Are Penalties Unfair?
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 1. 10. 2022
- Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: theathletic.com/tifofootball
đ Tifo's new book, "How to Watch Football" is now available to pre-order internationally: linktr.ee/tifobook
Penalties in the Premier League have a 78% chance of being scored. But not all attacking scenarios have the same high chance. Is this an unfair advantage to the attacking side? Should the rules be changed?
Jon Mackenzie looks at the stats to find out how and why penalties are overpowered. Illustrated by Marco Bevilacqua.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
The Athletic UK: bit.ly/TifoPodChannel
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/06QIGhq...
Watch more Tifo Football: Tactics Explained: âą Tactics Explained | Ti...
Finances & Laws: âą Finances & Laws | Tifo...
Tifo Football Podcast: âą Tifo Football Podcast
Most Recent Videos: âą Most Recent Videos | T...
1 Popular Videos: âą Popular Videos | Tifo ...
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know thereâs an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the gameâs leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
Music sourced from epidemicsound.com
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
#Penalties - Sport
To spice things up...The player that won the Penalty should have to take it.
What if they are injured?
@@CookieDee11 then anyone can take it. Same for handballs. Just do it like the nba, if your fouled you take the free throw, if itâs a team foul anyone can take it. Would mean penalties for strikers would be far more significant if it had to be them who was fouled to take the pen
@@CookieDee11 just add another rule "unless they're injured"
I aways said this should be the case imagine if the nba allowed Steph curry to take free throws every time Shaq got fouled
Itâs ridiculous that rule hasnât been implemented
@@sho7078 then you can just fake being injured and let the Pen Expert take it.
I think this analysis doesn't factor in the general impact of having penalties in the game. Defenders are more careful in the box and thus leaving the attackers more room for scoring. Also penalties add to the overall goals, and games often become more interesting after a side has scored. So penalties could be increasing the overall non-pen xG. Penalties affect the game in a deep way and removing them would have a domino effect and make the game more boring to watch. Quite a complex metagame problem. I think penalties are a healthy mechanic which could be spiced up a , tweaking the pen box a bit and maybe making so the one who earned the pen has to take it.
Very good point. I think the analysis doesn't factor in a couple of other things too btw.
I think this is correct. Although I do think cheap handball calls in the box are an issue. Too many times the ball just glances off someone's hand or arm that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, had little to no effect on the flight pf the ball and boom a pen is awarded. On the other hand if the ref red cards someone for fouling on an obvious goal scoring chance outside of the box, I would rather see the team be awarded a pen than a straight red on the offender. Perhaps one of those old MLS style penalties could be used here, since these almost always happen on a break away counter attack and the old MLS penalties essentially simulate that.
This a great point. Red cards are far more ridiculous a rule, and far more damaging to the entertainment value of the game than penalties.
@@lain2k3 Reds and yellows could easily be replaced by sin-bins, like in many other team sports.
@@TheRadPlayer Without yellow cand red cards, players would abuse fouls like Amber Heard abused Depp.
A subtle change I would like to see for in game penalties, is to treat them like a shoot out penalty. One shot, no rebounds and no encroachment. It feels imbalanced that the keeper potentially has to save multiple times, and has to deal with onrushing players. It should just be a one vs one, one attempt thing.
Good shout, that's always frustrated me
If you're american please remain silent
Agreed
@@780d4 You're Muslim lad. Stay quiet.
@@780d4 he isn't wrong lad
I think the ineffecient nature of football (in terms of scoring) makes this a legit question. A freethrow in basketball could be just as OP, but its impact on the outcome of the game is nowhere near the level of a penalty as scoring isn't a difficult task in the NBA. The punishment for fouls in the box (many of which are debatable soft fouls/questionable handball) is quite often significantly more severe than the actual foul deserves
A free throw in basketball is much less OP, objectively. Whereas here weâre seeing more than a double of xG by issuing a penalty, in basketball you have league wide true shooting of 57.8% compared to a free throw average of 81.6% (2021-22), thatâs much less distortionary especially when considering the true shooting percentage on fouled shots are likely higher (layups, frequently) than the overall average true shooting
@@samuelmason2703 That:s exactly what I meant. A penalty in itself is no different than a FT, but due to the inefficient scoring in football it is a significantly more severe punishment and a true game changer. Worse thing is, a lot of times the penalties are questionable fouls/unlucky handball
@@tatsuyasigh1906 apologies for misunderstanding your point there. A freekick from the spot of the foul would make it (relatively) proportional, if this is a system no one really complains about outside the box idk why we need to introduce this huge discontinuous jump in penalization at the point of the box instead of continuing with the rule that you take the kick from the spot of the foul. Otherwise, like with FTs a rule of winner-takes still runs into similar issues of gross overcorrection for fouls, but penalizes teams more (in most but not all cases) for tackling better scorers in dangerous situations.
@@samuelmason2703 Nah I really my original cmt was a bit vague. Maybe only award the penalty for fouls inside the 6-yard line. Anything in the penalty box but outside the 6 yard line should just be a freekick like you said
The foul is "foul" because it is an undesired consequence of not being able to make everyone play by the rules. It makes no sense to relieve the punishment when a team uses unfair play.
Question: given the fact that we(fans and Premier League clubs long time before us) have the knowledge of penalty being overpowered, are there any data to show that teams tend to commit fewer penalties than they did before? In my opinion, penalties are what the word suggest, penalties. They have been given in order to prevent the player to do it again, so it makes sense the price to be higher than the action itself.
*commit fewer
@@davidandrew7314 My bad, cheers.
Actually there is a lot more penalties overall
I agree, it should increase the likelihood of scoring. But, it my opinion, 78% is just too much. When you see the referee pointing towards the penalty mark, you almost know that it will be a goal, making it less interesting for the fans
@@hugoderrica6155 yeah i agree, a penalty should be a punishment but 78% is too high, when running penalties at 45% are still higher than most situations before the penalty, that seems more than enough
Benzema against osasuna 's goalkeeper would like to disagree
Yeah! Wanted to write here same!
