Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Uddersfield v Norwich



Easy 10

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,424
Location Location
hans kraay fan club said:
They could stop the encroachment easily, by handing out bookings for it. Technically (for a player on the defending side) its the same offence as charging out of the wall before someone has taken a direct free kick. If you did that, you'd get booked more often than not.
Click to expand...

I think there's an element of "oh well, no harm done" if the penalty is scored despite a herd of players charging in before its been hit. Its only if its saved and stays in play that referees seem to think it needs to be a factor.

Obviously if a defending player encroaches and the penalty is scored then it stands, but I agree, the ref should book them for encroachment regardless, as they were seeking to gain an advantage. If an attacking player encroaches, then order a retake (if it was scored) and book him as well.
 




B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Change at Barnham said:
I realise this thread isn't supposed to be about the laws of the game but I'll throw another one in any way.

I always feel it's wrong that a team taking a goal kick aren't penalised if they touch the ball again before it goes out of the 18 yard box.

The team taking the goal kick can automatically get a retake by deliberately touching it and wasting a bit of time or touching it if under pressure from an attacking player.
I've always felt they should suffer some consequence but not sure what. A free kick on the edge of the area seems a bit harsh.
Click to expand...

I agree it is absurd that the goal kick is retaken because I have seen it haopen when a keeper has taken a short goal kick and the player realized he was going to be under pressure so jusr ran in the box to stop it going out and the kick retaken. Logically it should be an idirect free kick from where the player played it in the box.
 


B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Easy 10 said:
I think there's an element of "oh well, no harm done" if the penalty is scored despite a herd of players charging in before its been hit. Its only if its saved and stays in play that referees seem to think it needs to be a factor.

Obviously if a defending player encroaches and the penalty is scored then it stands, but I agree, the ref should book them for encroachment regardless, as they were seeking to gain an advantage. If an attacking player encroaches, then order a retake (if it was scored) and book him as well.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that bit IMHO should be a free kick as given last night. as I have said many times why should the attacking team get another chance?
 


hans kraay fan club

hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,763
Chandlers Ford
BensGrandad said:
I disagree with that bit IMHO should be a free kick as given last night. as I have said many times why should the attacking team get another chance?
Click to expand...

On a common sense level, your opinion on this is wrong - ruling out the goal with no retake is clearly (to most people) a disproportionate punishment, for a player encroaching.

However, on a purely TECHNICAL level, your opinion is also wrong. The rules make absolutely perfect sense because of this - until the penalty taker strikes the ball, then the ball is not in play. Thus encroachment has to, by definition, take place when the game is not 'live'.
 


Easy 10

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,424
Location Location
BensGrandad said:
I disagree with that bit IMHO should be a free kick as given last night. as I have said many times why should the attacking team get another chance?
Click to expand...

Because the attacking team has been fouled in the box. Seems a bit GENEROUS to let the defending team completely off the hook just because someone has stepped inside the box before the pen has been taken. I think a retake is punishment enough in that instance, plus a yellow for the perp.
 




B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Easy 10 said:
Because the attacking team has been fouled in the box. Seems a bit GENEROUS to let the defending team completely off the hook just because someone has stepped inside the box before the pen has been taken. I think a retake is punishment enough in that instance, plus a yellow for the perp.
Click to expand...

We must just agree to differ the team taking the penalty had the opportunity to score a goal but to me they forfeited that with a player going .into the box bto try to gain an extra advantage. If a defender goes into the box I agree the goal stand or kick be retaken.if it is missed,.
 


B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
hans kraay fan club said:
On a common sense level, your opinion on this is wrong - ruling out the goal with no retake is clearly (to most people) a disproportionate punishment, for a player encroaching.

However, on a purely TECHNICAL level, your opinion is also wrong. The rules make absolutely perfect sense because of this - until the penalty taker strikes the ball, then the ball is not in play. Thus encroachment has to, by definition, take place when the game is not 'live'.
Click to expand...

That is an absurd argument.

Common sense tells the attackers to stay out of the box until it is kicked, not difficult for even a footballer to take in.

Technically as you say the ball isnt in play until kicked so if Wood was taking the kick and Kayal smacks Bridcutt in the mouth no action as the ball is dead. You cant have it both ways.
 


Easy 10

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,424
Location Location
BensGrandad said:
We must just agree to differ the team taking the penalty had the opportunity to score a goal but to me they forfeited that with a player going .into the box bto try to gain an extra advantage. If a defender goes into the box I agree the goal stand or kick be retaken.if it is missed,.
Click to expand...

