ARS v LEI

[santa sangria]

Whether we agree with the law or not, it is absolutely clear that under the wording of the current law there was absolutely nothing wrong with what Lazazette did.

Hmm - not the wording for me, which is poor, rather "under the guidance and interpretation of..." - I think without guidance and examples the law as written alone is not really possible to consistently implement

 

[RustyRef]

Hmm - not the wording for me, which is poor, rather "under the guidance and interpretation of..." - I think without guidance and examples the law as written alone is not really possible to consistently implement

Some laws are unclear, but this one really, really isn't.

feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted)

Lacazette clearly hadn't completed his run up, as after he stopped he started again. He feinted in the run up, and it really couldn't be any more clear that this is allowed. If that bit in brackets wasn't present in the law I might be more inclined to agree with you, but it explicitly says that what he did is allowed.

 

[Peter Grove]

Hmm - not the wording for me, which is poor, rather "under the guidance and interpretation of..." - I think without guidance and examples the law as written alone is not really possible to consistently implement

I'm sorry but if you can't tell the difference between feinting before the run up is completed and feinting after the run up is completed, then I despair, I really do.

It seems apparent that you were unaware of the actual reason why this law was brought in - since you said you couldn't see how it could be triggered, while there are multiple, real-world examples that clearly show the kinds of kicks that would contravene the law - and indeed, are the very reason it was adopted in the first place.

Could I suggest that you go back and look at some of the examples of paradinha penalties in the video clips provided?

With a paradinha penalty the player completes their run up all the way up to the ball, draws their foot back and starts to bring it back down before stopping. There's virtually no goalkeeper in the world who wouldn't dive at this point

Then, having seen which way the keeper has gone, and with them lying helpless on the ground at one side of the goal, the player simply rolls the ball into the other corner.

The examples show very clearly, just how obvious the difference is.

When this was banned in 2010, one IFAB member summed up the organisation's view of it as follows:

“We saw some video examples, which make it clear it’s very unsporting when the player gets to the end of a run up, feints to kick completely over the ball, the goalkeeper goes in one direction, the player pulls his foot back, and kicks the ball in the other direction,” IFAB member Patrick Nelson told reporters.

“It’s clearly unsporting.”

Again, the difference between the actual practice that the law prevents, and feinting during during the run up is as clear as could be, and I'm amazed that you can't see it.

 

[one]

I can put this law in different wording that makes sense (to me) why it is what it is.

If a keeper commits to a side before the run up is completed and shows that commitment (dive) to the kicker, the keeper has only himself to blame if a goal is scored, feint in run up or not. That's just keeper showing the kicker too much and giving him too much time to decide to kick to the opposite direction.
It's fair for the keeper to commit to a side once the run up is completed and kicking motion has started. Now if the kicker doesn't actually kick the ball and wait for the keeper to dive, that would be unsporting and the kicker should be punished.

(if you play cricket, mankading is a similar concept except that football laws stop it from happening)

 

[santa sangria]

I'm sorry but if you can't tell the difference between feinting before the run up is completed and feinting after the run up is completed, then I despair, I really do.

It seems apparent that you were unaware of the actual reason why this law was brought in - since you said you couldn't see how it could be triggered, while there are multiple, real-world examples that clearly show the kinds of kicks that would contravene the law - and indeed, are the very reason it was adopted in the first place.

Could I suggest that you go back and look at some of the examples of paradinha penalties in the video clips provided?

With a paradinha penalty the player completes their run up all the way up to the ball, draws their foot back and starts to bring it back down before stopping. There's virtually no goalkeeper in the world who wouldn't dive at this point

Then, having seen which way the keeper has gone, and with them lying helpless on the ground at one side of the goal, the player simply rolls the ball into the other corner.

The examples show very clearly, just how obvious the difference is.

When this was banned in 2010, one IFAB member summed up the organisation's view of it as follows:



Again, the difference between the actual practice that the law prevents, and feinting during during the run up is as clear as could be, and I'm amazed that you can't see it.

I’m amazed you can’t see that Lacazette’s feint during the run up has the same effect as the ”paradinha”.

(I do concede that the current law is designed to cut out the paradinha - and thanks for the great post. I am yet to see the law actually used to sanction this though.)

 

[bester]

They were cautioning the Paradinha in Brazil before IFAB announced the law change.
This season there have been instances of Brazilian refs cautioning for showboating
in open play as it incites the crowd

Recent example of penalty technique being punished is discussed here, not convinced it was a feint myself

Feint at a PK

So where exactly is the line on what is a feint after the run up. This seems correct to me, but I think many would disagree. (As a player, it seems quite a poor choice to give the R a chance to make that call--instead of a goal, his team is a man down.)

www.refchat.co.uk

 

[GraemeS]

I don't particularly like the rule, it feels a little arbitrary. I'd rather just either ban or allow all trickery and I think where the line is drawn still allows for takers to trick the GK into moving their weight and starting a dive before the kicker has committed. So it doesn't actually achieve the stated objective, making it all a bit pointless.

But I do think the line at least is clear. Do what you want up until the point you plant your standing foot by the ball, then after that it has to be a single consistent motion.