Uddersfield v Norwich

[Easy 10]

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.

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.

 

[BensGrandad]

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.

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.

 

[BensGrandad]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

 

[BensGrandad]

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.

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,.

 

[BensGrandad]

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'.

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]

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,.

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.

 

[LondonTown]

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.

 

[BensGrandad]

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.

It could have if he had distracted the keeper.

 

[Easy 10]

It could have if he had distracted the keeper.

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.

 

[The Fish]

Canny. Cheers, pet!

Nee bother, gan canny hinny.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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.

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.

 

[clarkey]

We will indeed have to agree to disagree..

If I had a pound for every time I'd seen this following a BG post, I'd have £57,492 by now.

 

[BensGrandad]

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.

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?

 

[dazzer6666]

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 different in another.

For violent conduct at a wild guess.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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?

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.

 

[BensGrandad]

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'.

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]

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?

Seriously?

 

[Triggaaar]

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'.

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.