A&H

WAT vs MUN

Joshref said:
So if it’s given for encroachment by attacking and defending player it’s a retake right? However I agree with One, to call the defending players encroaching is harsh. It’s the only thing I can think they’ve given it for tho or else why would it be a retake?
Click to expand...
Correct on your first question.

I implied above they gave a retake due to a misinterpretation of the laws of the game (error in law) by the referees. I think they thought man U players did not encroach while Watford player did. But they also thought a goal was scored from the penalty so they awarded a retake. This would be correct if it was what the laws says but it doesn't.

A goal was not scored from the penalty kick but as a consequence of it. The law requires the former.
 
A&H International
I felt this went into the “safe refereeing” category. Award IDFK for the Watford encroachment and get earache for the rest of the game because a Man Utd player was technically encroaching (trifling but would’ve been cited) too.

Save yourself the hassle and retake it; minimal complaints.
 
I can't get my head around this either. The Watford player had a bigger impact as he scored from the save, so surely it should have been an IDFK? I don't see what impact the 2x united players had being so far away from where play was occurring.
 
Mada said:
I can't get my head around this either. The Watford player had a bigger impact as he scored from the save, so surely it should have been an IDFK? I don't see what impact the 2x united players had being so far away from where play was occurring.
Click to expand...
Impact only applies to var. If the on field decision was both encroached then it's a retake.
 
bloovee said:
"For encroaching, the position of the feet is considered, not the upper body". Says who?

Is this another case of "secret knowledge"?
Click to expand...
Says IFAB. Not a secret at all. In the glossary under Restart Position. (I believe it was added this year or last, but not positive.)
 
Whether it is a an incorrect decision of law is totally dependent on what the decision was. If the decision was dual encroachment, it’s correct. If the decision was retaking because of attacking encroachment, it is a mistake of Law. I would hope that with four on field officials plus VAR, they ruled double encroachment-+which is in fact correct And what they would have seen when reviewing the impactful encroachment via the OFR. Once reviewing, I think they have to review it all. And as unsatisfactory as the result is it’s trifling encroachment by the defenders, I think it is probably what they are instructed to do.
 
Well, I did say I was losing the will to live on this.

So the definition of what part of the body counts for offside is in the law about offside, but the different definition of what counts for restarts is not actually in the laws, but in a glossary to say what some other laws mean by it (and that's assuming it wasn't intended just to be about the distances to be respected at restarts rather than encroachment).

And whether encroachment at a penalty impacts on anything is not actually in the law about penalty kicks, but in a VAR protocol so doesn't apply where VAR isn't used - so what would be a mistake in law at a VAR match isn't necessarily a mistake in law at a match without VAR...

Sarcasm barely covers it.
 
bloovee said:
Well, I did say I was losing the will to live on this.

So the definition of what part of the body counts for offside is in the law about offside, but the different definition of what counts for restarts is not actually in the laws, but in a glossary to say what some other laws mean by it (and that's assuming it wasn't intended just to be about the distances to be respected at restarts rather than encroachment).

And whether encroachment at a penalty impacts on anything is not actually in the law about penalty kicks, but in a VAR protocol so doesn't apply where VAR isn't used - so what would be a mistake in law at a VAR match isn't necessarily a mistake in law at a match without VAR...

Sarcasm barely covers it.
Click to expand...
Aye, good news is, they don't waste much paper printing the book any longer.
 
one said:
Decide for yourself. I do think though, even if all man U players were 5 yards behind the line, they would have retaken this.


View attachment 5304
Click to expand...
Not sure why you think that. It seems a fairly straightforward situation to me, with no errors by any of the match officials.

A "goal" was scored from a saved penalty. Because a player who encroached was involved in the goal, a VAR review took place which showed encroachment by both sides. So as per the laws, the penalty was retaken.

There's no evidence of anything else being involved, as far as I'm aware.
 
one said:
The pen in the 8th should not have been a retake. It should have been an IFK. Had the retake been scored, the game prob would have been replayed.
Click to expand...
No, a retake is correct because on VAR review, it was seen that both sides encroached.

Screenshot_2021_1123_131014.png
 
@Peter Grove as with me, you are making an assertion that we have no evidence of. We only know the outcome.

You say VAR concluded there was encroachment by both teams hence a retake (case 3 from the table). I say they concluded encroachment by team team only and a goal was scored from the penalty hence a retake (case 1).

The restarts are correct for both conclusions if in fact the case. However the latter conclusion is wrong but easy and common to make a mistake on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top