| Refereeing query 15:55 - Jan 15 with 4209 views | Northernr |
Mitrovic has just duffed his penalty in via two touches. Goal disallowed, Newcastle free kick. I think that’s right. However a few years back we had a goal disallowed when Joe hart did the same with a free kick and he got a retake. So is it a retake, or a free kick, or is it different for penalties? |  | | |  |
| Refereeing query on 10:16 - Jan 16 with 878 views | PinnerPaul |
| Refereeing query on 21:55 - Jan 15 by tonyQPR |
More too the point if wasn’t a penalty to start with, the Fulham player stamped on trippiers foot but fell over anyway which var confirmed but gave it anyway. Surely that’s the major issue in all off this ?… |
The major issue is that the first one (the pull back by Dan Burn) WAS a penalty and if given, would have been a red card.
That's what Fulham manager was annoyed about.
Another example of what is the point of VAR, if we are STILL getting decisions that are perverse to the majority. There is no way round it, so why bother with VAR? |  | | |
| Refereeing query on 10:18 - Jan 16 with 878 views | PinnerPaul |
| Refereeing query on 09:05 - Jan 16 by Antti_Heinola |
My memory is Charlie didn't touch it until it had left the area, so some of the above doesn't make sense?
I remember being furious at the time, but I also remember it being a weird rule where for a goal kick if it's touched twice they get to take it again for some reason. Was a real anomaly. |
It wasn't Charlie that did anything wrong it was Joe Hart, once he touched it twice, didn't matter what happens after that - its a retake. | | | |
| Refereeing query on 10:24 - Jan 16 with 868 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Refereeing query on 09:15 - Jan 16 by francisbowles |
The point is that the keeper, Hart, had touched it twice before it left the area. So under the old rule it was a retake. |
ah of course, i was being an idiot! that was it |  |
| |
| Refereeing query on 10:24 - Jan 16 with 868 views | terryb |
| Refereeing query on 19:27 - Jan 15 by ozranger |
I always wondered if the rule change for the GK was because players were stupid enough not to know the laws and that if a ball was passed short to a defender who was just outside the box and that player was about to be closed down, then he could jump into the area and intercept the pass thus forcing a retake of the GK? |
I think it was the opposite oz.
Defenders deliberately going into the area so that the goalkick would have to be retaken. That's at least another 30 seconds of the clock. Players might not know all the laws, but they know how to use them for their advantage! | | | |
| Refereeing query on 17:31 - Jan 16 with 755 views | dsr_burnley |
Go back a bit further, and the rule was that the ball wasn't in play until it had travelled its own circumference (about 27 inches). If that law had still been in, Mitrovic would have been able to take it again - which is probably why it was there in the first place. | | | |
| Refereeing query on 18:14 - Jan 16 with 726 views | davman |
| Refereeing query on 16:18 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
He did it on a GK.
At the time ball was not in play until it left the PA, so a retake was correct. NOW the ball is in play from a GK when its kicked, so if he did it now, it would be a FK to us.
Penalty - always been a FK to oppo if attacker touches the ball twice, usually when it rebounds of the post/bar.
THAT was an easy one Clive!  |
That's what I thought...
...but then again, the nations "top professional" refs would probably find a way to get that wrong, wouldn't they?  |  |
| |
| Refereeing query on 18:20 - Jan 16 with 722 views | davman |
| Refereeing query on 10:11 - Jan 16 by PinnerPaul |
Same difference, free kicks in the penalty area also had to leave the penalty area to be in play (Loads of people used to argue that but it WAS true)
Now both FKs in the penalty area and GKs are in play once kicked, so in either scenario it would have been a retake under old law, under current law its a fk to oppo. |
Thanks, Paul, I wondered about that. Could the ref. have played an advantage in the Joe Hart situation if that happened today? If so, its typical QPR, timing all wrong... | |
| |
| Refereeing query on 19:32 - Jan 16 with 702 views | kensalriser |
That's three out of three penalty misses for Mitrovic. At that rate I'm expecting to see him at LR soon, or at least as soon as his legs have gone. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Refereeing query on 10:04 - Jan 17 with 644 views | francisbowles |
| Refereeing query on 19:32 - Jan 16 by kensalriser |
That's three out of three penalty misses for Mitrovic. At that rate I'm expecting to see him at LR soon, or at least as soon as his legs have gone. |
As soon as his legs have gone? Have you seen him strolling around the pitch?
