By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Can someone explain to me how an attacking player can stand 20 yards behind the last defender, the attacking keeper takes a free kick or goal kick towards that defender and the attacking player can come back and challenge for the ball and not be offside.
If you mean Matt Rhead in the first half, it was a Lincoln goal-kick (taken from the edge of the six-yard area, as the ball had gone out of play behind the goal) and you can't be offside from such a goal-kick.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
If you mean Matt Rhead in the first half, it was a Lincoln goal-kick (taken from the edge of the six-yard area, as the ball had gone out of play behind the goal) and you can't be offside from such a goal-kick.
It wasn't just once and sure it also happened from free kicks.
The opposition can't be offside from our keeper kicking it out?
That isn't what he's asking about.
In the first half, Matt Rhead stood about 20 yards behind our defence at a Lincoln goal-kick, from which you can't be offside anyway. I guess it's a tactic designed to get the defence to retreat a bit more.
When the ball was eventually touched on, he had moved to an onside position.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
What upset me was that when Rhead was told by the ref to get his feet behind the white line at a free kick, his gut was still only 9 yards from the ball!
On a different tack,did anyone see that second penalty for Forest last week when they beat Arsenal? The bloke slipped as he went to kick the ball with his left foot and it hit his standing foot before looping over the keeper into the roof of the net. The commentators were going off saying it should`ve been retaken,but I thought the law states that in any dead ball situation,if a player touches the ball a second time without it touching another player,the referee should award an indirect free kick to the opposing team. When did the suits (as Ken calls them) change that rule?
On a different tack,did anyone see that second penalty for Forest last week when they beat Arsenal? The bloke slipped as he went to kick the ball with his left foot and it hit his standing foot before looping over the keeper into the roof of the net. The commentators were going off saying it should`ve been retaken,but I thought the law states that in any dead ball situation,if a player touches the ball a second time without it touching another player,the referee should award an indirect free kick to the opposing team. When did the suits (as Ken calls them) change that rule?
Correct - should have been a free-kick to Arsenal. Same as if you hit a penalty which rebounds off the post and then smash it in - no other player has touched it, and it's a free-kick to the defending team. Didn't Hendo cheekily duck under such a rebound and let another player score for us I seem to remember?
Correct - should have been a free-kick to Arsenal. Same as if you hit a penalty which rebounds off the post and then smash it in - no other player has touched it, and it's a free-kick to the defending team. Didn't Hendo cheekily duck under such a rebound and let another player score for us I seem to remember?
On a different tack,did anyone see that second penalty for Forest last week when they beat Arsenal? The bloke slipped as he went to kick the ball with his left foot and it hit his standing foot before looping over the keeper into the roof of the net. The commentators were going off saying it should`ve been retaken,but I thought the law states that in any dead ball situation,if a player touches the ball a second time without it touching another player,the referee should award an indirect free kick to the opposing team. When did the suits (as Ken calls them) change that rule?
I don't think the commentators here said it should be retaken. That isn't praise though because they were too busy trying to figure out on supa-slo-mo from an impossible angle if it was hit twice, when the flipping trajectory of the ball tells you everything you needed to know.
On a different tack,did anyone see that second penalty for Forest last week when they beat Arsenal? The bloke slipped as he went to kick the ball with his left foot and it hit his standing foot before looping over the keeper into the roof of the net. The commentators were going off saying it should`ve been retaken,but I thought the law states that in any dead ball situation,if a player touches the ball a second time without it touching another player,the referee should award an indirect free kick to the opposing team. When did the suits (as Ken calls them) change that rule?
They didn’t.
Too many commentators and pundits don’t know the Laws.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
Too many commentators and pundits don’t know the Laws.
Well,who would know these days? Changing the kick off rule,so they can pass the ball backwards straight away is ridiculous. The bloke who takes the kick actually has to stand in the opposition`s half of the field to do it ffs. As I said at the time,the kick off is one of the fundamentals of Association Football,but in the modern game maybe "the suits" decided that the ball now goes backward more times than it goes forward,so may as well start as they mean to carry on.
Well,who would know these days? Changing the kick off rule,so they can pass the ball backwards straight away is ridiculous. The bloke who takes the kick actually has to stand in the opposition`s half of the field to do it ffs. As I said at the time,the kick off is one of the fundamentals of Association Football,but in the modern game maybe "the suits" decided that the ball now goes backward more times than it goes forward,so may as well start as they mean to carry on.
Can’t see a problem with that one personally. Is it any different to taking a free-kick or throw-in?
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
