Let me ask the Refs or potential Refs on the site a question

[Tilla]

Should Liverpool have been awarded a penalty for the challenge on Suarez in the box by Samuel Eto'o? Eto'o did foul the man in the box, but at the point in time when it happened, Azpilicueta had the ball under control and was heading out of the box with Suarez and Eto'o behind him.

If Suarez was on the ball and on a goal score opportunity, I would have no problem if the referee allowed a penalty. The fact of the matter though is that the play occurred off the ball when Suarez did not have control of the ball to influence the game. How could the referee award a penalty like that?

[Peter R]

What do the laws say with respect to committing a foul? Does it have anything to do with who has the ball...

[Tilla]

Here is what the FIFA Laws of The Game have to say:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows:
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, based on the above, it is possible the play could have been considered a penalty, if you are going straight by the law.

One thing to note though, the rule qualifies it by saying "if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force".

So if the referee did not consider it reckless and use of excessive force, although it occurred in the box then it is not a penalty.

[Peter R]

Here is what the FIFA Laws of The Game have to say:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows:
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, based on the above, it is possible the play could have been considered a penalty, if you are going straight by the law.

One thing to note though, the rule qualifies it by saying "if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force".

So if the referee did not consider it reckless and use of excessive force, although it occurred in the box then it is not a penalty.

So the bolded answers my question. Whether or not the person fouled is attacking the goal with the ball has no bearing on the awarding a penalty but that consequence (penalty) is based on the commission of any one of the ten infractions outlined.

A ref going by the strict letter of the law could have awarded a penalty, but common sense must also prevail. Based on your description of the "foul" on Suarez, it is hardly likely to be awarded unless the ref is inexperienced and feels the need to show he knows the laws.

Not having seen the incident it is impossible for me to conclusively give an opinion, but it is an interesting football point for the budding refs out there. to say what I would have done as ref.

[Karl]

Should Liverpool have been awarded a penalty for the challenge on Suarez in the box by Samuel Eto'o? Eto'o did foul the man in the box, but at the point in time when it happened, Azpilicueta had the ball under control and was heading out of the box with Suarez and Eto'o behind him.

If Suarez was on the ball and on a goal score opportunity, I would have no problem if the referee allowed a penalty. The fact of the matter though is that the play occurred off the ball when Suarez did not have control of the ball to influence the game. How could the referee award a penalty like that?

Fouls can be committed whether or not the ball is in play.
So my question is, was the ball in play?

If it was and the offense referenced occurred in the Penalty-Area and falls under those outlined as per Law 12...then Penalty should have been the call.

There is no commonsense to apply after a determination has been made that "the Law" as per "Fouls and Misconduct" was flouted. The ref's only recourse is to enforce the mandated punishment i.e. awarding of a Penalty!

Ref's are human and unfortunately referees' errors do occur. Having said the foregoing the following

The fact of the matter though is that the play occurred off the ball when Suarez did not have control of the ball to influence the play.

does not give reason or cause to not award a penalty.

[Tilla]

But the rules allow the referee to use his discretion on whether to award a penalty or not. Yes, for some straight jacket referees, yes they would call it.

[Karl]

But the rules allow the referee to use his discretion on whether to award a penalty or not. Yes, for some straight jacket referees, yes they would call it.

Nope! ...no discretion there. The ref either saw an infringement or did not see one.

You may think it was a foul but the ref does not see it that way!
...plus there is always the possibility that the ref may not have seen the incident.

[Paul Marin]

Nope! ...no discretion there. The ref either saw an infringement or did not see one.

You may think it was a foul but the ref does not see it that way!
...plus there is always the possibility that the ref may not have seen the incident.

There is NO CHANCE Webb didn't see the infraction. It was a penalty plain and simple, only he knows why he didn't give it.

[Karl]

There is NO CHANCE Webb didn't see the infraction. It was a penalty plain and simple, only he knows why he didn't give it.

I do not know exactly what occurred and when...but he could have seen the incident and thought it an inadvertent one. An incident that was not careless or reckless or use of excessive force or holding an opponent or of spitting at an opponent or handling the ball deliberately?

Aside: Just giving reasons why a penalty may have not been awarded.

[Tilla]

Nope! ...no discretion there. The ref either saw an infringement or did not see one.

You may think it was a foul but the ref does not see it that way!
...plus there is always the possibility that the ref may not have seen the incident.

As I said, the Laws of The Game says the referee has the right to decide. . .

but he could have seen the incident and thought it an inadvertent one. An incident that was not careless or reckless or use of excessive force or holding an opponent or of spitting at an opponent or handling the ball deliberately?

Isn't that the use of his discretion there Karl? I mean, he sees what could be considered a foul, but the Laws Of The Game also give him that right to call it or not. If he did not see it as dangerous, it was not reckless etc, etc, then he decides. Those things are not written out for the referee, so he has to use his judgment on whether it was a foul or not.

I think Suarez's penchant for conning refs is catching up with him. Too may times he goes down and win penalties and replay shows that he was not or was barely touched. Referees will want to make sure before awarding him anything.

[Tilla]

There is NO CHANCE Webb didn't see the infraction. It was a penalty plain and simple, only he knows why he didn't give it.

I would not expect any other response from you. So what about the none call when Hazard was brought down in the box and it was not called?

[Paul Marin]

I would not expect any other response from you. So what about the none call when Hazard was brought down in the box and it was not called?

Expect what you want, but don't shoot the messenger. Hazard dived (should have gotten a yellow imo) and Eto'o practically mauled Suarez. I don't know what commentary you listened to, but the commentary I listened to was straight from Sky and none other than Liverpool's hater and old foe Gary Neville saw both incidents my way (except for the yellow). Which pundits you know who see it your way?

[Paul Marin]

As I said, the Laws of The Game says the referee has the right to decide. . .

Isn't that the use of his discretion there Karl? I mean, he sees what could be considered a foul, but the Laws Of The Game also give him that right to call it or not. If he did not see it as dangerous, it was not reckless etc, etc, then he decides. Those things are not written out for the referee, so he has to use his judgment on whether it was a foul or not.

I think Suarez's penchant for conning refs is catching up with him. Too may times he goes down and win penalties and replay shows that he was not or was barely touched. Referees will want to make sure before awarding him anything.

Tilla, how long you been watching football? Is only now you know that refs are 100% judge, jury and executioner? As for Suarez's reputation, when is the last time you've seen him dive? And even if he were diving every day, Eto'o's foul was blatant...no genius needed to figure that out; Webb just messed up, as he does every time he refs a Liverpool game.

[Bricktop]

So the ref should have called Skrtel for a penalty on the 3 occasions he was holding Kompany's jersey in the Liverpool City game?

[Paul Marin]

So the ref should have called Skrtel for a penalty on the 3 occasions he was holding Kompany's jersey in the Liverpool City game?

Absolutely! Those were blatant. I would rather lose 6-0 fairly than win 1-0 by tiefin.