Outside or Inside?

Summarizing the ten first legs of this season's UEFA Champions League play-off round, one can surely point out Milorad Mažić's sending-off occasion in the tie between Olympique Lyon and Real Sociedad as the most controversial match incident that definitely requires some roundup and spotlight. This automatically leads to some general thoughts about the topic of which infringements are, in compliance with the Laws of the Game, occurring outside or inside the penalty area respectively.

Was that outside or inside? © sport.orf.at

Incident 1: Two infringements, the first outside, the second inside

Serbian referee Mažić detected a foul and located it ouside the penalty area. Therefore he awarded a free-kick right at the edge of the box, cautioned the offender, meaning that he was dismissed due to his 2nd yellow card. This decision reveals that Mažić obviously split the action into two infringements, while he whistled the first one with some delay (although the whistle only came after the second foul). 

Well, did the first infringement having occurred outside the penalty area really demand a yellow card? No. The tackle was clearly aimed at playing the ball and was not executed with remarkable force or energy. His opponent's angle towards the goal was, at that moment, not as promising as in the second scene. Therefore, the first contact was neither a reckless tackle nor a tactical foul. Mažić's free-kick decision and the 2nd yellow card in a way contradict each other. One of both was not adequate in my opinion. If that first tackle is a yellow card, we should start thinking about whether we still want body contact and players who are willing to play the ball in modern football.

But what about the second contact? Just in the moment when Lyon defender Bisevac recognized that his first challenge for the ball had been unsuccessful, he took on the Spanish forward once again with a sliding tackle, being quite similar to a "scissor tackle", inside the penalty area. At that moment, he had no chance to play the ball anymore and just impeded the progress of his opponent in a way that results in a reckless and tactical foul. For this reason, this was the stronger infringement committed by Bisevac which justifies his sending-off - but only in case of a penalty kick. 

On the whole the essence of this analysis should be: 1+1 has to be 2. In this decision, that was not the case. Either a free-kick and no card should be awarded (which would be only "acceptable", as you normally wait for a possible advantage and then whistle the stronger infringement in favour of the team that was fouled) or, and I tend to favour this solution, a penalty kick and a 2nd yellow card should be the consequence of Bisevac's second challenge. Keep in mind that this is just my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the community's or our blog observer's point of view.

Incident 2: Holding starting outside and continuing inside the penalty area

This video footage, taken from Leontios Trattou's Europa League play-off between Schalke 04 and HJK Helsinki (2011/12), unveils another facet of the question of what is to be considered as a foul happening outside and inside the penalty area.  Schalke's forward Farfán was pulled and held by an opponent. The action started outside and went on inside the box.

The Laws of the Game clearly state: "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick." No doubt, referee Trattou of Cyprus took the correct decision.

Incident 3: Fouls happening outside with an impact on the area inside the box

Without any doubt, Hungarian official Viktor Kassai faced a very challenging call in this occasion. German forward Özil was fouled by Sergio Ramos in the World Cup semifinal 2010, heading goalkeeper Casillas. The contact just happened a few centimetres outside the penalty area. Even though the circumstance that this made Özil tripping himself by one leg onto the other, which caused his descent, only took place inside the box, a foul must be penalized at the point where it occurred. Kassai should have detected the foul in general, followed by a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (dogso) and then awarding a direct free-kick to Germany - even though that's certainly easier said than done.

Incident 4: Infringements happening on the 16m-line

Law 1 defines: "The field of play must be rectangular and marked with lines. These lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries." This means that infringements caused by the defending team generally requiring a direct free-kick that are happening on the line, which limits the penalty area, are to be penalized with a penalty kick. Referee Stéphane Lannoy thus should have awarded a penalty kick in favour of Schalke 04, whose forward Farfán was fouled by a PAOK defender, who had gone into the challenge with studs up and "open boots" from the front, on the penalty area line.

It looked like a fair but unlucky block tackle first, but as it sometimes happens, the first impression can be wrong. A yellow card would have been mandatory as well by the way.

So you see, the question "inside or outside?" sometimes has more difficult and complex answers than "offside or onside?".