A&H

ARS v LEI

The Referee Store
Yeh that camera angle is showing handball. Can agree with the decision, but whether or not is clear and obvious is better question. Although handball is somewhat objective to an aspect I guess.

Has he bottled the red for DOGSO though?
 
Was the ball going in before hitting the fingers? Not convinced, looked to me the deflection off the hand took the ball towards goal. Utterly ridiculous "defending", asking for trouble having the arm outstretched like that!
 
santa sangria said:
Big appeal from Schmeicel about the penalty technique. What is the point of having that in the LotG if it is never enforced?
Click to expand...
For me illegal feinting, easy sell as Schmeichel clearly objected. Commentator suggested Schmeichel wanted a retake 🙈.

LOTG caution indirect free kick.
 
You are allowed to feint during the run up, which is what he did. You just can't do it at the point of kicking the ball, nothing to see here.

Unlike the rest of VAR this weekend, I'm OK with this. Once your arm is out there if the ball hits it you are in trouble, and the angle from behind the goal shows it clearly did hit it. Not DOGSO as if anything the handling took the ball away from the defender on the line and gave him more to do to keep it out.
 
santa sangria said:
Big appeal from Schmeicel about the penalty technique. What is the point of having that in the LotG if it is never enforced?
Click to expand...

You're allowed to do that. What you can't do is stutter the kick. Unless the next thing you do after the pause is kick the ball it's allowed.
 
Joshref said:
Has he bottled the red for DOGSO though?
Click to expand...
Arrgggghh.

Penalty. Yes. Clear and obvious error when you see it again from the right angle.
No dogso. Not certain going in goal from header and covering defender, who eventually cleared off the line anyway.
 
santa sangria said:
Big appeal from Schmeicel about the penalty technique. What is the point of having that in the LotG if it is never enforced?
Click to expand...
There's no offence here. Lacazette does a stutter step before completing his run up, takes another step and then kicks the ball.

They law says it's only an offence if the player feints to kick the ball after completing the run-up. Lacazette didn't do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
DJIC said:
For me illegal feinting, easy sell as Schmeichel clearly objected. Commentator suggested Schmeichel wanted a retake 🙈.

LOTG caution indirect free kick.
Click to expand...
As already mentioned, unless you think he feinted after completing his run up (which he clearly didn't), this is not a matter of opinion and won't be a lotg caution.
 
Peter Grove said:
There's no offence here. Lacazette does a stutter step before completing his run up, takes another step and then kicks the ball.

They law says it's only an offence if the player feints to kick the ball after completing the run-up. Lacazette didn't do that.
Click to expand...
We’ve been here before. I totally understand that is the interpretation and the guidance.

i just think it is daft. As discussed with other examples, there does not seem to be any physical (metaphysical?) way to trigger this offence.

is it the last step, is it the penultimate step, is it between…? Can you tell, does it really matter conceptually? For me, it’s all feintung at the end of the run up. As we saw in the Liv-Che shootout, takers do not need so many advantages over the GK.

i think it is ridiculous. Either take it out of the LotG and encourage creative penalties or make it properly enforceable so the law says no feinting. The current law is rubbish IMHO ;)
 
santa sangria said:
We’ve been here before. I totally understand that is the interpretation and the guidance.

i just think it is daft. As discussed with other examples, there does not seem to be any physical (metaphysical?) way to trigger this offence.

is it the last step, is it the penultimate step, is it between…? Can you tell, does it really matter conceptually? For me, it’s all feintung at the end of the run up. As we saw in the Liv-Che shootout, takers do not need so many advantages over the GK.

i think it is ridiculous. Either take it out of the LotG and encourage creative penalties or make it properly enforceable so the law says no feinting. The current law is rubbish IMHO ;)
Click to expand...

Am with you, making it relevant to The Swan v The Speckled Sausage, what referee is going to penalise a potential feint unless its absolutely nailed on?

that aside, when a pk is awarded, its due to an offence by the defending team, in the box. Advantage attacking team. At grass roots, esp adults, the taker is more likely to fall over mid spin if he tried anything mad, so carte blanche would suffice imo.

More entertaining too, if thats a consideration, Lets face it, fans love to see a cheeky pk scored/missed, in equal measures
 
I've seen loads of examples over the years where the player goes to kick it, stops his foot from kicking it, lets the keeper dive then plays it the other way. That's what the law is designed to stop, just like the Neymar example above.
 
Anyone else's eyes hurt watching that video (Black & White stripes vs White and their keeper in black)? :eek:

The one that immediately springs to mind was John Aldridge, who in the majority of his penalties, would plant his kicking foot in front of the ball in a sort of stamping motion immediately before striking the ball.
 
Lots more here. It became a trend in Brazil and was becoming even more popular. The new law was specifically in response to this trend.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top