We will indeed have to agree to disagree. If the penalty is scored directly, then an attacking player encroaching hasn't made a BLIND bit of difference to the outcome, so chalking it off and giving the defending team a free kick is ludicrously harsh.

By all means book the encroacher, and order a retake. But taking away the pen is bonkers.
 




L

LondonTown

New member
Mar 13, 2017
43
Oh, the irony. In a thread about Huddersfield, this penalty business is academic. We don't get them! Simple as. OK, we've been given two, and both soft, but only when the ref was making amends for previous errors of judgement. And no, I don't expect any sympathy on here, so please pass on any, "BooHoo, the refs are against us," type of responses. :bla:
 


B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Easy 10 said:
We will indeed have to agree to disagree. If the penalty is scored directly, then an attacking player encroaching hasn't made a BLIND bit of difference to the outcome, so chalking it off and giving the defending team a free kick is ludicrously harsh.

By all means book the encroacher, and order a retake. But taking away the pen is bonkers.
Click to expand...

It could have if he had distracted the keeper.
 


Easy 10

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,424
Location Location
BensGrandad said:
It could have if he had distracted the keeper.
Click to expand...

Oh come on!

Unless the encroacher runs into the box 10 seconds before the pen is taken and assaults him with a tickling stick, or a strongly worded LEAFLET campaign, then how the heck is a keeper going to be distracted by someone stepping into the box a fraction of a second before the player taking the pen strikes the ball ?

If he genuinely is distracted by that, then he's probably in the wrong line of work.
 






hans kraay fan club

hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,763
Chandlers Ford
BensGrandad said:
That is an absurd argument.

Common sense tells the attackers to stay out of the box until it is kicked, not difficult for even a footballer to take in.

Technically as you say the ball isnt in play until kicked so if Wood was taking the kick and Kayal smacks Bridcutt in the mouth no action as the ball is dead. You cant have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Now you are being deliberately stupid. In your (entirely irrelevant) scenario Kayal would be shown a red card for his actions, but in terms of PLAY you are right - no action would be taken. Had the penalty been scored it would stand. :shrug:
 






B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
hans kraay fan club said:
Now you are being deliberately stupid. In your (entirely irrelevant) scenario Kayal would be shown a red card for his actions, but in terms of PLAY you are right - no action would be taken. Had the penalty been scored it would stand. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Why should Kayal get a red card because as you say the ball is not in play in one scenario so consequently no action can be taken so how is it different in another?
 




hans kraay fan club

hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,763
Chandlers Ford
BensGrandad said:
Why should Kayal get a red card because as you say the ball is not in play in one scenario so consequently no action can be taken so how is it different in another?
Click to expand...

I literally have no idea what your point is.

A player caught striking another, would be sent off if it happened at half time in the tunnel, or after the final whistle, let alone during a stoppage in play.
 


B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
hans kraay fan club said:
However, on a purely TECHNICAL level, your opinion is also wrong. The rules make absolutely perfect sense because of this - until the penalty taker strikes the ball, then the ball is not in play. Thus encroachment has to, by definition, take place when the game is not 'live'.
Click to expand...


What you are saying is that nothing can happen because the game 'is not live' so the same argument could be attached to my point about a red card. It is then obvious that action can be taken whether the ball has been kicked or not and has no need to be live. If a player encroached early the taker would obviously wait until he had got out of the box but if he didnt the player has still encroached and tried to circumvent the rule to his advantage so IMHO for that reason a free kick should be given to the defending team. Not give the offending team a 2nd chance to score due to their own breaking of the rules.
 




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,183
Goldstone
BensGrandad said:
Why should Kayal get a red card because as you say the ball is not in play in one scenario so consequently no action can be taken so how is it different in another?
Click to expand...
Seriously?
 


Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,183
Goldstone
hans kraay fan club said:
However, on a purely TECHNICAL level, your opinion is also wrong. The rules make absolutely perfect sense because of this - until the penalty taker strikes the ball, then the ball is not in play. Thus encroachment has to, by definition, take place when the game is not 'live'.
Click to expand...
Bit of devils advocate here - if the penalty is not scored, an indirect free-kick is awarded to the defending team. According to your definition, the encroachment has been made when the game is not live. Perhaps it's more that when the ball is struck, the game is live, and the other attacking player is within the area.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here