Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support Fans Focus by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Question


Recommended Posts

Interesting thing happened in our game on Saturday. Player was fouled a couple of yards outside the area, but still stayed on his feet with the ball. The referee allowed play to continue, the player was the fouled again by a different player, this time inside the area. The referee awarded a free kick for the original offence. Obviously this happened over a matter of seconds and I appreciate the referee had to make a decision in that time and can understand why he brought it back.

 

Just wondering what the thoughts are if this was the correct decision or after allowing play to continue does the 2nd offence become active?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have been incensed not to get penalty as he played advantage I'd used it well and then was fouled again. Has to be a penalty. Tw benefit should be with the player/team who have been impeeded and it clearly wasn't in this case. Must be hard for a ref in real time though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think the first offence is the one the referee has to take action on.. Interesting to see a referees point. if correct, chop a player down in the box after youe teammate has already had one attempt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the referee has played an advantage, and a second offense has been committed then the second offense does become active and a penalty should be awarded. Only thing I can say that goes with the referee is that he felt that the second offense wasn't a penalty and therefore the first offense is active......Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the referee has played an advantage, and a second offense has been committed then the second offense does become active and a penalty should be awarded. Only thing I can say that goes with the referee is that he felt that the second offense wasn't a penalty and therefore the first offense is active......Does that make sense?

Agreed as soon as advantage is taken the next foul has to be active.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all down to the referees interpretation of the rules and the way they are applied in the match, I bet another referee would have given a penalty. It must be a tough job as in many games things happen really quickly and decisions have to be made in seconds, with players of both sides in your ear it cant be easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Referee has acknowledged both incidents as fouls then the advantage from the first incident has been played.

 

Once the second foul has occurred then this is the one that should be penalized thus awarding of a penalty kick would be the correct decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Referee has acknowledged both incidents as fouls then the advantage from the first incident has been played.

 

Once the second foul has occurred then this is the one that should be penalized thus awarding of a penalty kick would be the correct decision.

 

I agree with that but explain this one to me.

 

Player clean through with Goalie to beat, gets taken out inside the box, ball runs loose to supporting player who is now 10 yards out , middle of goal no player anywhere near him, because he is crap manages to slice the ball wide . Ref having played advantage sees he has missed open goal so calls play back, gives a penalty and sends our keeper off !!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that but explain this one to me.

 

Player clean through with Goalie to beat, gets taken out inside the box, ball runs loose to supporting player who is now 10 yards out , middle of goal no player anywhere near him, because he is crap manages to slice the ball wide . Ref having played advantage sees he has missed open goal so calls play back, gives a penalty and sends our keeper off !!!!!!!!!

 

Can't pull it back in this example.

 

No penalty and no send off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

 

Was it one of your players who missed, Doug? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't pull it back in this example.

 

No penalty and no send off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

 

Was it one of your players who missed, Doug? :D

Agreed if the advantage had been played then the offender hasn't denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. although as previously stated if it is a sending off offence no advantage should be played and player dismissed from field of play. Anyway, till further incidents on Saturday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone from explaining the finer points of the off-side Law

Do you know the off-side Law then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...