[Football] A penalty from a Penalty

[Weststander]

Jese was a Jessie. Where was the sniper hiding who took out the screaming cheat?

 

[GT49er]

Anyway, they ballsed it up. Thats the main thing

Agreed.

 

[Kneon Light]

It isn't, because *usually* the penalty is scored, so it doesn't really matter.

However, in this instance, Dunk stopped a certain goal being scored on the rebound. No WAY would he have got there in time to do that, had he not encroached before the pen was struck. A rule is a rule, and had that gone against us up the other end, I'd have gone apeshit. You've got 2 officials standing there who are supposed to be watching out for that, and both failed (thankfully). Its not even in open play. Easy decision. Absolutely piss-poor officiating. Their rank incompetence saved us (albeit it shouldn't have been a pen in the first place).

My son is a qualified ref and I asked him about this.
Apparently they are told that if players from BOTH teams encroach then not to give anything.
He said that if the Stoke player had not encroached as well the penalty would have been retaken but because both Dunk and a Stoke player encroached no retake was the correct decision.

 

[MrSnuggles]

My son is a qualified ref and I asked him about this.
Apparently they are told that if players from BOTH teams encroach then not to give anything.
He said that if the Stoke player had not encroached as well the penalty would have been retaken but because both Dunk and a Stoke player encroached no retake was the correct decision.

If only a Stoke player had encroached and Stoke had scored l wonder if the ref would have been brave enough to have ordered a retake? Wasn't there a case with Palace last season when one of their players encroached before the penalty was scored and the ref ruled out the goal and gave the opposition a free kick. He got the rule wrong, as he should have ordered a retake under current rules, but in my opinion there is sense in that logic. If the defending team encroaches and it's saved then retake it. If the attacking team encroaches and they score then it's a free kick the other way! That should stop any encroachment!

 

[Gwylan]

The 'goal' shouldn't be allowed if it's the attacking team encroaching, shirley. I'm pretty sure there were Stoke bodies in the box on Saturday, as well as Brighton.

As happened in the infamous Challis game against Palace. Our goal was disallowed for encroachment, ignoring the fact that the encroachment happened because our player (Ward?) was pushed in the box by a Palace one.

No, I'm not still bitter after 41 years ....

 

[Bodian]

My son is a qualified ref and I asked him about this.
Apparently they are told that if players from BOTH teams encroach then not to give anything.
He said that if the Stoke player had not encroached as well the penalty would have been retaken but because both Dunk and a Stoke player encroached no retake was the correct decision.

This is a good powerpoint. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/8.%20law%2014_559.pdf Easy to follow Yes/No and what happens. Both encroach - kick retaken.

 

[dadams2k11]

What about Ryan being off his line which clearly helped with the save? So many things wrong with that penalty we're lucky lady luck was on our side. Could be a real help come the end of the season.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Here's my favourite user name.

TrumpontopMayunderneath

 

[dazzer6666]

What about Ryan being off his line which clearly helped with the save? So many things wrong with that penalty we're lucky lady luck was on our side. Could be a real help come the end of the season.

Lady luck ? Should never have been a penalty in the first place.........very soft.

 

[Kneon Light]

This is a good powerpoint. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/8.%20law%2014_559.pdf Easy to follow Yes/No and what happens. Both encroach - kick retaken.

Interesting - that is not what he has been told however - He was told if players form both teams encroach not to order a re-take. I'll get him to ask at his next refs meeting

 

[dadams2k11]

Lady luck ? Should never have been a penalty in the first place.........very soft.

I agree, but the ref gave it and then lady luck intervened.

 

[Mellotron]

It isn't, because *usually* the penalty is scored, so it doesn't really matter.

However, in this instance, Dunk stopped a certain goal being scored on the rebound. No WAY would he have got there in time to do that, had he not encroached before the pen was struck. A rule is a rule, and had that gone against us up the other end, I'd have gone apeshit. You've got 2 officials standing there who are supposed to be watching out for that, and both failed (thankfully). Its not even in open play. Easy decision. Absolutely piss-poor officiating. Their rank incompetence saved us (albeit it shouldn't have been a pen in the first place).

The piss-poor officiating was giving the penalty in the first place! Don't really give a shit about what happened beyond that, as justice was eventually served. You wouldn't be going apeshit if you never should've been given the penalty, surely? You'd be feeling very cheeky.

 

[Mellotron]

If only a Stoke player had encroached and Stoke had scored l wonder if the ref would have been brave enough to have ordered a retake? Wasn't there a case with Palace last season when one of their players encroached before the penalty was scored and the ref ruled out the goal and gave the opposition a free kick. He got the rule wrong, as he should have ordered a retake under current rules, but in my opinion there is sense in that logic. If the defending team encroaches and it's saved then retake it. If the attacking team encroaches and they score then it's a free kick the other way! That should stop any encroachment!

