On 8th April 2008, Arsenal visited Anfield in the second leg of a Champions League quarter-final. After Adebayor slotted home in the 84th minute to make it 2-2 on the night, Arsenal were due to progress to the semis on away goals. However, Liverpool charged right through a stagnant Arsenal from centre and Ryan Babel drove into the box from the left. His pace took him beyond Fàbregas as he pushed a yard inside the box.
The Dutchman skipped past Kolo Touré, leaving the defender behind him. Knowing he was beaten, Touré jumped away from behind Babel as he went past to avoid initiating contact. Unfortunately for him, his knee very slightly grazed the back of Ryan Babel who flung himself to the ground, simulating a tangle of legs. Swedish referee Peter Fjordfelt believed there was enough contact to warrant a penalty. Steven Gerrard tucked it away and Liverpool pushed on to win 4-2 that night, defeating Arsenal and arguably offsetting the demise of the Gunners for the next decade (read about Arsenal’s 07/08 season here). Arsenal have not since come closer to the Champions League semi-finals, and it seems as if a questionable penalty decision can be cited as the downfall of Arsenal in the next ten years.
Peter Fjordfelt adjudged Touré’s action as foul play, and of course, he should pay a price for that. However, upon closer analysis, penalties in football are far more overvalued than in other sports, leading to our belief that they are the harshest of all sporting punishments.
Football is the world’s most popular sport, with hundreds of millions of people playing and watching worldwide. Owing to its popularity, it requires a standardised and easily-digestible rulebook to ensure accessibility for all of its consumers (there are only 17 ‘laws of the game’). At its core, it is easy to understand: to score a goal, the whole of the ball must cross the whole of the line, in any circumstance in which this occurs, one single goal is awarded. Obviously, a goal from the penalty spot counts the same as a goal from 35 yards, or a goal from five yards. Ultimately, the team with the most goals wins the game.
In the Premier League this season, there has been 7265 shots on goal and 784 goals. This means that 10.8% of shots result in a goal. Sixty-five of these shots have been penalties, and 50 of these goals have been too. So, 76.9% of penalties result in a goal. Straight away we can see that a penalty is seven-times more likely to result in a goal than a normal shot. But that’s fine, right? If you commit an offence you should be punished. Yet, the degree of this punishment is far too harsh; especially when considering the context of the decision and the ensuing penalty, and more data from football and other sports.
The Dutchman skipped past Kolo Touré, leaving the defender behind him. Knowing he was beaten, Touré jumped away from behind Babel as he went past to avoid initiating contact. Unfortunately for him, his knee very slightly grazed the back of Ryan Babel who flung himself to the ground, simulating a tangle of legs. Swedish referee Peter Fjordfelt believed there was enough contact to warrant a penalty. Steven Gerrard tucked it away and Liverpool pushed on to win 4-2 that night, defeating Arsenal and arguably offsetting the demise of the Gunners for the next decade (read about Arsenal’s 07/08 season here). Arsenal have not since come closer to the Champions League semi-finals, and it seems as if a questionable penalty decision can be cited as the downfall of Arsenal in the next ten years.
Peter Fjordfelt adjudged Touré’s action as foul play, and of course, he should pay a price for that. However, upon closer analysis, penalties in football are far more overvalued than in other sports, leading to our belief that they are the harshest of all sporting punishments.
Football is the world’s most popular sport, with hundreds of millions of people playing and watching worldwide. Owing to its popularity, it requires a standardised and easily-digestible rulebook to ensure accessibility for all of its consumers (there are only 17 ‘laws of the game’). At its core, it is easy to understand: to score a goal, the whole of the ball must cross the whole of the line, in any circumstance in which this occurs, one single goal is awarded. Obviously, a goal from the penalty spot counts the same as a goal from 35 yards, or a goal from five yards. Ultimately, the team with the most goals wins the game.
In the Premier League this season, there has been 7265 shots on goal and 784 goals. This means that 10.8% of shots result in a goal. Sixty-five of these shots have been penalties, and 50 of these goals have been too. So, 76.9% of penalties result in a goal. Straight away we can see that a penalty is seven-times more likely to result in a goal than a normal shot. But that’s fine, right? If you commit an offence you should be punished. Yet, the degree of this punishment is far too harsh; especially when considering the context of the decision and the ensuing penalty, and more data from football and other sports.