Few and far between
3 misses in the same year đ
If penalties weren't overpowered, everyone would commit more and more fouls in penalty box and the game would die
just make it harder to give pens. No more weak contact fouls like it is now.
Sure, if a team commits a foul that leads to a penalty they should be worse off, but penalties don't need to be THIS overpowered to provide a disincentive. A running penalty with a 45% success rate is still a huge incentive, while being less distortionary.
The game is already dying with VAR, PSG, and Man City
@@xnlyxn9862 how? lol
@@xnlyxn9862 that's just subjective. What me and you might see as "weak", referees see things as the total opposite these days. Slightest touch and they give a penalty
I think indirect free kicks need to be utilised more
Exactly my thought. I would make things like non deliberate handballs as indirect free kicks. Although perhaps not indirect free kicks, just freekicks from inside the penalty box
In general I would not agree, but in certain situations like Victor point out, yes.
Accordingly, there needs to be harsher penalties for those who commit fouls oustide the box and greatly proffit on that by avoiding very likely goals.
What is the xG for an indirect free kick? From back pass rule violation for example.
@@RobbeSeolh I feel like they're so rare that it would be difficult to build up enough data for a reliable figure.
@@VictorMurp Yep, thats probably the case.
My stance would be the penalty kick is kicked from where the foul occurred, but unlike a free kick it has no barrier, this would apply to every penalty past the penalty spot, penalties closer to goal than the penalty spot would be taken at the normal penalty spot.
Yes that would be excellent
Similar to rugby and at least a bit more fair
awful rule
That sounds like a much fairer solution.
Not a bad idea. It sounds like a viable solution, at least on paper.
but imagine the foul was done very close or to the very left/right side of the net in the flock of bunch of players, it would be very awkward
They add some spice to the game. It gives hope to a weaker side, you can always dream and turn around a game. But yeah, completely overpowered.
I would still keep them though. The more goals the better. The only change I would do is to make the player who was faulted to be the one taking the penalty. Gives a bit of uncertainty and it would end with the inflated goal scores of some players, making them more representative of their talent.
i mean the whole point is that it is overpowered its like asking basketball to remove the free throw the whole point is it "penalises" the defending team
who to kick if there's a handball then
@@Ygshey yes, but in basketball the fouled player takes it so that it doesn't become too overpowered by the best free thrower always taking it
@@muhdpeep for handballs, it could be anyone
@@muhdpeep donât ask pertinent questions đ
Probably the last player to touch the ball, of the team taking the penalty of course.
Does expected goals take into account passes that the player might be about to make to someone in a better position, or is it just a measure of how likely that individual player is to score from their current position? Because obviously someone on the edge of the area might not be likely to score themselves, but if Haaland is steaming unmarked into the centre of the goal, then the chances of a goal being scored increases significantly.
Yeah, fouls for a penalty are more likely to happen when a team is looking dangerous and the defender is making a last ditch effort to stop them, so the xG underrates the expected goals of the actual chance at the moment the foul happened. Penalties are probs still overpowered, but the maths is gonna be complex than this.
Indeed.
I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but I find it baffling they are comparing XG from the position of the penalty tackle with the XG from shooting a penalty. This assumes every tackle made that resulted in a penalty was done to prevent an immediate shot, which is of course absurd.
So many times (most of the time?) a penalty awarding tackle is made on a player trying to dribble or rush into a higher XG area, and would have gone through if the illegal tackle hadn't been made.
Regardless, some solid points in this video I find hard to disagree with.
It does not take that into account as far as I know, so most of the claims in the video are flawed.
I agree with you.
We should be careful with statistics. They can keep important data undercovered
Nice analysis but you assumed that the position where the penalty was awarded would also have been the shooting position, while the attacking player might have been working the way towards a much higher scoring % position or assisting a better positioned teammate
Exactly!
Yeah, I mean a player might be running at a tight angle towards the goal, with a tiny xg, but have a simple pass to a team mate with a tap in. The actual chance of scoring from the situation is almost certainly much higher. Basing an argument almost solely on xg is pretty weak, as xg doesn't even take into account whether there's a goalkeeper present!
Great point
fr. First bad Tifo video I've seen
@@oddhampton Wouldn't say this makes it bad automatically. Most data analyses require such simplifying assumptions to get anything meaningful. I don't think their argument is wrong - just that the effect might not be as strong as they claim to be.
4:48 That actually came from ice hockey. The rule is that the striker must maintain forward movement. If he loses the ball, he cannot go backwards to retrieve the ball before going forward again.
They should adopt another rule from ice hockey. The player that wins the penalty must take it.
Perhaps a solution would be to bring the penalty spot out further to the edge of the box. That way you keep the basic traditions of the penalty kick but have simply increased the distance to goal. Not sure by how much it would solve the over powered issue but it would certainly create a fairer balance.
That's actually a great, easily-implemented potential balancer I hadn't heard mentioned in all previous conversations about penalty laws. But we should also hope for better refereeing, i.e. not calling a pen for contact that - anywhere else on the pitch - would likely not be a foul, and more frequently carding playacting.
Another possibility imo would be a tiered system of penalties - award the traditional penalty from the spot for delibarate fouls and denials of a clear scoring opportunity, and a "tier-two" penalty from the edge of the box for accidental fouls in situations where there isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity in the box.
If it's too far, then it'd be too difficult to score and be unfair to the attacking team.
The point of penalties isn't just to replicate the odds of scoring that existed before the foul. It's also to discourage fouling. If, when you're defending in the box, the penalty for fouling the attacker is no worse than the situation you're already in, there's no deterrent and you might as well take the risk of fouling them. If, on the other hand, the penalty is much worse than the situation you're in, it makes you much less likely to commit fouls.
One problem I have at the moment is that there are instances where a player can deliberately foul someone, say when the team is on the break, and accept a yellow card in return for preventing a potential goalscoring situation, knowing that the award of the free kick will give the defending team time to reorganise and avert the threat. I think those fouls should be straight red card offences, because otherwise there's just no real deterrent.
