Uddersfield v Norwich

[WhingForPresident]

Can honestly say I have never seen that given...

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

Let's hope he sends off Gayle for simulation

 

[Simster]

If a Newcastle player encroaches and the penalty is scored it is a free kick to Burton if It was missed or saved the kick is retaken. If a Burton player encroaches and Newcastle score the goal stands if it is missed or saved the kick is retaken. If you order the kick to be retaken when a Newcastle player encroaches they not penalised and have a 2nd chance.

But that is WRONG. It is the other way round:

If a Newcastle player encroaches and the penalty is scored it is retaken
If a Newcastle player encroaches and the penalty is missed, it is a free kick to Burton.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I reckon he's kicked it against his own foot.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

If a Newcastle player encroaches and the penalty is scored it is a free kick to Burton

No, no it's not.

 

[beardy gull]

Watch this again. Watch the ball very closely as Ritchie goes to kick. I *think* it moves just before his kicking foot strikes the ball, i.e. that he's somehow managed to accidentally knock it with his other foot. I keep watching it and I'm not 100% sure, but there might just be the smallest hint of movement.

IF that's the case, once he's knocked it with his non-kicking foot, he cannot, under the laws of the game, touch the ball again until another player has touched it. Therefore as soon as he hits it into the net, he's committed an indirect free-kick offence.

I can't believe a professional referee and his assistants would ALL get the laws wrong if it was disallowed for encroachment, surely (if a penalty is scored following encroachment from the attacking side, then it's obviously supposed to be a retake)? There has to be something else going on.

I think you're right. It's got to me either this or feinting to kick the ball at the end of the run-up. I've not seen the incident yet but there is no way the officials don't know that law.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I reckon he's kicked it against his own foot.

Glad you've said that, I've watched it about ten times now & I do think the ball shifts before he strikes it.

Excellent refereeing, Keith.

 

[BensGrandad]

No, it's not what you said. The correct decision according to the laws quoted is a re-taken penalty.

No its not because Ritchie scored and as I said if he retakes it they get a 2nd chance having committed the offense originally.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I think you're right. It's got to me either this or feinting to kick the ball at the end of the run-up. I've not seen the incident yet but there is no way the officials don't know that law.

I put the link in my post, you can watch it there

He doesn't appear to feint, so I can only think of the ball itself. Ritchie's fault, not the referee's

 

[jabba]

Looked a bit of a dive for the pen so whatever the reasoning, the outcome is the right one!

 

[LVGull]

No its not because Ritchie scored and as I said if he retakes it they get a 2nd chance having committed the offense originally.

Go to bed please.

 

[samtheseagull]

Was not a penalty in first place. Looks like he has doubled kicked it tho.

 

[sams dad]

No its not because Ritchie scored and as I said if he retakes it they get a 2nd chance having committed the offense originally.

**** me, you're a stubborn old bugger.
Several people have quoted the correct ruling, but you still won't accept that you are wrong.

 

[essbee1]

I can't see Norwich holding out. They're terrible! Pritchard in particular has been awful. Thank god he chose to sign for them over us.

Pritchard? Who the f*** is that?

 

[BensGrandad]

As I quoted is as I have always found and my interpretation of the rule in 60 + years of playing coaching, refereeing and watching the game If I have interpreted wrong then it has been for a long time and I would stand corrected but I dont think my interpretation of the rule is wrong.

 

[symyjym]

Come on Pritchard

 

[samtheseagull]

As I quoted is as I have always found and my ionterpretation of the rule in 60 + years of playing coaching, referreeing and watching the game If I have interpreted wrong then uit has been for a long time and I would stand corrected but I dont think my interpretation of the rule is wrong.

You are wrong

 

[KVLT]

They're saying on Geordie radio that it might have been for a foul by Gayle on the edge of the area just before the penalty was taken.

 

[mac04]

If it was a double kick by Richie, wouldn't the free kick have been from the penalty spot, rather than where Gayle entered the area?