Via Babel initiating contact and winning a penalty, Liverpool were given an excellent chance to turn the game and win the tie. Scoring from the situation Babel was in would have been far more difficult than scoring a penalty was.
Gathering data from ice hockey in the four seasons spanning 2013-14 – 2016-17, we observed that 9.17% of shots are goals – a similar ratio to football. NHL matches over this period averaged 2.74 goals per game, in the Premier League this season there has been an average of 2.72 goals per game. There are huge scoring similarities between the two sports. However, in these four seasons, only 30.9% of ‘penalty shots’ (in which the attacker will take on the goalkeeper in a one-on-one situation) resulted in a goal. This means that a penalty is three times more likely to result in a goal than a normal shot.
In ice hockey, the fouling team is paying a price. By committing an offence, they are giving up a situation in which the opposing team has a 9% chance of scoring for one in which the opposing team has a 30% chance of scoring. The expected value of such penalty is 0.309 – over the course of the season, 0.309 goals will be scored from each penalty shot. In the Premier League, this value is 0.769, making a penalty in football two-and-a-half times more valuable than a penalty in ice hockey. When you consider the fact that both sports average 2.7 goals per game, it is apparent that if you are awarded a penalty in football, you are more likely to win the game (as you have scored a greater proportion of the game’s total expected goals) than you are in ice hockey. So, we can conclude that a penalty in football is far more influential than it is in ice hockey.
In the 2020 European men’s Handball Championship, 60% of all shots resulted in a goal and 73% of all penalty shots resulted in a goal. Again, by committing the offence, the team is surrendering a situation in which they’d concede 0.6 goals for one in which they’d concede 0.73. The 13-percentage-point difference between shot and penalty conversion is much closer to ice hockey’s 21-percentage-point difference than it is to football’s 66-percentage-point difference.
All three sports follow the same basic rules: the ball crossing the line is worth one goal, the team with the most goals will win. Yet, there is a massive discrepancy between the value of their equivalent ‘penalties’ relative to shots.
In sports where penalties are not worth the same as other means of scoring, we can still reach similar conclusions. Considering rugby and basketball, it must initially be stated that there is an awareness of the ease of scoring from ‘penalties’, meaning that they yield less points individually. There have been changes in rugby’s points allocation over the years owing to this fact.
In ice hockey, the fouling team is paying a price. By committing an offence, they are giving up a situation in which the opposing team has a 9% chance of scoring for one in which the opposing team has a 30% chance of scoring. The expected value of such penalty is 0.309 – over the course of the season, 0.309 goals will be scored from each penalty shot. In the Premier League, this value is 0.769, making a penalty in football two-and-a-half times more valuable than a penalty in ice hockey. When you consider the fact that both sports average 2.7 goals per game, it is apparent that if you are awarded a penalty in football, you are more likely to win the game (as you have scored a greater proportion of the game’s total expected goals) than you are in ice hockey. So, we can conclude that a penalty in football is far more influential than it is in ice hockey.
In the 2020 European men’s Handball Championship, 60% of all shots resulted in a goal and 73% of all penalty shots resulted in a goal. Again, by committing the offence, the team is surrendering a situation in which they’d concede 0.6 goals for one in which they’d concede 0.73. The 13-percentage-point difference between shot and penalty conversion is much closer to ice hockey’s 21-percentage-point difference than it is to football’s 66-percentage-point difference.
All three sports follow the same basic rules: the ball crossing the line is worth one goal, the team with the most goals will win. Yet, there is a massive discrepancy between the value of their equivalent ‘penalties’ relative to shots.
In sports where penalties are not worth the same as other means of scoring, we can still reach similar conclusions. Considering rugby and basketball, it must initially be stated that there is an awareness of the ease of scoring from ‘penalties’, meaning that they yield less points individually. There have been changes in rugby’s points allocation over the years owing to this fact.
In ice hockey, a penalty shot is awarded to a player in a good shooting position denied a chance at a goal by the foul of an opponent. All players are required to leave the ice rink as the player who got fouled faces off solely against the goaltender of the opposite team.