If we were to change the penalty rule so that penalties didn't significantly increase the chance of scoring, we'd be in a situation where defenders commit a lot more fouls in the box, just as we're currently in a situation where players commit a lot of fouls in midfield when the opposition is breaking.
I agree. But increasing the odds from 5-20% to 80% cause of a light contact foul seems very unfair. Maybe the running penalty is best. It increases the odds to 45% (over double) which gives an incentive to avoid fouling, but it also isn't very overpowered and deciding the game.
You are presenting some very interesting data with a good hypothesis and I would like to point out that the way you present your data assumes that every player awarded a penalty would have otherwise taken a shot from that exact spot, which is not likely.
E.g, every penalty awarded from a GK foul would have otherwise seen the player take a shot on an empty goal, where we must expect much higher xG than 30-60%.
In addition, avoiding a tackle in the penalty area gives you either a 1v1 against the keeper or the chance of playing a pass for an open goal shot. These very real and very relevant options are not accounted for if setting areas, where penalties are won against areas, from which shots taken have an x% chance of scoring a goal. And then there's handballs, too.
I would be very interested in the "cleaned up" data and would be looking forward to it if you were to dive further into the matter and publish a second video.
Kind regards.
2:12 whoâs giving a penalty nowhere near the penalty box
Maybe because of situations where a handball penalty is won directly from crosses / long shots?
Yeah whoâs giving a penalty form 30 yards out? Probably Anthony Taylor against Chelsea
After just watching the World Cup final where 3 penalties were awarded I wholly agree with this video.
Another thing that could potentially balance the odds of a penalty kick is letting the keeper move as soon as the whistle blows, and not obligating him to keep at least one of the feet in the line. This would probably increase considerably the chances of defending it for the goalkeeper
Itâs an easy fix. The objection here is well then the gk will rush forward mls style. It misunderstands gking. A rushing gk that is not set is unlikely to save anything. The only time a gk would rush forward is if the striker insists on taking a long run up to the ball so it would have a benefit of removing those long run ups from the game as well.
@@luthienyesinia1955 yeah, the GK obviously wouldn't run, but giving a large step forwards (like some already do sometimes), would help a lot. Or the penalty taker would have to be closer to the ball to kick it, thus making it harder to take a good penalty and increasing the chances of the keeper... Probably won't happen, but would be a solution
I've been thinking about this for a long time. Great to see some data back it up. Very nice that you take these kind of stuff up and look through and debate it!
It is flawed and misleading. You are suffering from validation bias. Read other comments.
Bro what do you mean. If you commit a foul, you. have to face consequences. Simple as that!
One of the many key points you didn't mention is, the defender has to put in the challenge and commit a foul before a penalty could be given, at least theoretically speaking. There is an element of judgement (mis-judgement) by the defender than just xG and percentage of scoring from open play
Honestly not sure what point your trying to make⊠are you saying the defender has the chance to not give away a penalty by not making the tackle? Because I feel like most people know this without it having to be pointed out to them in a video. Btw most xg models take the defenders position into account.
Actually, no they don't. Handball and diving are 2 very common causes of penalties that do not require a defender to have committed to a challenge.
Netherlands Vs Mexico at World Cup 2014 - having equalised in the 88th minute, the Dutch win a 90+ minute penalty when Arjen Robben goes down. He's basically on the touchline and has several defenders around him - there's no chance they are scoring here.
Huntelaar scores and Mexico are out of the world cup.
shouldn't have fouled him then
@@TedJGibbs it wasn't a penalty
@@TedJGibbs Robben dived. VAR might have ruled it out these days.
@@BOABModels well then thatâs an issue with officiating rather than with penalties
4:46 Keepers also can't gain the advantage by moving off the line before the ball was hit, yet the taker can run up before the kick also gives the taker a big advantage.
Once again, great video tifo! Keep it up! đđ»đđ»đđ»
I think the issue with penalties is the way it given. I call it a 'soft' foul. Basically it is a foul that if happened outside the box would have been a foul, but the fact that it happened inside the box, the referee doesn't give it due to it not been as great of a challenge. Something like a touch of the boot of an attacker making him trip would be a foul normally but the ref doesn't give it inside the box because he decides it's a 'soft' foul...
So your issue is that there isn't enough penalties?? Personally I hate penalties, take all the drama out of the game and encourage diving/initiating contact (see: Kane). The fewer penalties, the better imo
@@jacobsharp9202 that's not his his point at all, did you reply to the wrong person?
@@jacobsharp9202 There is no encouraging with VAR, slight touches can be enough to unfairly unbalance the attacker and thus remove danger.
PKs play a compensatory role (and in this sense I agree they overcompensate the attacking team), but they also have a deterrent role. If PKs are modified to reduce their goalscoring chance probability, thus making them more "fair", I presume teams might recur to fouls in the PK area much more often as a defending tool. This could lead to a substantially higher number of times play is stopped and would make matches, particularly during attacking phases, much less fluid. PKs might not be fair, but good deterrents are never meant to be.
well said. the last thing the game needs is more opportunities to time waste and disrupt the flow
I am not entirely sure I agree Eduardo. I respect your point, but I think the severity of the penalty kick means that defenders know refs are reluctant to award one unless they really have to. I played semi-pro for a couple of years as a defender, and we were certainly told by coaches to grab hold of shirts, push and shove once you were in the box, just don't trip. Awarding fouls inside the area (that are not penalties) I think would result on more awards for minor offences and therefore more cautious defending styles. So possibly more goals from open play. And even maybe less diving. Also, football is not like the NFL or NBA, we have about 3 million different tournaments. Why not just try it in a minor one and see what happens?
