Penalty law

[lovely stuff]

Regarding Pires's second penalty today against Man City. Shouldn't it have been re-taken?

 

I thought the law stated that no player should encrouch into the box,as the penalty taker kicks the ball? There were three players inside the box when Pires made contact with the ball. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

[Hawkeye Pierce]

Some teams are a law unto themselves.

[Jim Cunneen]

Actually the law has been changed this year. Believe it or not if a member of the side taking the penalty encroaches the penalty shall not be retaken. Instead an indirect free kick shall be awarded to the other side.

 

Can you honestly see any referee having the courage to do this at ANY level.

 

I have not seen the arsenal incident who was encroaching....

 

Jim

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/icon_smokin.gif" alt="" />

[lovely stuff]

Henry + two man city defenders

[The Invisible Man]

Law 14 - The Penalty Kick states that if a team-mate of the player taking the kick enters into the penalty area... the referee allows the kick to proceed.

If the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken.

If the ball does not enter the goal, play is stopped and an indirect free kick awarded to the defending team.

 

If players of both temas enter the penalty area, the kick is retaken.

 

However, when taking a pen the ball has to be kicked forwards. I'm not sure that Pires actually moved the ball forward, he gave it the merest of grazes, it moved sideways about a centimetre. Therefore the ball was not in play, and the penalty kick was never taken. If this was the case then surely the kick should have been taken properly - "retaken" in effect?

[lovely stuff]

Exactally.

I can't believe no one from Arsenal (or anyone in the media) has questioned the referees decision to award a free kick to Man city instead of a re-take.

[The Invisible Man]

There does seem to be some confusion over this Law, as Jim has very kindly pointed out to me. It does appear the interpretation I posted above, which was taken from the FA website, is out of date, and the wording Jim gives is correct. Apologies to all, especially Jim, for that.

 

Any practising refs out there care to confirm the new directive?

[Jim Cunneen]

I have seen it now...

 

I think the ref got it wrong but Arsenal deserve everything they got for being bloody daft frankly! I think it showed lack of respect to City and they could have paid for it if City's equaliser had counted. Let's hope that is the ned of such stupidity.

 

Jim

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/icon_smokin.gif" alt="" />

[andyetfc]

Just think if they were to lose the league by the difference of 1 goal!

[Prophet]

Haven't seen this little cracker yet but did the ball travel it's full circumfrence to be deemed in play and if not touching it the second time would then result in a free kick to the opposition.If it hadn't done the full circum and he hadn't touched it again the referee should allow a retake.

[The Invisible Man]

As I understand it the requirement for the ball to travel its own circumference has been done away with. There is no mention of it in the Laws in the FA website, but it does have to travel forwards. Pires did not touch the ball a second time.

[Prophet]

Aah cheers for that info invisable and as i said i still haven't seen it just read in the paper he touched it twice,still sounds like a sunday morning game [****!!****] up to me.On another intresting note what do the towners think of b/wood signing Daryl Cox it makes their strike force very strong eh <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/diskussion.gif" alt="" />

[Southport - TOWNER]

Quote:

andyetfc said:
Just think if they were to lose the league by the difference of 1 goal!

that is assuming they would have scored that penalty anyway........