Home Laws Advice Fitness SiteMap Links Set Pieces Discuss Search corshamref.org.uk   

A sexy Penalty Area Why not?  (by Stanley Lover) The traditional penalty area is a mish-mash, tolerated for nearly 70 years. A simple modification could rectify an anomaly, aid attacking play, reduce penalty kick friction and, perhaps, add a sexual allure to all pitches!

The President's sumptuous office in the splendid new Home of FIFA, had to be cut in size - from a full football pitch down to a goal area - because the architects were not advised of a special problem; where to store the tons of ideas to change the Laws of the Game. 

Stretching back over a century they've arrived daily at FIFA House by the sack full. Zurich postmen have not been amused.
Fertile soccer brains never stop hatching new, and not so new, suggestions to speed up play; punish the goalkeeper; dump offsides; make goals bigger, etc. Hardly any law escapes the attention of soccer's equivalent of barrack room lawyers. 

We all have an opinion we think is valid and deserving serious thought by the International F.A. Board. But, the IFAB is a conservative body which, rightly, moves slowly and cautiously with the best interests of the game at heart.

To have a chance of success an idea has to attract the support of FIFA, whose four votes (out of eight) are crucial in IFAB decision making. A tiny few get to the IFAB annual review agenda. Some are adopted, some rejected, one or two deferred, or tried in controlled experiments. 
What happens to this massive input? Many ideas - the vast majority - are just not practical, or involve spin-off complications. They are quietly consigned to bottomless archives, never to surface again. 
A pity. Those archives probably contain some brilliant thoughts which may not have been appropriate when first conceived but could be relevant today.
One, dormant for several years, proposes a simple redesign of the penalty area to redress an anomaly; be more ethically correct; and aid penalty kick discipline.

It proposes;
That the shape of the Penalty Area to be a semi-circle with a radius of 22yards (20m) from the centre of the goal line.

Let's take this one off the shelf, blow away the dust, and see how it might work.

The penalty box
In retrospect the current penalty area is a mish-mash, tolerated for nearly 70 years.
Why so?
In its original form the penalty area extended from the goal line to a 12 yards line marked across the whole width of the field. (Fig.1) The Penalty Kick, proposed by the Irish FA and adopted 1891, was taken from any point on this line. 
At that time the minimum distance of retreat by opponents from the ball at free kicks was 6 yards. Extending this principle at penalty kicks players, other than the kicker and goalkeeper were required to observe an 18 yds no-go line behind the ball. (Fig.1 below) 

After years of deliberation the IFAB decided in 1902 that the ball should be kicked from a single mark 12 yds from the centre of the goal in a new 'penalty area'- a rectangular box 18 by 44 yds. (Fig.2 below)

A 1910 law change increased the distance of opponents at any form of free kick to 10 yards. This was the logical moment to add a reference line 10 yds from the penalty mark (22yds from the goal line) but it was not done. Consequently a measure of conflict grew between referees and players with different ideas about distance. 
Delays in completing penalty kicks became common but it was not until 1937 that the IFAB decided to tack 'D' arcs, of 10yds radius from the penalty mark, onto the 18yds line.

Just compensation 
The proposal addresses a long standing anomaly of the rectangular area. 
Since 1902 a direct free kick offence committed by a defender in a far corner, nearly 28 yds from the centre of goal, has been punished with a penalty kick award. However, the same offence committed just over 18 yds in front of goal requires the lesser award of a direct free kick.
Free kicks taken in and close to the 'D' offer good scoring chances but defensive set play tactics, e.g., forming a wall to block a direct shot, most often deny the attacking team just compensation.
The proposed semi-circular penalty area, shown in Fig.3 below, would remove the relatively remote grey zones; absorb the 'D' and enlarge the area for penalty kick awards directly in front of the goal, as shown in red.

Contested advantage points 
For a while the 'D' arcs made penalty kick supervision easier but players soon found that the most advantageous positions, i.e., nearest to the ball and goal, were at the junctions of the arcs with the 18yds line, and worth fighting for. (Fig.4 above)
Practically every penalty kick taken from 1937 until today has provoked an element of friction between players jostling for position at these crowded zones.
Encroachment problems start here, needing extra surveillance by match officials. By law any player breaking the 10 yds limit should have been cautioned but, for many years, referees chose to ignore this duty. Understandable, for in an already highly charged situation very few officials wanted to spark more controversy by booking players and ordering penalty retakes.
Accepting the reality of the situation the IFAB dropped the caution clause in 1997. It made no change to the scramble towards the ball and goal - if anything it has become more blatant.
The modified penalty area is proposed to eliminate these contested advantage points, reduce friction and help supervision.

Viewpoints
Interestingly, when FIFA took a clean sheet and formulated universal rules for Five-a-Side Football (now FUTSAL) in 1986, a near semi-circle penalty area was preferred to a rectangle.
Why not for the outdoor game? Fig.5 shows how a 115x75 yds pitch with semi-circular penalty areas would look. 

Could this be a worthwhile improvement in the outdoor game?
Here are some views expressed by interested parties:

Striker: With the chance of a quick shot at goal the curved line could help me better to locate the position of the target without taking my eye off the ball. 
Goalkeeper: I'd lose the wide corners but would gain a few yards for clearances in front of goal.
Coach: I see more benefits for attacking play than defending.
Referee: It would certainly ease supervision and reduce tension at penalty kicks. It could also help me in judging 'goal scoring opportunity' criteria.
Assistant Referee: In place of the current 18yds line as a reference to judge offside I could use the peak of the arc, usually visible on crowned pitches.
Stadium director: It would simplify marking the penalty areas. 
Administrator: Only Law 1 - The Field of Play - would need minor textual revision and amended diagrams. 
Fan: Seems logical. Would look more modern, and more sexy!

Conclusion
Any proposal which promises to rectify a long standing anomaly; reduces friction among players; helps supervision of penalty kicks and favours attacking play, should have a chance to succeed. 
If the fan's reaction is typical, the new field of play would also look more sexy - quite a bonus!

Published FIFA Magazine May 2005

Illustrations:

(Fig.1) Pic - source FIFA's FOOTBALL HISTORY-LAWS OF THE GAME-REFEREES page 127
Caption: 1901 F.A. Cup Final at Crystal Palace. The giant Sheffield United goalkeeper Billy Foulke, retrieves the ball after Tottenham score. Note the 12 yards penalty line and short 18 yds line - also the suggestive double-breasted goal area!

(Fig.2) source THE STORY OF FOOTBALL - Martin Tyler - Marshall & Cavendish, London, ISBN 0 85685 177 9 - page 46 - credit?)
Caption: The 1905 F.A. Cup Final, photographed from the same position as Fig.1. Aston Villa score their first goal against Newcastle United on a pitch with penalty boxes as prescribed in 1902. Arcs of 10 yards radius, from the penalty spot, were not added until 1937. Note also the less suggestive rectangular goal area.

Fig.3 (diagram)
Caption: Effect of revised foul play zones 

Fig.4 (diagram)
Caption: Contested advantage zones 

Fig.5 (diagram) 
Caption: The modified field of play

Stanley Lover
stanley.lover@free.fr