@@craigduncan7010 First, I definitely agree with your point of piloting this in a minor tourmanemt, or for that matter any other rule innovation that might help improve the game. I also agree with your assumption that under this scenario refs will be more likely to award fouls inside the box more often (the same assumption is implicit in my reasoning above). Where we don't quite agree is in how defending teams will perceive this: will they be so averse to having a lot of fouls awarded against them for infractions inside the box that they will defend more cautiously (and hence less effectively as you say), or will they perceive this new type of fouls awarded so harmless compared to a penalty kick that they will be happy to live with the trade-off and foul away? I guess we also need to know what exactly would be the type of foul awarded. An indirect free kick inside the box I presume? I have to admit to not knowing what the goalscoring chance on those is but if they're dangerous enough, then you are probably right. Finally, I also think the quality of the attacker will matter so the effect of a rule change like this will not be the same for every type of game. In the absence of an extremely dangerous striker, you might try to defend as best as you can without giving away fouls to avoid gifting a set piece situation inside the box, but if you're facing 2011-12 Messi or in general an extremely dangerous forward, you probably will be happy to foul him inside the box rather than risk him getting a goal from open play if that doesn't get you a penalty kick against your team. Cheers.
Football is the only sport as far as I know where penalties are rewarded not based on scoring opportunity but where the player is located when he gets fouled. Sometimes it leads to absurd situations. If an attacker gets brought down when he is free with goalkeeper outside penalty area he only gets a free kick, but if a ball which is heading towards the corner flag accidentally hits a defender's arm inside the penalty area it leads to penalty and 80% to score. Although I think it's necessary to keep the rule that fouls inside the penalty area generally leads to penalties, in order to make defenders more cautious which gives the attackers more space and thus makes the game more exciting to watch, the referee should at least be able to make exceptions when it comes to for example unintentional handballs and fouls on players that does not even have the ball.
I would be delighted to see the penalty changed to something more akin to the 48%. I saw another commenter made the argument that penalties deter endless fouling in the box, so there's definitely something to be said for that.
I remember when they changed some of the handball rules to cause penalties, I thought managers would put training sessions to increase shot precision into defenders' hands to earn easy penalties. Anyway, I love penalty shootouts, is where the human factor gets even more crucial to the game, if you're not feeling well the keeper gets bigger and the posts gap gets shorter, is a huge pressure, one of the things that make the game so beautiful
At no time in the video was removing penalty shootouts mentioned. Did you even watch it? Because you seem to have totally missed the point.
My main issue with the penalty kick is that is isn't between the goal keeper and the player, the goalkeeper had to commit to a direction and get moving just before the ball is struck to have any hope of covering the goal, this gives a small advantage to the striker who doesn't need to expose his hand in this way and on top of that a well hit penalty whether top bins or bottom bags is unsaveable, so from a goalkeepers perspective only a poor penalty can be saved. That imbalance is what irks me but I don't know what would resolve this
Itâs easy. Just allow the goal keeper to move at the whistle not when the ball is struck. The usual objection is well the gk will just rush forward mls style. That however will only happen if players insist on the long run up to shoot.
You can also have the penalty taker shoot from further back.
Never really thought of penalties this way. But the data does back it up.
Honestly, I think implementing one of the following two options would be interesting:
Reduce the box area, so penalties are committed way inside the box;
Make penalties harder than they are now. The conversion rate is extremely high. Even if a goalkeeper saves a pen, there's a good chance they will still concede a goal on the rebound.
Really good video, couple of comments 1) comparing the chance of scoring a penalty with the chance of scoring based on the ball's location (when penalty won) is a good initial analysis but probably under-estimates the chance of scoring in open play, penalties are usually won when defenders feel forced to make a challenge because they feel an elevated chance of conceding a goal. 2) My long-held view is that the penalty area should be re-named the goalkeeper area and penalties not awarded for fouls in the area. Instead penalties can be awarded for a goal denying foul anywhere on the pitch (the kind of foul that currently results in a free kick and red card if committed outside the box would instead result in a penalty (whether the red card would be changed to a yellow card to avoid double punishment is another potential change)).
I think VAR has made penalties even more OP, since teams play for them more. And the lightest touch in 10x slow motion makes a foul look way more severe than it it. I would be interested in the data of this.
I agree with you, I also feel VAR influenced penalties don't tell the whole story of a foul. I think a time would come when there'd be soft & hard fouls
Do you have the data to support your claim that there are more penalties with VAR?
Slow motion is not giving more fake penalties. If you are running and chasing a ball, certain slight touches are very unbalancing and can make you fall or lose the correct trajectory or composure to create danger - all these should be awarded a foul.
Also, the study is flawed, read other comments.
@@pedroedsos You asked, You answered.
@@gabrielalohan728 I asked for data. Do you have some to improve debate?
@@pedroedsos Yes, there is data to back it, penalties awarded have increased by 36%
I think that it would be useful to do this analysis with other leagues as well, especially considering the (somewhat deserved) reputation of the PL having poorer quality refereeing. Assuming the PL does have especially poor refereeing, maybe this would lead to a much smaller difference in chance quality between winning a penalty and scoring forms from open play inside the penalty box.
That is nonsese about the refereeing quality - in any league in any country, you are likely to find many fans that claim the same.
The analysis is flawed, read other comments.
Penalty kicks have always been an oddity in football
Football is a team sport, 11 vs 11 but then you have this weird 1 vs 1 situation - totally skewed towards the kicker - that decides entire competitions đ
I've always played as a defender. I'm kinda used to it now, but I remember moving from the small pitch to the big pitch when I was like 12. As a center back, I suddenly wasn't allowed to tackle or take the ball from someone in the box. When you're within the 16 it's basically only blocking because refs are blind and when someone falls they ALWAYS give the penalty.
You're threatening Tottenham's footballing strategy against major teams . How is Harry Kane to even play without falling on defenders inside the box
As their name suggests, penalties are not just about compensating the attacking team (i.e., giving them the same or similar scoring chance to what they had). Penalties are also a deterrent. Removing that deterrent would completely change the game. Interesting video, thanks!
Perhaps have a smaller inner box where fouls result in a penalty from the spot, and an outer box where it has to be taken where the foul was. No other players in the box until the ball is hit.
The only note id make is that the location of the foul doesnât represent the true value of the attacking moment. If youâre fouled in the box - you could generally assume that the defender has done so because they were being beaten. If they were being beaten - the space the attacker was about to exploit becomes the true xg area to calculate.
I actually really like the suggested change to the penalty area.
It makes no sense, read other comments.