Though a ‘free throw’ in basketball (worth one point) is individually worth less than a normal shot (two points for a normal basket, three points if you score from beyond 24 feet), the person who is fouled takes two or three free throws, depending on where on the court they were fouled. This means that, like in football, there is an opportunity to make up all of the points you may have been denied (e.g. if you are fouled while shooting from outside 24 feet, you will be awarded three free throws to make up for the three points you may have been denied). However, in taking multiple free throws which individually are worth less, the opportunities for a player to miss are increased.
In the 2014/15 NBA season, free throws were scored with a success rate of 75%. The average value of a given shot in the NBA is roughly 1.05 points. The average value of a pair of free throws is 1.5 points, meaning that a pair of free throws is worth 45% more than a normal shot. Thereby, via the concession of a foul, a team is conceding 45% more points than they would do if they conceded a normal shot – a fair penalty to pay. However, it must be noted that basketball is a considerably higher scoring game, so these free throws don’t hugely contribute to the final score like penalties do in football or ice hockey.
In the 2014 World Cup, the success rate of penalty kicks was 92.31%. Per Opta, via NBA analyst Kirk Goldsberry’s article, the success rate of shots that occur within five yards of goal was 46%. This means that at the World Cup in Brazil, a penalty kick was twice as likely to result in a goal than a shot from inside five yards. Shots taken between five and ten yards from goal had a success rate of 21%, making penalties four-and-a-half times more likely to result in a goal than a shot from between five and ten yards. By nature, these twelve-yard attempts must ‘penalise’ the offender, but the degree to which they do so is far too harsh when compared to success rates of ‘normal’ shots.
Unlike Goldsberry’s native basketball, football has only one type of foul and one consequence. A team will commit an offence deemed to be foul play, and as a result the opposition are awarded some form of a free kick. This means that any foul occurring in the penalty box results in a penalty – regardless of the degree to which the offence is foul play. As a result of this, Mexico suffered the same consequence following Robben’s flagrant dive (after a challenge from Rafa Márquez) in 2014 than Uruguay did following Luis Suárez’s infamous handball on the line in 2010. Ironically, it was the former of the events which saw the penalty converted. As stated by Goldsberry, “in FIFA country, you go to the gallows for stealing a horse. You also go there for littering.”
In the 2014/15 NBA season, free throws were scored with a success rate of 75%. The average value of a given shot in the NBA is roughly 1.05 points. The average value of a pair of free throws is 1.5 points, meaning that a pair of free throws is worth 45% more than a normal shot. Thereby, via the concession of a foul, a team is conceding 45% more points than they would do if they conceded a normal shot – a fair penalty to pay. However, it must be noted that basketball is a considerably higher scoring game, so these free throws don’t hugely contribute to the final score like penalties do in football or ice hockey.
In the 2014 World Cup, the success rate of penalty kicks was 92.31%. Per Opta, via NBA analyst Kirk Goldsberry’s article, the success rate of shots that occur within five yards of goal was 46%. This means that at the World Cup in Brazil, a penalty kick was twice as likely to result in a goal than a shot from inside five yards. Shots taken between five and ten yards from goal had a success rate of 21%, making penalties four-and-a-half times more likely to result in a goal than a shot from between five and ten yards. By nature, these twelve-yard attempts must ‘penalise’ the offender, but the degree to which they do so is far too harsh when compared to success rates of ‘normal’ shots.
Unlike Goldsberry’s native basketball, football has only one type of foul and one consequence. A team will commit an offence deemed to be foul play, and as a result the opposition are awarded some form of a free kick. This means that any foul occurring in the penalty box results in a penalty – regardless of the degree to which the offence is foul play. As a result of this, Mexico suffered the same consequence following Robben’s flagrant dive (after a challenge from Rafa Márquez) in 2014 than Uruguay did following Luis Suárez’s infamous handball on the line in 2010. Ironically, it was the former of the events which saw the penalty converted. As stated by Goldsberry, “in FIFA country, you go to the gallows for stealing a horse. You also go there for littering.”
Though Luis Suárez was sent off for his handball, Ghana missed the ensuing penalty and as a result missed out on advancing to the 2010 World Cup semi-finals. Comparing this to Márquez's alleged trip, we can see the issues with the penalty kick as an all encompassing punishment.
