A&H

Griezmann penalty

S

SLI39

Well-Known Member
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...have-counted-after-he-touches-the-ball-twice/

I am personally giving this analysis short shrift. Surely what Griezmann did cannot be deemed anything more than a single 'play'? Law 14 states that the taker cannot 'play' the ball again until it has touched another player. I realise there is no reference to deliberate plays/touches here, but I have always assumed this follows the same logic as the double hit rule in tennis, i.e. an accidental double touch will not be penalised.
Any thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
SLI39 said:
...I have always assumed this follows the same logic as the double hit rule in tennis, i.e. an accidental double touch will not be penalised.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Why should it? Just because one sport does things in a certain way, why should another? In football, an accidental foul is still a foul, so an accidental double touch is still a double touch.
 
No way you'd see that at full speed, especially as the ref would be the opposite side of Griezman to the cameras and the AAR would be paying attention to the keeper and goal line
 
Agree the ref would never see that - even have to squint in the zoomed in, slow mo replay to see it.

But this raises an interesting VAR scenario - do we really want to see VARs overturning things like this? I certainly don't.
 
Thanks, and I realise my point about a deliberate touch was flawed, since there are scenarios where players have tripped accidentally and played the ball a second time. Taking 'deliberate' out of the equation, I think I meant more that the strike still constitutes one action (play). The ball changes direction only infinitesimally, and does not stop and begin to roll again after the second contact. This is, as has been said, nearly impossible to detect with a naked eye, and while I wouldn't wish to relegate perceived trifles to the field of indifference, I think VAR influence here would be an interference too far.
 
In this case, VAR would also show that the goalkeeper didn't remain on the goal line and that players are encroaching...

Will be interesting to see if VAR can (finally) stop those two typical infringements of the Laws at penalties, that now stay unpunished in 95% of the cases.
 
Last edited:
Actually, doesn't "and clearly moves" in the phrase before the "thou shall not touch twice" rule in Law 14 solve this? "Clearly" was added last year, before it just said "and moves". Can referee say: "Ball didn't move clearly, so ball wasn't yet in play when player touched it a second time"?

"The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves.
The kicker must not play the ball again until it has touched another player."
 
Last edited:
Ganajin said:
Why should it? Just because one sport does things in a certain way, why should another? In football, an accidental foul is still a foul, so an accidental double touch is still a double touch.
Click to expand...

Quite correct - that very logic, "saved" Joe Hart in QPR v Man City game a few years back.

JH took goal kick, ball went straight to Charlie Austin, who scored.

Much bemusement (and anger!) from us QPR fans at the game as to why goal was disallowed.

In fact Mike Dean and/or assistant had spotted Hart had (accidentally) 'played' the ball with his "standing foot" before kicking it with his other one.

Therefore GK was retaken.
 
Maybe I am fighting a losing battle here, but I am struggling to believe the laws--even as they were before the amendment which included the phrase 'clearly moves'--cannot accommodate the difference between two clearly differentiated plays of the ball (e.g. Hart) and the technical imperfection of a kick that does not come cleanly off one part of the body (e.g. Griezmann).
 
I agree with SF - I don't see why this should be subject to VAR review. Surely, incidents are only supposed to be reviewed if there is something to indicate that a clear error has occurred. You don't just review every single goal or penalty simply on the off-chance that there might have been something wrong. Since nobody watching this in real time seems to have suspected there was any infringement, I'm fairly sure the referee would not have asked for a review and I can't see why the VAR would choose to review it.
 
Peter Grove said:
I agree with SF - I don't see why this should be subject to VAR review. Surely, incidents are only supposed to be reviewed if there is something to indicate that a clear error has occurred. You don't just review every single goal or penalty simply on the off-chance that there might have been something wrong. Since nobody watching this in real time seems to have suspected there was any infringement, I'm fairly sure the referee would not have asked for a review and I can't see why the VAR would choose to review it.
Click to expand...
The tv images seemed to show it pretty quickly, so pressure on the VAR to recommend a review...

And as mentioned above, almost sure there will be plenty of VAR requests for encroaching or goalkeeper not staying on his line. VAR could lead to less penalty saves? It will be interesting to keep an eye on those stats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top