Fascinating data!
My initial reaction was "the box is too big", so it was nice to see that addressed, but I wish there was data for xG difference for would-be penalties, awarded in the case that the box had been smaller.
The MLS 1v1 is seems way more exciting, and although one might argue that it's not proven or tested, penalties are completely arbitrary anyway (i.e. basis for awarding, distance etc.)
Then there's the case for taking them from any other distance, or why not just take them from the position of the foul?... to many possibilities for one youtube comment to decide upon.
That's absurd logic tbh. If penalties were taken from where the foul committed, then defenders would foul right left & center continuously from tight angle to nullify potential threat
@@dinanislam6697 right... "Absurd" might be an overstatement, but I'm struggling even see how that's any worse than the current situation.
1) it doesn't necessarily nullify anything, it may need tweaking
2) being given an 80% probability of scoring because you got fouled on the bye line is absurd
3) perhaps an inherent yellow card within certain proximity?
Just ideas, not saying they're flawless
@@chongillespie Penaties are there to punish unfair play. 80% is even a robbery to the attacking team when a defender uses a hand to deflect a ball over the goal line that is an assured goal or fouls an attacker that has only to shoot to an empty goal. Even oustide the area are fouls where the defending team is very likely to concede if does not foul and then gets to have all their players to recover their positions just because the foul was 1 bit outside the penalty box - that I would change right now.
@@pedroedsosI agree, I'm not sure how what you're saying is specifically relevant to my comment, but more specific, situation-dependant rulings would be better, rather than one blanket ruling for when a foul occurs inside what is an arbitrarily large box.
@@chongillespie Relevance: " why not just take them from the position of the foul?"
The box dimensions are probably not that random, early footballers realised what distance to the goal was too penalising to be lost to foulers. It still does not prevent other situations where likely goals are unfairly stopped outside the box, so the improvement opportunities are much more on the penalising side than on the dismissing side.
Either the box should be shrunk in width, perhaps to line up with the semicircle, or penalties should be attempted at a longer distance, such as the middle of the penalty zone border directly opposite the keeper.
I think you should include the likelihood of assists for the wider areas of the penalty box. Hypothetically, if we adopted the semi circle penalty box suggested in the US, defenders would just take out any player on the baseline to avoid tap ins
You would just be gifting away direct free kicks within spitting distance of the goal, in that case. Which, yes, while hardly a penalty, is still a pretty effective way of scoring goals. Not to mention the accumulation of cards that would gut the playing squad.
If I am not mistaken, it is important to distinguish between percentages and percentage points.
At 2:25, Tifo says âthe likelihood of scoring increases by 60%, so you are 4 times as likely to scoreâ which is mathematically wrong; the likelihood increases by 60 percentage points, not 60%.
Math behind it:
60% increase from 0.2XG = 0.2*1.6 = 0.32XG
60 percentage point increase from 0.2XG = 0.2+0.6 = 0.8XG
Thatâs a bit nitpicky, considering that in this case they are speaking in terms of percentage of times where one could expect to score. 80% is 60% greater than 20% without clarifying what we are taking percent of, and by saying four times as likely that is equivalent to saying it is increasing your probability by 300% of 20%. But neat point I guess, if you donât listen to the video
@@samuelmason2703 I agree with the nitpicking part, though it is an important mathematical distinction. I do, however, not agree that 80% is 60% greater than 20%. As described in my comment, that is undoubtedly wrong. Percentages are always relative, so 80% is by all accounts 300% greater than 20%.
Yeah that's been bothering me for a long time, and there's a fairly simple way of fixing it:
- apply the same logic of 'denying a clear goal chance' (that is used for red cards) to fouls inside the penalty area
- if it wasn't a clear goal chance, it's an indirect free-kick with a wall from where the foul happened
Yeah Iâm sure the referees would love having that level of added difficulty and scrutiny
So take this situation: KDB is in the penalty box and crosses to haaland but VVD is between haaland and the ball. While KDB is crossing, thiago fouls him. Not a clear opportunity but it is still a chance to get the ball to haaland for a tap in.
Youâd want a free kick given here rather thsn a pen?
I like this
Terrible idea
What I do not like about penalties is that the taker can fake a step whilst the goalkeeper has to keep to his line. This favors scoring a goal...might as well hand a goal to the team. An idea that might work is moving the penalty spot further back. This will give the keeper more reaction time. This idea does not obsolete penalties as deadlock breakers.
I'd like to see a video on the effect of VAR - seems like nowadays every goal has the chance of being waved off. Even goals that seem to be scored legally can be disallowed for some other reason than offside, handball or something common. Before VAR there was none of that "oh, wait, but what if it there was an offside" feeling after a goal was scored - if the linesman or head ref does not initially see anything wrong with the goal, then its a good goal.
In other words - has the scoring perhaps somehow dropped since VAR was introduced? Of course, I also believe there could be no drop since with VAR there is also at the same time a higher chance of getting a penalty and consequently scoring a goal.
That being said, VAR also allows to abort initially called penalties after a video replay. So I guess its probably not the easiest of researches to do :D
A few points:
1) It's called a "penalty" and not a "return to previous odds"
2) The point where the penalty was awarded does not have to be the same point where an eventual goal shot would have been attempted.
3) Penalties are awarded for much clearer situatiobmns than the hypothetical example given here. Take Suarez' hand play against Ghana in the World Cup. He saved a guaranteed goal and the 78% goal chance awarded to Ghana was infibitely smaller than than the 100% they should have had.
Point number 1 is key.
Thankyou! If it was a 'return to previous odds' defenders would have no detterent of making high-risk tackles, as they are gauranteed an equal or better outcome.
1. And why exactly is that good for the game? Such a moot point
2. The math behind E(goals) takes care of this. It's not about whether the shot was going to be immediately taken, but the probability of an eventual goal from that position.
3. Again, basic misunderstanding of the math. You accuse the video of making anecdotal evidence by suggesting anecdotal evidence yourself. Yes, there are rare situations where the E(goal) was higher such as the Suarez handball, but it is not the case on average, but very far from it, as actual statistical evidence in the video shows.