Be great if Sinclair Armstrong could learn his positional sense and finishing ability though! | | | |
| Refereeing query on 18:27 - Jan 17 with 560 views | PinnerPaul |
| Refereeing query on 18:20 - Jan 16 by davman |
Thanks, Paul, I wondered about that. Could the ref. have played an advantage in the Joe Hart situation if that happened today? If so, its typical QPR, timing all wrong... |
That's a really good question, ie I don't know the correct answer!
I'll ask on RefChat tomorrow.
"Think" they will say no, bit like a foul throw, would get called straight away.
As I say though, that's not said with any conviction! | | | |
| Refereeing query on 20:22 - Jan 17 with 533 views | davman |
| Refereeing query on 18:27 - Jan 17 by PinnerPaul |
That's a really good question, ie I don't know the correct answer!
I'll ask on RefChat tomorrow.
"Think" they will say no, bit like a foul throw, would get called straight away.
As I say though, that's not said with any conviction! |
What makes you think a bunch of refs will know?
(I will stop this one day, you know...  )
I suspect that you are right in that you cannot play advantage from it as it will probably be classified as a "ball out of play" type thing that you can't play on from. How annoying would it be though? | |
| |
| Refereeing query on 15:59 - Jan 18 with 468 views | PinnerPaul |
| Refereeing query on 20:22 - Jan 17 by davman |
What makes you think a bunch of refs will know?
(I will stop this one day, you know... )
I suspect that you are right in that you cannot play advantage from it as it will probably be classified as a "ball out of play" type thing that you can't play on from. How annoying would it be though? |
You and I both wrong!
Level 3 referee assures me as the ball is in play, you can indeed play advantage in such a scenario.
My example of a foul throw was different as the ball is not in play until the throw is taken correctly, so you can't play advantage there.
In about 75 years time when it happens again, someone on here will be able to tell everyone that what the red did on the day was right (or wrong!) | | | |
| Refereeing query on 16:59 - Jan 18 with 437 views | terryb |
| Refereeing query on 15:59 - Jan 18 by PinnerPaul |
You and I both wrong!
Level 3 referee assures me as the ball is in play, you can indeed play advantage in such a scenario.
My example of a foul throw was different as the ball is not in play until the throw is taken correctly, so you can't play advantage there.
In about 75 years time when it happens again, someone on here will be able to tell everyone that what the red did on the day was right (or wrong!) |
I would have thought retaken as well Paul, but logically it has to be an indirect free kick.
Touching a ball twice is the offence so it can't be treated differently to the penalty taker playing it two times. If only logic always worked! | | | |
| Refereeing query on 17:27 - Jan 18 with 413 views | PinnerPaul |
| Refereeing query on 16:59 - Jan 18 by terryb |
I would have thought retaken as well Paul, but logically it has to be an indirect free kick.
Touching a ball twice is the offence so it can't be treated differently to the penalty taker playing it two times. If only logic always worked! |
Key is advantage can be played - I knew it was a free kick - I'm not a total idiot - honest! | | | |
| Refereeing query on 19:28 - Jan 18 with 373 views | terryb |
| Refereeing query on 17:27 - Jan 18 by PinnerPaul |
Key is advantage can be played - I knew it was a free kick - I'm not a total idiot - honest! |
It would be so rare that advantage came into the equation. Obviously, it would have with the disallowed goal against City all those years ago.
I now remember that being in the question asked of you, but it had totally slipped my mind!
Mind you, it wouldn't be the first law that treats the same offence differently if it was retaken! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
