ISL 2017: Decision to award FC Goa penalty against Bengaluru FC a correct one, confirm latest IFAB Laws of the Game

FC Goa defeated Bengaluru FC when the two sides met at the Fatorda Stadium on Thursday in what proved to be a real humdinger as the home side recorded a 4-3 win, their second of ISL 2017. The most crucial and controversial moment of the match came in the 36th minute after Bengaluru FC goalkeeper Gurpreet Singh Sandhu was sent off after he lashed out with his arm at Goa's Manuel Lanzarote in an off-the-ball incident in his own penalty box.

The keeper duly received his marching orders from the referee but it can be argued that the striker had made the most of the situation as the theatrically fell to the ground despite not-so-heavy contact with Gurpreet's hand. However, what garnered even more controversy was the award of a penalty to FC Goa, with the ball having already been played by the keeper and in the possession of a defender in the penalty area.

In case you missed the incident, you can watch the video here!

The home side led 2-1 at the time and it was Lanzarote himself who slotted home the penalty as Goa amassed a two-goal lead over the opponents, who were down to 10 men. After the game, social media was buzzing with opinions on the penalty decision, with a section of users stating that it should have been an indirect free kick instead.

So was is it a spot kick? Or should it have been an indirect free kick? A reading of the latest 2017-18 IFAB Laws of the Game suggests that the decision made by the referee was actually the correct one. Here's how!

---

Direct free kick foul

Law 12 deals with fouls and misconduct and to begin with, it states that:

'Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.'

In this case, the basic criterion is met as the ball is in play at the time of the infringement.

The ball is in play when the infringement is made (Screengrab courtesy: Hotstar)

The next step is determining the type of foul Gurpreet's actions fall under. The Laws state:

'A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

•?charges

•?jumps at

•?kicks or attempts to kick

•?pushes

•?strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

•?tackles or challenges

•?trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.'

In this case, the goalkeeper has clearly struck or atleast attempted to strike the FC Goa striker, and the offence does involve contact, which means it will be punished with a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Not an indirect free kick

The next section of Law 12 details the instances when an indirect kick is awarded. It states:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:

•?plays in a dangerous manner

•?impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made

•?is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal offences

•?prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it

•?commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

All the points in this section do not apply to the situation at hand and since the foul already falls under the category of 'strikes or attempts to strike', the last point is also invalid in this case.

The section also further details offences by the goalkeeper inside their own penalty area which lead to indirect free kicks. There are:

•?controls the ball with the hands for more than six seconds before releasing it

•?touches the ball with the hands after releasing it and before it has touched another player, or it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a teammate or, receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate

Once again, it is clear that the Blues keeper's offence does not fall under any of the categories and thus an indirect freekick is out of the question.

Why a penalty kick then?

The fourth section of Law 12, which covers 'Restart of Play after fouls and misconduct' states:

If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against:

• an opponent – indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick

• a team-mate, substitute, substituted or sent off player, team official or a match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick

• any other person – a dropped ball

Here, the offence has been committed against an opponent, which means the first point is relevant. It has already been established that the keeper's offence was fell under the 'direct free kick' category and does not meet any of the conditions laid down for an indirect free kick.

Law 14, which deals with the penalty kick, states in its first line:

A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.

Thus, looking at the above-mentioned reasons, we can ascertain that the penalty kick was the correct call and it was not an indirect free kick.