@@ZZaman-px9rg It's a sport, not a math test.
@@ZZaman-px9rg 1. You wouldn't want to balance the risk and reward of a foul to the point where a foul that close to the goal is a tactical consideration as opposed something that can only be considered a mistake when it happens.
2. fair point, thanks for clearing that up for me
3. the problem here is that the video looks at the whole thing very one-dimenionally based on averages. knowing the averages is great, but agoe solution for the average is a bad solution for everyone. perhaps instead of treating the penalty shot as a monolith an tweaking it, it would be better to make more meaningful changes and give referies more appropriate options case by case.
isnât that the point though? penalties are supposed to be a deterrent for fouling in the box. iâd be interested to see the xG difference on free kicks within 25 yards, whether theyâre higher xG than their open play counterpart from the same area. I feel like being able to man mark and stack a wall in front of a kick lowers the xG substantially in almost all cases (other than Ward-Prowse or Messi types)
The problem though is that if they're a deterrent for fouling in the box, they are by definition an incentive to dive in the box, or at least 'go down easily.' Looking for fouls suddenly becomes one of the most important parts of an attacker's game, rather than actually doing something exciting with the ball.
@@joepiekl True, but that's something the officials and regulatory bodies are supposed to push back on. There is no perfect system, but there are options for making sure penalties are not given out like candle to teams who play for them. It's a balancing act that only sometimes seems to be attempted to be reached, while other seasons feel like the refs and FA/higher ups don't care.
I think there are some situations where a Ÿ chance of scoring is a justified punishment for a foul, such as an intentional foul on a breakaway, or a foul that prevents a striker from getting a chance near the 6-yard box. But for any old foul inside the penalty area, a free kick or something else would be fairer.
By themselves, penalties are certainly mathematically unfair, but they don't exist in a vaccuum. It could also be called unfair that, almost anywhere on the pitch, any player can literally muscle opponents to the ground to shut down an attack once or more per game without any real conseqence. But in the box, penalties are such a severe punishment that they force defenders to play by the book in a way they don't have to elsewhere on the pitch. In my mind, these two "unfair" situations balance each other out.
I would expect a change in the rules which brought down penalty-XG to result in much more cynical defending, or even clumsy defending. I don't see why that would make the game more interesting to play or to watch.
I can already hear the talking heads of football saying "If you feel a touch in the box, go down!"
More than penalty rule changes, a stricter rule regarding simulation (especially in the penalty area) is desperately needed.
Great video as always!
"If you feel a touch in the box, go down!" - you go from a 6% scoring chance to 78%, why not do that?
@@louismwobobia5773 my issue isn't with the players who "game" the system (as annoying as that is) per se, my issue is with the match officials who aren't strong enough to book said player for simulation. There's a world of difference between "being brought down" by an opponent and "going down" of you volition to gain a greater chance of scoring. The match officials should be cognizant of this, and should apply the laws of "simulation" (definition: the action of pretending; deception) sternly.
How about the penalty has to be taken from the spot the foul happened? So if you're on the extremity of the box, you don't get a free 'easy' shot?
but then if an attacker was on one of the sides with a tight angle to goal defenders would just foul because the likelihood of scoring from that angle is so low
@@craigwillbourne6243 I mean, a deliberate foul would still be a yellow, so I don't think it would happen all that often.
@@oliverhughes610 it would though because if your weird idea
@@LoyalFan9383 How do you know?
A key point you missed, would've been if they are unfair to teams lower down the league?
Hard to quantify as they tend to spend less time in their oppositions half and may not have a top class penalty taker. But it would be interesting to see:
How many penalties do teams receive and concede at home vs away (relative to time spent in the box) and combined with league position.
Penalties are overpowered. I'm okay with them being a punishment for fouls in the box, but in the VAR era more and more minor indiscretions now lead to penalties. So, I propose two simple changes: the goalkeeper is allowed to move off his line once the *whistle blows* and not have to wait for the kick. Gone are the long, laborious run ups and the kicker now has to decide between a quick take with the widest angle of scoring, or a run up which trades off the goalkeeping coming out with accuracy or deceit. Second, no follow ups. The ball is dead once a save happens and a goal kick is awarded. I just think it's nonsense the keeper can't come an inch off his line until the ball is struck, and even if he saves it, someone else gets a 6 yard tap in. This would make for more interesting penalties, which are usually a dull affair in my opinion.
1:59 Iâm more impressed by how many penalties are won from outside the boxâŠ
I wondered the same until I realized that these are probably shots taken from outside where a handball occurred inside the box.
It's still balanced though, every team receives the same increase in chance when receiving a penalty. It also tactically makes conceeding or winning a penalty something worth focusing on and entertaining.
That's a great topic and surely data shows penalty kicks are overpowered. In my opinion, though, the main reason it should remain the same is to prevent defenders from stopping clear chances unfairly. For instance, changing the rules or the way penalties are taken could make it be more beneficial to the defender to commit a foul inside the box, given he would lower the chances of the opposition team to score, which we are considering to be at 78%. That seems like a double punishment to the attacking team, who were 1) prevented from a clear chance opportunity and 2) put to a harder chance to score from a penalty.
On top of this, penalties spice the game up. Consider these 2 contrary examples: 1) Suarez vs Ghana on 2010. He just went all in and sacrificed himself from the match to deny a 100% goal scoring chance. It's a filthy example because the ball was inches away from crossing the line, but in some way it seems Uruguay deserved all the luck it had just for the audacious play. 2) Man City vs. Kopenhagen this days... Who could imagine City not winning it? But even with a penalty awarded, the keeper managed to keep a clean sheet. Football is made of tactics, individual talent and team play, but there's just a bit of the imponderable factor that makes it great and entertaining. Penalties are a part of this factor that can change the outcome of a came to the unthinkable.
These analytic videos are so well put together. Brings me a greater understanding and enjoyment when watching my team. Great job đ
In other words, is Harry Kane overpowered?
Delete this comment...
@@Madoxize when he stops diving and backing into players during aerial 50/50s, I will.
