Penalty only for a near certain goal?

[pb4]

This is an important rule interpretation question, because it could easily affect the result of a game.

Rule 41.1.1 says: A goal-penalty-shot will be awarded for any deliberate and/or dangerous offence in the 6 metre area where a player is fouled in the act of shooting, or passing, or positioning for a near certain goal.

I think it means a penalty should be awarded for
- a dangerous or deliberate foul during a shot
- or any foul that stops a near certain goal

Others think the 'near certain goal' part also applies to shooting - the wording of the rule certainly implies this. So if an attacker is fouled while shooting, he only gets a penalty if there is no goalkeeper - which is extremely rare.

If the second interpretation were right, it would surely be a step backwards and encourage more deliberate fouls.

[Mareese]

This has come up with us too in the past and some clarification is definitely required.

Our question arose when a player on a breakaway (no goalie) was shooting from about 8m out and was fouled from behind by a defender - the ball was knocked out of his hand by the defender's paddle when it was behind the shooter's head.

For this shooter it was a near certain goal and in my opinion a penalty. But is was outside the 6m area and therefore according to the rules, is this a legitimate call?

You also have the situation when someone is fouled within 6m area when taking a very tight angled shot through 2 paddles for example. That is by no means a "near certain goal" so does it deserve a penalty?

[Raymond Liow]

Hi there!

IMO, a goal penalty shot (gps) should be awarded for a dangerous or deliberate foul regardless if the shot was a 'near certain goal' or not.

Regarding the issue of whether a gps should be awarded for the described fouls IN the 6m zone, perhaps we can take a look at 41.1.2 as follows.

41.1.2. A goal-penalty-shot can be awarded for an offence where a player, outside the 6 metre area, is fouled in the act of shooting or passing or positioning for a near certain goal, whilst the goal is not otherwise defended if no attempt is made to avoid illegal play (deliberate) AND/OR {an offence where paddle contact with the ball in the opponents hand or any illegal play that endangers the opposition occurs (dangerous).}

I reckon that the latter part of the clause (as denoted by the curly brackets) is independent on the former. That is to say, the goal need not have been undefended in order for a gps to be awarded for a dangerous foul outside of the 6m zone.

[pb4]

Good points, thanks. I hadn't really thought about the difference between dangerous and non-dangerous fouls.

I'd like to adjust the core of my question to: Should a gps be awarded for ANY foul commited during the act of shooting [within the 6M area]? - i.e. regardless of the severity of the foul or the likelihood of the shot acheiving a goal.

Dangerous, deliberate fouls should separatly be sanctioned with a yellow card.

[Mark]

A GPS should be given if either a shot is being taken and the player is fouled thus not able to shoot as they intended or if a pass is being made within the 6m to another player that will lead to a near certain goal. or if a player is attempting to gain a position within the 6m area that will lead to a near certain goal( for instance if a breaking player onto an undefended goal is ilegaly tackled or held and the attacker would have otherwise scored) a GPS should be awarded. see Rule 41.1.1

Additionaly however a GPS may be awarded at any time regardless of where the ball is, see 41.1.2. The attacking player can be anywhere on the pitch attempting to shoot or pass or position for a near certain goal, whilst the goal is not otherwise defended if no attempt is made to avoid illegal play (deliberate) AND/OR {an offence where paddle contact with the ball in the opponents hand or any illegal play that endangers the opposition occurs (dangerous).}

The difference between these two sets of scenarios is simply that in the 1st case a GPS should be awarded whereas in the second a GPS can be awarded and it is more down to the referee's interpretation of the situation.

Hope this helps

[Raymond Liow]

Hi Mark and pb4!

I do not agree with Mark totally.

Even if fouls were made for all the examples in the 1st case you brought up, but they all lack the essential elements of 'deliberation and danger', only direct shots should be awarded. Otherwise, the game will be stopped with gps being made every 2 mins! :)

That's the whole purpose of a direct shot anyway. It's to qualify the fouled-upon player another chance that he was denied, with defenders et al, and not granting him the special status of attempting a shot at an open goal without any opposition.

A gps is something of a greater severity and should rightfully be awarded ONLY IF the foul was DELIBERATE AND/OR DANGEROUS. That's the key to the whole issue here.

But I'm on your side regarding the 2nd case, Mark.

[Raymond Liow]

Oh sorry, left out some things.

It'll seem ironical if a yellow card was not awarded if a gps was. Hence, pb4, yes, a yellow card should be awarded if a gps is. However, it doesn't mean that every yellow card will be accompanied with a gps.

I've pondered upon the notion of the above being a double penalty, ie a card to the fouler and a gps to fouled. However, I've rest my own case by concluding that the card is awarded TO THE FOULER and the gps TO THE FOULED. Absolutely no connection whatsoever.

Just 2 cents for those who have wondered the same thing as me... :)