The was it/wasn't it debate over Barcelona's penalty against Manchester City last week missed the point. Regardless of the fact that the foul had taken place a few inches outside the box, the punishment (a free shot on goal) fit the crime (the unfair denial of a free shot on goal). Had the officials been more eagle-eyed and awarded a free-kick, would that have been a fairer outcome? No. Martín Demichelis would still have been sent off, and Barça would have had a dangerous set piece, but there's a colossal difference between a penalty and a free-kick … and yet there is often very little difference in the fouls that see them awarded. When it comes to penalties, it's time to think outside the box.
If a player is fouled when there is a clear goalscoring opportunity, whether that be 10 yards from goal or 40 yards from goal, then the punishment meted out should be another clear goalscoring opportunity – a penalty. It would not be a move that would particularly add to a referee's burden – they already make a distinction between goalscoring opportunities and non-goalscoring opportunities when deciding whether to show the offending party the red card. And it would mean the cynical fouls outside the area get the punishment they deserve rather than the red card that clearly does not currently act as enough of a deterrent – Serbia, for example, would have been given a spot-kick after Josip Simunic's challenge here, as would West Ham in the 1980 FA Cup final.
Fouls in the box, if they do not deny a goalscoring opportunity, would result in a free-kick (with those committed in the six-yard box indirect). "Anywhere else on the pitch that's a free-kick," is a refrain so familiar it's essentially now a cliche. Yet it's often true, and it is hard to escape the idea that referees shy away from penalising fouls in the box because they have only the nuclear option available to them. A free-kick punishes the foul without forcing the referee to make the huge headline-making game-changing decision that is the award of a penalty. And it's fairer – why should this sort of thing, even if it is a foul, result in a penalty? A dangerous set piece in a dangerous position means the attacking side feel the benefit. And, a happy side-effect, when it comes down to it everyone loves an indirect free-kick in the box.
In turn, we'd be likely to see less set-piece grappling in the box, with defenders no longer so certain of getting off scott-free, and you wonder if we'd also see a reduction in diving in the area. Currently the risk-reward ratio is skewed too far one way – the risk of a booking v the reward of a penalty. The threat of the stick doesn't compare to the juiciness of the carrot. A free-kick corrects that imbalance to some extent at least.
A fair rule for fairer football? Or an idea about as smart as the golden-goal rule? Let us know below the line.