I think what matters more is how penalites are awarded. You see so many soft penalties given these days that, when considering the stats in this video, a player might as well fall over from the slighest contact because he's probably going to get his team a more certain way of scoring. Or penalties that are given for handball when the ball is struck from literally a yard away - how is a player supposed to move their hand in that instance?
The rule is a foul in the penalty box has to be punished with a penalty. If something is a foul in midfield it has to be a foul in the penalty box. It is not the referee's job to change the rule to make them fairer.
My two counter points to why penalties are perfect as they are:
1. Although the foul may occur further out, penalties are seldom won when taking a shot and instead during a carry. Therefore the player would likely get closer to the goal without the foul and increase their xG
2. The idea of having an area of the pitch in which foul play is extraordinarily harshly punished gives a nice twist to football. Defenders will often attempt to jockey the edge of the box rather than being more compact around the goal as allowing the opposition possession inside the box is dangerous, this helps open up the field and creates jeopardy in less exciting areas of the pitch. It also gives a larger target to focus attacking pressure onto as touches in the box are of higher value primarily due to the jeopardy of the penalty area rather than their proximity to goal.
I don't think this matters, fairness doesn't come into it. The jeopardy a penalty creates, generates excitement and makes the game more exciting for the spectator
Penaldo's career won't exist without overpowered penaltiesđ
No way the Pessi fan just said this.
Penalties itself? No.
The way penalties are awarded? 100%.
In what situation would a penalty awarded not be overpowered?
To make it better, if someone kicks the penalty, and the keeper saves it. Then it should stop right there. Sometimes keeper hit the ball to the opponent playerâs direction to have a second chance.
Great stuff. Maybe the easiest way to make it more balanced would be to make the person who wins the pen take it. It will not be ahuge change such as a running penalty kick, but it will decrese the xG.
PENALTY KICKS are meant to punish the foulers. Making the fouled player to take the penalry kick would only benefit the fouling team. Soon you will see Man City players pulling shirts and Real madrid players elbowing players from small teams who isn't trained for penalty. Is that the kind of football you want to see?
I do think that pens are a tadd to to close, i think what the mls did back in the 2000s was a great idea with the running spot kick
What they did?
@@EdgarHunk one on ones from like the halfway line or something like that
@@EdgarHunk Watch from 4:40
@@EdgarHunk similar to how ice hockey take penalties, the got the ball at the halfway and had a one on one with the goal keeper
Got it
no, please keep it how it is. We don't want even more fouling in football
Direct Free Kick?
The closer you are to the goal line, the more likely you were to score, and the more likely you are to score from the free kick.
I wonder what the score-percentage graph would be with free kicks from in the box?
I understand why people might say theyâre âoverpoweredâ but also basing it solely on xG before and after the foul is kind of unfair. Cause for there to be a penalty⊠there must be a foul.
Itâs on the defenders not to recklessly challenge when the opposing player has a low chance of scoring.
I think the penalty rule is fine how it is. But also wouldnât be opposed to a change
Hi first?
One factor that affects these statistics that Tifo didn't bring up in this video is that the advantage rule inside the box doesn't exist except for situations of an imminent goal, thus, by that rule and the pitch graph putting the zones nearest to the goal at 60%, which is low, we can infer that plays that would've gotten a penalty there are not called (and don't show up in the analysis) due to the imminent goal that ensues.
I see main value of penalties as a way of rewarding possession - if you have a lot more posession in the box, you are more likely to get lucky and score as a result of a penalty, which theoretically should discourage teams from parking the bus
Keep the current size of outer penalty areas for Goalkeeper's benefits as 44x18 yards.
Bring in the width of the penalty conceding area by painting two new lines, going from the corners of the six yard box, to the edge of the eighteen yard box, giving new inner dimensions of 20x18 yards.
Can you make a video on Manchester United - Real Madrid relationship? Including the support United got from Madrid after Munich tragedy. I see many fans from other teams ask why do many United-Madrid transfers happen. Like Beckham, Ronaldo, Nistelrooy to Madrid and Casemiro, Varane to United.
It also changes the mentality of players both attacking and defending. Some players even mastering the art of provocking a penalty and not always from a dive. Yes sometimes there is contact which would be a foul ofc but comes in a area of the box where no danger could possibily come. Players know this, they wait for contact, the provoke the contact when they are in penalty box. Often they prefer to wait for contact then to look for a goal oportunity. This made some mediocre players have some much better stats then they would possible have if penalties didnt exist. The box shoudlnt be so big
The elephant in the room is that most penalties are won under false pretenses. Intentionally "winning penalties" should not be part of the game, and players should be reprimanded for it. If attacking players fear being booked for doing so, they can focus on PLAYING rather than acting, and everyone is better for it
I think that the goalkeeper having to stay on his line until the ball has been struck makes it almost impossible for it to be saved unless itâs not well hit in the first place, I think they should be allowed to come off their line to even up the odds
but then you will have keepers 34cm away from the ball when the kick occurs
I think the Athletic missed an really important point here: in the absence of the penalty as is, it would make a lot more sense to just foul the players, and thus, the probability of scoring a goal would dramatically decrease in all the situations inside the area.
The penalty is a way to deter fouls, and let the game be played, instead of stoping it.
This entire video is moot. Who didn't know that penalties are a much more likely way to score? The interesting question is whether this is bad/good for the game and what the impact would be in changing it.... but of course that requires analysis.
Easy solution, bring it in to 12 yards, cut the corners off and make it a half octagon. As for officiating change fouls in which the attacker has his back to goal and off the ball fouls inside the box to indirect free kicks.
It could be like beach football fouls: From where u got the foul, the same player has to do a direct shootout agains the GK, without wall, everybody else outside the box and 9,15m radius distance. The original penalty spot will only be used during penalty shootouts after a draw in an elimination phase.
You're right, in some cases, penalties give opposition a chance while they had no hope of scoring, but what about the other side of the coin? You're going for a goal. Only way to stop the player is to faul. If we do a "run-up", we'll be encouraging the defenders to faul inside the box, a place where the attackers got in and had a decent goal chance. also shoutout to @LuĂs Belo for mentioning the romantic side. Football is a romanting game, where underdogs are beloved. Penalties give them a hope.
