according to reports game was held up for 5 minutes whilst decision debated. There are photo's of ref with 2 of the other officials. i can't understand how any official can get this wrong let alone 4 of them who are all miked up with comms kit.
Newcastle Penalty
- Thread starter Darius
- Start date
For all the new refs on here
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Better to use the new chart from the new Laws (which, while similar, is a bit more expansive:
Though, it does remove the Offence by defending player and attacking player... Alas, can't have everything!
I love the bit in the law where it says what happens (including sanctions) if more than one offence occurs ... e.g. illegal feinting AND encroachment
2nd String Ref
Member
A golden comment on the Guardian podcast this week.
At the time Burton were taking their free kick from right on the penalty spot, didn't any of the four match officials think to themselves 'hey, I've never really seen this before in any of the hundreds of matches I've seen. Have we got this right?'
At the time Burton were taking their free kick from right on the penalty spot, didn't any of the four match officials think to themselves 'hey, I've never really seen this before in any of the hundreds of matches I've seen. Have we got this right?'
Question, When it says ball kicked backwards in the table above, I've seen a few on you tube where the taker has eg.
I suppose you can read that two ways!!! Kicked backwards towards another striker or literally kicked 'facing' backwards??
Is this illegal or just not done through sportsmanship!!!
I suppose you can read that two ways!!! Kicked backwards towards another striker or literally kicked 'facing' backwards??
Is this illegal or just not done through sportsmanship!!!
Backwards vs forwards (where forwards == towards goal).
Turning (as long as the movement is smooth) and kicking the ball with a heel towards the goal is legal.
This was quite a big mistake but can any of us say we have gone through our long or short ref careers without getting something in law wrong. Its easy to sit here but sometimes the blinkers go on and you are convinced you are right, so convinced you can convince the rest of the team. As well as having 50,000. geordies watching you . Lets cut the guys some slack, yes an error in law has been made but we all have bad days at work, its just we don,t have cameras on our backs the whole time.
Yampy
RefChat Addict
Agree that one man can make a mistake under the pressure you describe but what about the other three officials? Sorry but I don't feel as though they need cutting any slack because if all of them are persuaded that easily, they shouldn't be doing the job they're asked to do.
That might sound harsh but do we want our refereeing teams to consist of a strong personality and 3 sycophants? That doesn't sound like teamwork to me.
In a week where we've had Refspect and a push by both BT Sport and Sky to show match officials in a good light, this one incident has undone most if not all that good work.
I do hope the right lessons are learned from all this.
What to do when there is an infringement at a penalty is steadily getting more complicated. All the tables quoted here are correct, so far as that goes, but I hope you have all noticed the (IMHO) far less intuitive ruling pointed out by the IFAB in a recent circular and incorporated into 2017/8 Laws. Basically if both the keeper AND taker offend, the keeper by coming early off line and the penalty taker generally by illegal feinting, then the referee as always waits to see what happens: if a goal is scored, then it is an IFK to the defence (or forfeit in KFTPM) and yellow card to penalty taker. If it is missed it is yellow card each and a re-take.
So imagine at Kicks from the mark: the red attacker stops and feints, as he does so the blue keeper rushes out, but the penalty is blasted into top corner. You have to yellow card red attacker and tell him the penalty is marked down as a miss. The very next penalty the blue attacker does the same feint, red keeper also comes off line and attacker blasts ball wide. But this time you have to give him a re-take (plus a YC for both him and the keeper). Now I understand the logic: (if a goal is scored the feint was most successful and should be punished, the keepers move is being ignored; if goal missed, the keeper's coming off line was equally successful, hence retake and YCs) but just try selling that on a Sunday pitch.
So imagine at Kicks from the mark: the red attacker stops and feints, as he does so the blue keeper rushes out, but the penalty is blasted into top corner. You have to yellow card red attacker and tell him the penalty is marked down as a miss. The very next penalty the blue attacker does the same feint, red keeper also comes off line and attacker blasts ball wide. But this time you have to give him a re-take (plus a YC for both him and the keeper). Now I understand the logic: (if a goal is scored the feint was most successful and should be punished, the keepers move is being ignored; if goal missed, the keeper's coming off line was equally successful, hence retake and YCs) but just try selling that on a Sunday pitch.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
They've all been removed from this weekends appointments,so IF that is true, he will be pretty fed up!
I notice that the law says that for a penalty kick kicked backwards, or a team-mate of the identified kicker taking the kick, or feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up, play will be restarted with an indirect free kick - but doesn't actually say which team takes the IDFK...
Adam Butler
Member
Still no appointments for them - all 4 officials without a game across the two sets of fixtures over the Easter weekend
ermmm not to state the obvious here matey, but the IDFK will be for the defending team as the offence was by the attacking team
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
No, there's no wording error. David Elleray explained this when talking about the ways they had reduced the number of words in the Laws. One was by removing the repeated reference to the opponents taking the free kick, on the basis that it is logically self-evident that when a player on one team commits an offence, it's the opponents who get to take the resulting free kick.
I had a feeling that this was mentioned somewhere in the Laws document but on a quick scan through just now, I can't find it. If anyone else can, please let us know.
Page 12 English and Phraseology section.