In other sports such as rugby, basketball and ice hockey, there is clear legislation regarding which foul yields which consequence. However, football, subject to its vague rulebook, offers one punishment for all types of offence. What’s more is that these offences are only interpretations of the law by the referee. Even in this VAR era, we lack clarity as to whether certain offences are such. When the lines in this sense are so blurred, the absurd punishment of the penalty seems an ever more inappropriate response to all offences inside a box with an area of 792 square yards – as displayed by comparing Márquez to Suárez.
We can also compare penalties to free kicks to display their unfairness. Using the data from the 2014 World Cup, we can estimate that 3% of shots from outside the box result in goals. Free kicks are a result of an offence, so should offer the recipient an advantage, meaning that they should be easier to score from than regular shots. During his time at Manchester United and Real Madrid, Cristiano Ronaldo scored 6.9% of his free kicks. Therefore, you are roughly twice as likely to score from a free kick than a shot outside the box – a fair punishment. Note, this is with one of the world’s greatest free kick takers shooting against you too. Yet, you are seven times more likely to score a penalty than a regular shot. This means that a defender could commit the same offence just inches apart, and suffer the consequence of a 6% chance of conceding, or a 76% chance of conceding. In fact, penalties are still over twice as likely to result in a goal than a shot on target in the box is.
With the awareness of the relative ease of scoring from the penalty spot, of course Robben or Babel would aim to initiate contact in the box instead of trying to shoot themselves. The best chance a team will get to score is from the penalty spot, so why would you not try your luck with taking a tumble in the box? By winning a penalty, teams may be three, four, five times more likely to score that important goal than they would have been if their player took a shot. So, if you were Robben or Babel, or any economically motivated player, you would be incentivised to dive in the box. The laws, rules and regulations of our favourite game lend itself to this occurrence, so we cannot blame these men for diving so often. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
When we consider the shot conversion rates and ‘penalty’ conversion rates of football and other sports, we can only conclude that the penalty in its current form is overvalued – especially in such a low scoring sport. But it is not in football’s nature to complicate matters regarding the laws (VAR excluded), so we should not expect to see this statistical anomaly to be addressed any time soon. Owing to these statistics, defenders should be far more cautious with their actions in the box. Similarly, it would be more than reasonable for attackers to look to craft new ways of deceiving match officials in the box. After all, why settle for a 10.8% chance of scoring a goal when you could have a 76.9% chance instead?
We can also compare penalties to free kicks to display their unfairness. Using the data from the 2014 World Cup, we can estimate that 3% of shots from outside the box result in goals. Free kicks are a result of an offence, so should offer the recipient an advantage, meaning that they should be easier to score from than regular shots. During his time at Manchester United and Real Madrid, Cristiano Ronaldo scored 6.9% of his free kicks. Therefore, you are roughly twice as likely to score from a free kick than a shot outside the box – a fair punishment. Note, this is with one of the world’s greatest free kick takers shooting against you too. Yet, you are seven times more likely to score a penalty than a regular shot. This means that a defender could commit the same offence just inches apart, and suffer the consequence of a 6% chance of conceding, or a 76% chance of conceding. In fact, penalties are still over twice as likely to result in a goal than a shot on target in the box is.
With the awareness of the relative ease of scoring from the penalty spot, of course Robben or Babel would aim to initiate contact in the box instead of trying to shoot themselves. The best chance a team will get to score is from the penalty spot, so why would you not try your luck with taking a tumble in the box? By winning a penalty, teams may be three, four, five times more likely to score that important goal than they would have been if their player took a shot. So, if you were Robben or Babel, or any economically motivated player, you would be incentivised to dive in the box. The laws, rules and regulations of our favourite game lend itself to this occurrence, so we cannot blame these men for diving so often. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
When we consider the shot conversion rates and ‘penalty’ conversion rates of football and other sports, we can only conclude that the penalty in its current form is overvalued – especially in such a low scoring sport. But it is not in football’s nature to complicate matters regarding the laws (VAR excluded), so we should not expect to see this statistical anomaly to be addressed any time soon. Owing to these statistics, defenders should be far more cautious with their actions in the box. Similarly, it would be more than reasonable for attackers to look to craft new ways of deceiving match officials in the box. After all, why settle for a 10.8% chance of scoring a goal when you could have a 76.9% chance instead?
Written by - Ben Rowe
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back