Help needed concerning the laws of the game

[beorhthelm]

the yellow/red cards are given for specific reasons, the location on the pitch doesnt change anything. so if handball in itself doesnt warrant a yellow normally, it wouldnt in the penalty area. you will see dozens of handballs awarded penalties every season, its a rarity to be given a card too (probably for persistance offence or dissent when it does.)

 

[Arthritic Toe]

They should be, but they aren't, and this is another of the urban myths that the so-called "experts" in the studio seem to perpetrate, as it's not about "ball-to-hand" or whether they could have got their hand out of the way. If the ball striking the arm disadvantaged the opposition then a foul can be given.
...

I like this definition - it makes sense (except use of the word "can" - this implies that are times when it wont be given - why would that be?. Shouldn't it be "will"?).

Is this actually written in the rules anywhere?

 

[pasty]

the yellow/red cards are given for specific reasons, the location on the pitch doesnt change anything. so if handball in itself doesnt warrant a yellow normally, it wouldnt in the penalty area. you will see dozens of handballs awarded penalties every season, its a rarity to be given a card too (probably for persistance offence or dissent when it does.)

That is one thing that really winds me up. These so called experts on TV panels when a penalty isn't given come out with "If that had been anywhere else on the pitch it would have been a free kick"

Utter tripe. If it would have been a free kick in say the centre circle, it would be a penalty if in the 18 yard box.

 

[Gritt23]

I like this definition - it makes sense (except use of the word "can" - this implies that are times when it wont be given - why would that be?. Shouldn't it be "will"?).

Is this actually written in the rules anywhere?

Blimey, we are picky today aren't we. I didn't realise I was writing the word perfect rulebook. Yes, of course, it should be "will".

 

[Dandyman]

Vidic* in the Carling CUp FInal should've been sent off.FACT.




*or whoever it was that fouled the villa bloke!

Totally agree. An example of a poor decision potentially affecting the whole game IMO.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Blimey, we are picky today aren't we. I didn't realise I was writing the word perfect rulebook. Yes, of course, it should be "will".

Sorry, wasn't trying to pick holes in your definition. I thought you were quoting from the rulebook, thats all.

 

[beorhthelm]

That is one thing that really winds me up. These so called experts on TV panels when a penalty isn't given come out with "If that had been anywhere else on the pitch it would have been a free kick"

Utter tripe. If it would have been a free kick in say the centre circle, it would be a penalty if in the 18 yard box.

i think thats a different issue, they are implying that a foul was commited but the ref decided it not serious enough to warrant a match-changing penalty. in the middle of the pitch refs are less worried about giving a dubious/50-50 decision.

 

[Easy 10]

i think thats a different issue, they are implying that a foul was commited but the ref decided it not serious enough to warrant a match-changing penalty. in the middle of the pitch refs are less worried about giving a dubious/50-50 decision.

And therein lies the problem.
A foul is a foul, whether its inside or outside the penalty area. Referees add their own interpretation of whether it was "enough of a foul" to give a pen, hence the inconsistencies.

Its also why you get defenders constantly pushing, pulling and barging opposition players in the box. Is it a foul ? Yes. But they know they'll get away with it in the box, because the ref won't think its enough of a foul.

If refs just started applying the rules and giving pens when its a foul (regardless of how "serious" the foul was), then eventually defenders would get the message and cut that shit out. But it would take a brave ref to make a stand and start doing that. Then the managers would be up in arms, and that ref would be back on Hackney Marshes before you can say "Fergietime".

 

[Gritt23]

Sorry, wasn't trying to pick holes in your definition. I thought you were quoting from the rulebook, thats all.

Fair dos. No, I was just giving off the top of my head that the rule is actually all about where the ball is going and has the handball benefitted the defending side, (or therefore hampered the attacking side). THAT is what decides teh foul of not, rather than the urban myth perpetuated in commentary boxes up and down the country about hand to ball / ball to hand.

 

[Acker79]

i think thats a different issue, they are implying that a foul was commited but the ref decided it not serious enough to warrant a match-changing penalty. in the middle of the pitch refs are less worried about giving a dubious/50-50 decision.

What gets me is they will frequently say a ref has to be 100% sure to give a penalty.

Fine. I go with that.

But like you say some decisions are dubious/50/50 and giving them elsewhere on the pitch is fine if you're 80% sure. But if you're 80% sure you can'ty give the penalty right?

And with the "if that's not a penalty, surely it's a dive and he should be booked". Again, going with this 100% certain crap, what if you're 95% certain? Can you book someone you're only 5% sure dived?

 

[Pondicherry]

Rule 12 that covers handball does actually mention the word deliberate.

Law 12 clearly states that a Direct Free Kick should be awarded to the opposing team if a player handles the ball DELIBERATELY (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty).

Referees have to interprept what deliberate means and as part on this they are instucted to consider ball to hand/hand to ball etc and other factors.(by UEFA).

I do agree however that TV "experts" are often poor regarding the laws.

 

[beorhthelm]

And with the "if that's not a penalty, surely it's a dive and he should be booked". Again, going with this 100% certain crap, what if you're 95% certain? Can you book someone you're only 5% sure dived?

thats the one that irks me: surely if the play ends on his arse and it isnt a foul its a dive? how certain do you have to be? difficult, but if they on the floor it much of gone one way or other surely?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

..and when did contact start to mean a penalty?

 

[Pondicherry]

As its so hard to decide if a player is diving or not I think that perhaps the laws sould be changed so that a penalty can only be awarded if a player makes every effort to stay on his feet. At the moment football is turning into basketball where players try to draw fouls. This makes the referees job too hard especially in the penalty area IMHO.

 

[Acker79]

thats the one that irks me: surely if the play ends on his arse and it isnt a foul its a dive? how certain do you have to be? difficult, but if they on the floor it much of gone one way or other surely?

Not necessarily. It could be momentum, loss of balance, it cold be the result of a fair, but meaty challenge. It could just be that the ref isn't sure, it might have been a foul, it might have been a dive, if it's only "might" he can't give it one way or the other, can he?

 

[Fef]

I like this definition - it makes sense (except use of the word "can" - this implies that are times when it wont be given - why would that be?. Shouldn't it be "will"?).

'Can' offers the referee the option to play-on if the offended team has an advantage. If the referee HAD to stop the play, some of us would get mighty peeved!

 

[beorhthelm]

Not necessarily. It could be momentum, loss of balance, it cold be the result of a fair, but meaty challenge. It could just be that the ref isn't sure, it might have been a foul, it might have been a dive, if it's only "might" he can't give it one way or the other, can he?

true, but then they stay on the floor, or turn to the ref screaming. actually thats another one, gesturing to the ref for a card should be a straight red.