contain this information, and the examples in FIFA's Q&A regarding the laws do not cover this situation.

Are referees given guidance on how to interpret the laws that clarify when a foul has been committed?

[xavi6]

Typical inconsistency really.

For me the foul was outside the box, though we all saw what happened Micah when a peno was given against him last season for a foul that started outside.

Williamson took down Tevez as the last man and should have been sent off. If you ive a foul then you have to give the red.

[Renato_CTID]

A clear penalty for us and Williamson could even be sent off indeed!

[BobbyJ1956]

As they say, the luck in such things evens out over a season and there will be more to come on both sides, some decisions will go against City causing howls of outrage and some will go City's way. As for Atkinson, people were calling him a biased rag when he was announced as ref but he made the key decisions that gave City all 3 points.

[Beefymcfc]

The truth is that if this was any other club it would be classed as a clear penalty. Tevez was in control of the ball with a clear goal scoring opportunity when even if Williamson got the ball, he took out the player who would've been able to run onto the ball and carry on with that goal scoring opportunity; the fact that it started outside the box makes no consequence as the challenge actually brought Tevez down in the box so therefore a penalty (and should have been a Red card). This was the outcome from a similar thing last year and one of the ref's explained the reason why.

Back to the any other club business, if this was a few years ago then not much would've been said, and not too much about the de Jong tackle, but now things have changed. The media will now jump on any incident that they can and make sure that the maximum negative exposure is achieved. None of them want us to succeed in any way and it's a bonus for them to have things like this happen to try and bring the club down.

It's strange to think that Sky Sports very own 'Live Commentary' contain the total opposite from what they are saying now:

Live Commentary:

6 The crowd give Ben Arfa a standing ovation as he leaves the field on a stretcher. He waves back to acknowledge their support and hopefully he'll make a swift recovery.

5 Replays suggest the tackle was very firm but it did seem fair as he played the ball. But it's not looking good for Ben Arfa. He's now receiving oxygen as he's being lifted onto the stretcher.

4 The Frenchman is staying down and the stretcher has been called. This could be serious.

3 Hatem Ben Arfa goes to ground after a crunching challenge from Nigel De Jong. It wasn't deemed a foul but moments later Martin Atkinson blows his whistle after Milner is upended by Cheik Tiote.

[BlueinBosnia]

The truth is that if this was any other club it would be classed as a clear penalty. Tevez was in control of the ball with a clear goal scoring opportunity when even if Williamson got the ball, he took out the player who would've been able to run onto the ball and carry on with that goal scoring opportunity; the fact that it started outside the box makes no consequence as the challenge actually brought Tevez down in the box so therefore a penalty.

So if a defender pulls a player's shirt outside the box, and the attacker goes down after the contact (ie foul) began inside the box, a penalty should be awarded?

If a foul is commited, it's where the first touch, which initiated the foul, occured.

Harsh decision for Newcastle in my opinion. Penalty or not, 5 years ago that call wouldn't have gone our way, I'm pretty certain of that.

[GavinSE1]

So if a defender pulls a player's shirt outside the box, and the attacker goes down after the contact (ie foul) began inside the box, a penalty should be awarded?

If a foul is commited, it's where the first touch, which initiated the foul, occured.

From FIFA's Laws of the Game Q&A 2006:

Q: A defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area but finishes inside the penalty area. What action should the referee take?

A: He would award a penalty kick.

I am assuming that this is still the rule today.

[BlueinBosnia]

So if a defender pulls a player's shirt outside the box, and the attacker goes down after the contact (ie foul) began inside the box, a penalty should be awarded?

If a foul is commited, it's where the first touch, which initiated the foul, occured.

From FIFA's Laws of the Game Q&A 2006:

Q: A defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area but finishes inside the penalty area. What action should the referee take?

A: He would award a penalty kick.

I am assuming that this is still the rule today.

I stand corrected.

I am honestly amazed. I never thought that was the way the rule worked, and have never seen it interpreted that way, either by a referee (with the exception of what I thought were 'dodgy decisions'), or by a commentator.

[mr_nool]

So if a defender pulls a player's shirt outside the box, and the attacker goes down after the contact (ie foul) began inside the box, a penalty should be awarded?

If a foul is commited, it's where the first touch, which initiated the foul, occured.

From FIFA's Laws of the Game Q&A 2006:

Q: A defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area but finishes inside the penalty area. What action should the referee take?

A: He would award a penalty kick.

I am assuming that this is still the rule today.

I stand corrected.

I am honestly amazed. I never thought that was the way the rule worked, and have never seen it interpreted that way, either by a referee (with the exception of what I thought were 'dodgy decisions'), or by a commentator.

Richards last year against whoever was a prime example. He grabbed the shirt of the opponent a good 2 yards outside the penalty box.

[The Man In Blue]

or by a commentator.

come on, you don't expect people who get paid lots of money to talk about a subject on national television to actually be up to speed on the rules/regulations of said subject do you?