Uddersfield v Norwich

[hans kraay fan club]

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.

That would be right, guess.

 

[Triggaaar]

That would be right, guess.

So there is a bit of inconsistency with the rules - it depends on where the ball goes as to whether a live offence has been committed. Instead, the rules are more along the lines of having a punishment, but not too much.

 

[BensGrandad]

There is obviously an anomaly with the rule and I spent a long time on Surrey FA Rules revision committee reading into rules and possible scenarios to alleviate any misinterpretation and I believe that is needed in this case. I also believe that it is wrong for an offending team to get a 2nd bite at the cherry with little or no punishment for infringement of the rules.

 

[dazzer6666]

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.

Nope. You're trying to equate two different offences.

In the case of the penalty, the offence occurs when the ball is kicked, because the player is in the box at that time.

In the theoretical punching of Bridcutt, the offence occurs when he gets hit. It would be a red card if it happened after the final whistle went so not even the game has to be live.