I believe this is one of those debates which we need to focus on a sub-point of penalties rather then change the overall rule.
For example, I strongly believe that the player who was fouled within the box - must take the penalty. Things along this nature could make good and positive adjustments for the law and influence the game positively.
There is just one counter-argument I have. Football by its nature is a relatively low-scoring sport. Having penalties as-is and allowing a penalty to be given out of nothing in such a large area brings forth a high percentage of risk. Risk that all feel when watching and supporting a team in a match. In essence, it's a high degree of risk which gives attacking teams an edge in what could otherwise be a very stale match. Such a large penalty area allows for a higher chance of risk... making the game more thrilling if you are supporting a side who is in favor.
the MLS ideas for a smaller D where you can win a penalty, and running pens would actually be good imo. Particularly the smaller D, as you'd have the chance of free kicks from more interesting postitions.
idk I'm ok with it. It's expected and part of the game now, and more importantly, it makes defenders cautious in the box, which neutrals will love because it actually increases the likelihood of open play shots since defenders have to back off a little bit. I guess at the end of the day, it's a penalty, which is meant to "penalize" you. This isn't the justice system or a lawsuit where it's meant to "balance" out the odds of scoring that was taken away. Lastly, fan engagement is so huge on penalty calls because of the high chance of scoring. Often they are celebrated louder than the penalty goals themselves. This also leads me to say that when they ARE saved or missed, there's even MORE fan engagements. May be "OP" but it's not broken.
If you had to take the penalty (with no other players in the 18 yard box) from the point in which the foul occured it may resolve two prevelant issues: 1.Diving/players trying to win soft penalties and 2. Making it harder to score them so less valuable to the outcome of the game. I would still like to see penalties from inside the 6 yard box taken from the regular spot.
Been covered a few times... I like the freekick from point of foul but nobody else is allowed in the box... or if the xG of the place of foul is about a set %... say 0.5xG then you get a penalty even thohgh its a higher xG
I'd be OK with making penalties only happen in a certain, smaller box within the box, although I do worry about "polluting" the pitch with too many lines.
How about abolishing the 'keeper must stay on his line' rule. As soon as the ref blows the wistle, the keeper can charge out forcing the penalty taker to be reactionary. This would also prevent the slow run up
I honestly have my own solution to this. Remove the 6 yard box. Then, remove the D. Now, we have an 18 yard box, used only to show us where the goalkeeper may handle the ball. Penalties are now non-existent. All free kicks are only considered direct if the taker is the man originally fouled (to preserve the same goal-scoring chance relative to location and attacker) and all others are indirect. Let the minimum distance from the spot that a defender must remain for a free kick taken ANYWHERE be 10 yards. Except for the goalkeeper. He may be on his line at any time as long as he doesn't contact the ball or taker until after the kick is taken , worst case scenario then is a foul committed just before it fully passes the goal line AND the ball doesn't actually go past (kind of like Suarez handball). The kick must be a fluid forward motion if a direct freekick is to be taken (i.e. to allow a goal to be scored from the kick)
The main problems are:
1. Imperfections in refereeing have a larger effect on the outcome of the game. VAR has shown that penalties are not awarded consistently even when referees can watch replays at various speeds from various angles.
2. The penalty box is too big.
3. Penalties are too easy to score.
4. The handball rule is too harsh.
5. Attackers are rewarded too much for drawing fouls.
6. The game stops for too long (typically three minutes).
One small not about the early mls statistics, goalkeepers in the MLS were always solid, generally more solid than the attacking talent, and I at least feel its likely that if you did those penalty kicks with premier league caliber players the results would be a lot closer
We should change the penalty area to a semi circular area inside the box, near the goal (xg>0.3 or 0.4) and then maybe, a foul anywhere inside the box but outside that area can get a special type of free kick?
How about indirect penalty kicks, where the penalty taker must pass from the 12 yard spot across to one onrushing team-mate, who takes the direct shot on goal. The opposition goalkeeper is permitted to come off his line if he wishes, plus the opposition are permitted to have one defender chase the onrushing attack and tackle him. In addition, there can be another potential onrushing attacker on the other side on the edge of the penalty box, with another defender marking him. Only one onrushing attacker is permitted to make a run when the indirect penalty is passed across the box. Two attempts will be given to the attacking team are permitted, but if on both attempts both onrushing attackers enter the penalty box after the pen kick is taken, then it is a goal kick to the opposition. However if they foul the onrushing attacker or both defenders enter the box, then it becomes a direct penalty kick. For both indirect and direct penalty kicks, if the ball is saved or strikes the woodwork, then a goalkick is awarded to opposition to avoid rebound attempts (where injuries have occurred)
I feel comparing the spot where a penalty given vs chance of shooting from that location is missing out on some thought. Nothing says the play was about to shoot at the time of the foul, they could have been running through on goal and got closer to goal if not fouled, and so their chance of scoring would increase. or they might have passed to someone else in better position in box who might have scored but the foul has stopped the move progressing to a more higher likelyhood of a goal.
This video doesn't take into the account the feeble metrics of xG stats. The ball location assumes a penalty box full of defenders, but a lone attacker that has just gotten passed the keeper at the edge of the box is very, very likely to score. Similarily, a handball deflecting a shot on goal where the keeper hasn't reacted is a sure goal if not for the foul, but xG might only give it a fractional chamce bases on the ball location alone.
Most often penalties increase the likelyhood of scoring sure, but there's also the aspect of simply having possession of thr ball in thr oppositions penalty area is dangerous, and with a lot of teams defending very deeply, it adds a necessary risk for the defenders.
I will also never forget Suarez' handball in the World Cup QF against Ghana, that knocked them out after a missed penalty kick.
I think pens are built to give the taker an advantage nowadays, what with the keepers not being allowed to come off their line even slightly. Was fairer when keepers didnât have to keep a foot behind the line
The running penalty was also a replicant of Hockey (NHL) penalties.