All Royal’s supporters were understandably thrilled by Reading’s victory over Liverpool last weekend. Their first win against one of the ‘big four’ in the Premiership since they won promotion, and Liverpool’s first defeat in the league this season made it all the sweeter. There was just one just one little nagging doubt, was Reading's first goal really a penalty?
The continual replays on BBC’s
Match of the Day in the evening showed that Bobby Convey laid on a pass for Brynjar Gunnarsson to run
on to from midfield, taking him across the edge of the Liverpool penalty area. The ex-England defender, Jamie Carragher charged up behind him, clearly bringing Gunnarsson down. The referee pointed to the penalty mark but, after complaints from the Liverpool players that the offence was outside the penalty area, he consulted with this assistant referee and confirmed that it was a penalty.
Match of the Day spent some time on this, showing the tackle from a number of angles, with finally the view that the assistant referee must have had. This illustrated that when
Gunnarsson was hit by Carragher, he had one foot on the line marking the penalty area. Someone in the studio must have had a quick look at the Laws of the Game for the pundits pointed out that the Law says ‘The lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries’. This means that
Gunnarsson was inside the area when he was hit.
This part of Law 1, The Field of Play, applies to all lines including the goal line and touch line. This is one of the reasons that the footballing authorities have so far failed to come up with a workable technical system that can tell when the ball has passed into the goal. Because the goal line is part of the field of play and the whole of the ball must cross it, it has proved difficult for a sensor to get it right.
So all Royal’s supporters can rest assured that the goal was ‘legitimate’.
Or can they? Mick Dennis giving his report of the match in Monday’s
Daily Express, thinks not. The relevant law (Law 14) he says points out that, ‘A penalty is awarded when a player commits an offence inside his own penalty area’. In other words, as he interprets this, it was Carragher’s position and where he committed the foul that mattered, ‘not whether or not, Gunnarsson had a toe in the area’.
I think it difficult for most people to comprehend how a foul committed on someone in the area could be done by someone outside the area. But leaving that aside, there is one other point to consider. I know that Mick Dennis is a registered referee, officiating I believe on his local youth league on a Sunday morning. Therefore I am sure that he has purchased this year’s version of the Laws of Association Football (LOAF), although I know not all referees have.
The reason this is relevant is that it contains a separate ‘Additional instructions for referees, assistant referees and fourth officials’ which has not appeared before. Who has made up these instructions is unclear, whether it is the FA, FIFA or the International FA Board. However, they are still binding on referees. On page
92 it says that ‘if a defender starts to hold an attacker outside the penalty area but continues holding him inside the area, the referee shall award a penalty kick’.
This doesn’t mean if a defender trips an opponent outside the area and he falls inside, it would be a penalty. However by the logic that a foul continuing inside the area should be so penalised, surely this would include tackles like Carragher’s where after his initial contact he finished up on top of the Reading player well inside the area.
I think justice was done.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2007