In The Scapegoat, I had mentioned that the referee gives(or not) a freekick based on what he sees. In To be or not to be... I had debated that a foul had to be a significant foul to be given these days.
But there are some fouls in certain areas which the referee does see but thinks twice about calling it. Well, you might've guessed the "areas" I'm talking about is the penalty box. Some fouls in the penalty box are not given which would've otherwise been given had the fouls been outside the box.
I have heard many commentators say that the referee must be absolutely sure before calling for a foul in the penalty box. I have also heard them say that had that foul been outside the box, it would've been a freekick. I question these statements. Does this mean the referee need not be absolutely sure of fouls outside the penalty box? Or does the penalty box deserve a special kind of foul?
My question to you is this - Should fouls in the penalty box be treated any differently than fouls outside the box?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
ideally no.
but life isn't ideal. that's the reality. the human brain will always differentiate situations based on importance and act accordingly. you do it all the time, so does every one else. why should the refs be any different?
Importance? Come on... A foul's a foul. A standard has to be set. There is no rule stating the type of fouls which cannot be given as a penalty but can be given as a freekick.
Refs always say, they go by the rule book. Well, they should not assume what is not there in the rule book then...
please man. get real.
Why can't the ref's be instructed on this? Just lay down the law...
Post a Comment