It was a Newcastle penalty, taken by Ritchie. For quite a while there was speculation that he had accidentally touched the ball with his planted foot, and that it was disallowed for that. But eventually the ref assocation came out and apologised that it was a misunderstanding of the rules.

 

[Easy 10]

The piss-poor officiating was giving the penalty in the first place! Don't really give a shit about what happened beyond that, as justice was eventually served. You wouldn't be going apeshit if you never should've been given the penalty, surely? You'd be feeling very cheeky.

Yeah I acknowledged it was a soft pen anyway, but it was compounded by the ref not following the rules for the penalty itself. Luckily it meant we got away with it so I'm certainly not complaining, as you could say that it evened itself out there thanks to their rank incompetence.

But refs are SO slack when it comes to the taking of penalties. I can remember a penalty Nicky Forster had saved at Withdean. From my view, I could see the keeper had advanced almost to the 6 yard line before flinging himself to his left and beating the ball away, it was so blatant it was ridiculous. The lino was standing right there in the box on one side, the ref was looking across from the other side, and yet...play went on. Unbelievable.

Its something of a bugbear of mine.

 

[Mellotron]

Yeah I acknowledged it was a soft pen anyway, but it was compounded by the ref not following the rules for the penalty itself. Luckily it meant we got away with it so I'm certainly not complaining, as you could say that it evened itself out there thanks to their rank incompetence.

No we didn't get away with anything! Sorry to be pedantic but I don't understand why you keep skipping the bit where a penalty shouldn't have ever been rewarded, so anything beyond that becomes pretty meaningless, in terms of the realms of "fairness" and "should'ves/shouldn't'ves".

I'll stop now, apologies.

Re: the encroaching. Literally every penalty for the last 20 years would need to be retaken. I guess it's one of those where we'd have a couple of weeks of outright anarchy then hopefully it would settle down, if they did choose to apply the rules.

 

[DTES]

Anyone remember the trip to Stoke in 2004/5 when we lost 2-0 to 2 Stoke penalties in about 3 minutes?

I'm sure I remember an ABSOLUTELY BLATANT handball straight after that should really have been a 3rd Stoke penalty in 5 minutes, but the ref didn't give it? I remember being convinced his thought process must have been something like "I just can't give the same team 3 penaltes in quick succession"... even though he clearly should have.

It is possible I'm completely imagining this though......

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Anyone remember the trip to Stoke in 2004/5 when we lost 2-0 to 2 Stoke penalties in about 3 minutes?

I'm sure I remember an ABSOLUTELY BLATANT handball straight after that should really have been a 3rd Stoke penalty in 5 minutes, but the ref didn't give it? I remember being convinced his thought process must have been something like "I just can't give the same team 3 penaltes in quick succession"... even though he clearly should have.

It is possible I'm completely imagining this though......

No, you're not.
https://www.11v11.com/matches/stoke-city-v-brighton-and-hove-albion-05-march-2005-27799/

 

[Easy 10]

No we didn't get away with anything! Sorry to be pedantic but I don't understand why you keep skipping the bit where a penalty shouldn't have ever been rewarded, so anything beyond that becomes pretty meaningless, in terms of the realms of "fairness" and "should'ves/shouldn't'ves".

I'll stop now, apologies.

Re: the encroaching. Literally every penalty for the last 20 years would need to be retaken. I guess it's one of those where we'd have a couple of weeks of outright anarchy then hopefully it would settle down, if they did choose to apply the rules.

Not so sure of that. If the penalty is scored directly, then it doesn't make any odds if players from either team have encroached as it hasn't affected the outcome.

Shirley the encroachment issue only really becomes relevant if the penalty is saved or hits a post and stays in play. If an attacker who encroached scores the rebound, then the goal should be disallowed and a goal kick given. If a defender who encroached gets to the ball first, or successfully stops a goal, then the penalty should be retaken.

 

[Mellotron]

Not so sure of that. If the penalty is scored directly, then it doesn't make any odds if players from either team have encroached as it hasn't affected the outcome.

Shirley the encroachment issue only really becomes relevant if the penalty is saved or hits a post and stays in play. If an attacker who encroached scores the rebound, then the goal should be disallowed and a goal kick given. If a defender who encroached gets to the ball first, or successfully stops a goal, then the penalty should be retaken.

You are correct. I did a brain fart in my haste to form an opinion.

 

[Easy 10]

You are correct. I did a brain fart in my haste to form an opinion.

We've all been there chap.

I do agree that justice was eventually done at Stoke btw (justice through incompetence). As an aside, I've just finished reading Howard Webb's autobiography, and it gives a really interesting insight into refereeing. Madley will have been de-briefed after that game by his assessor, and if he was anything like Webb, he'll already have known by the time of that meet that he'd dropped a bollock. They'll have studied the tape and his performance will certainly have been marked down on that whole penalty fiasco from start to finish.

They do have to answer for their cock-ups, its just never done publically (other than when you see a ref get demoted from the PL for a while to sort his shit out in the Championship - which always struck me as bloody unfair on the clubs).