How was this restarted ?

[OldNavyRef]

I isn't a "niche rule" though is is? The premise is for any restart that you can't touch the ball again until someone else has touched it, penalties are just one of many restarts.

I would argue niche is subjective and you have joined in to say your opinion is more right than mine.

"The premise is for any restart that you can't touch the ball again" - Dropped ball

"penalties are just one of many restarts" - I specifically discussed freekicks, and corners were also mentioned.

 

[socal lurker]

I would argue niche is subjective and you have joined in to say your opinion is more right than mine.

"The premise is for any restart that you can't touch the ball again" - Dropped ball

"penalties are just one of many restarts" - I specifically discussed freekicks, and corners were also mentioned.

The consistent premise isn’t violated by DB. A player doesn’t restart a DB, the R does. The ball is in play when it touches the ground.

 

[OldNavyRef]

The consistent premise isn’t violated by DB. A player doesn’t restart a DB, the R does. The ball is in play when it touches the ground.

I just simply stated it was a restart that allows the ball to be touched then touched again?

 

[RustyRef]

I would argue niche is subjective and you have joined in to say your opinion is more right than mine.

"The premise is for any restart that you can't touch the ball again" - Dropped ball

"penalties are just one of many restarts" - I specifically discussed freekicks, and corners were also mentioned.

Where have I said that my opinion is more right than your's? This is a discussion forum, we discuss things.

OK, I will accept that a dropped ball is an outlier, but it is unique as it is a restart not taken by either team.

 

[OldNavyRef]

Where have I said that my opinion is more right than your's? This is a discussion forum, we discuss things.

OK, I will accept that a dropped ball is an outlier, but it is unique as it is a restart not taken by either team.

I just like more goals. Sue me

 

[RustyRef]

I just like more goals. Sue me

Perhaps I'm a little sensitive at the moment, but you haven't replied to this comment ...

you have joined in to say your opinion is more right than mine

 

[OldNavyRef]

Perhaps I'm a little sensitive at the moment, but you haven't replied to this comment ...

you have joined in to say your opinion is more right than mine

"I isn't a "niche rule" though is is?" - How do I respond to that opener, especially when I said it was niche (obviously my subjective view)? You seemed dismissive and didn't engage with my perspective.

You then state "for any restart that you can't touch the ball again until someone else has touched it". Which is wrong and isn't really addressing my point, just stating random facts (or fictions).

Then you proceed to tell me that "penalties are just one of many restarts". Just explaining something that everyone knows (again just random facts) and isn't really relevant in my opinion. Completely disregarding the thread, where penalties, freekicks and corners have been discussed, which would imply we have moved on from discussing the original penalty, to discussing set pieces.

It came across like you weren't listening to my specific thread about woodwork involvement in set pieces. Your focus seemed solely on defending the idea that the double-touch rule isn't rare and football has other things than penalties. .

I am guessing you like the idea that if there is a set piece, and the ball hits the woodwork and falls to the original kicker, it should be an IDFK. Which is fine. I just think it would be better if it wasn't. I think it would be better if the woodwork classed as it touching another player (unless it goes directly into the goal) for goals sake. I don't like goals being chopped off unnecessarily.

I don't think it would be a complicated rule either, but as I said earlier, it would be a pain to change. So probably better left be.

 

[RustyRef]

"I isn't a "niche rule" though is is?" - How do I respond to that opener, especially when I said it was niche (obviously my subjective view)? You seemed dismissive and didn't engage with my perspective.

You then state "for any restart that you can't touch the ball again until someone else has touched it". Which is wrong and isn't really addressing my point, just stating random facts (or fictions).

Then you proceed to tell me that "penalties are just one of many restarts". Just explaining something that everyone knows (again just random facts) and isn't really relevant in my opinion. Completely disregarding the thread, where penalties, freekicks and corners have been discussed, which would imply we have moved on from discussing the original penalty, to discussing set pieces.

It came across like you weren't listening to my specific thread about woodwork involvement in set pieces. Your focus seemed solely on defending the idea that the double-touch rule isn't rare and football has other things than penalties. .

I am guessing you like the idea that if there is a set piece, and the ball hits the woodwork and falls to the original kicker, it should be an IDFK. Which is fine. I just think it would be better if it wasn't. I think it would be better if the woodwork classed as it touching another player (unless it goes directly into the goal) for goals sake. I don't like goals being chopped off unnecessarily.

I don't think it would be a complicated rule either, but as I said earlier, it would be a pain to change. So probably better left be.

You said it was a niche rule yourself ...

I hate seeing goals being knocked off for niche rules

This is a discussion forum, I replied to your suggestion with what I think was a perfectly sensible reply yet you stated "you have joined in to say your opinion is more right than mine". So why did you feel the need to make that comment, I just replied to your suggestion so why the attack around my opinion being more important than yours?

 

[Russell Jones]

I am guessing you like the idea that if there is a set piece, and the ball hits the woodwork and falls to the original kicker, it should be an IDFK. Which is fine. I just think it would be better if it wasn't. I think it would be better if the woodwork classed as it touching another player (unless it goes directly into the goal) for goals sake. I don't like goals being chopped off unnecessarily.

I don't think it would be a complicated rule either, but as I said earlier, it would be a pain to change. So probably better left be.

Whilst I like the simplicity as it stands, I'm all up for a discussion . If there was overall consistency over the restart implications of the ball 'hitting the woodwork' (FK / Corner, PK) then you certainly could tweak things in order to allow a second touch by the restart taker in those circumstances ... as you suggest, the goal posts / crossbar would effectively be classed the same as other players. And it would certainly deliver the marginal benefit you suggest. My two objections would be 1) it's tinkering with things at the edges when there's far greater issues / inconsistencies to solve and 2) there might then be a further decision to make about whether to change what happens when the ball hits the woodwork in offside situations ... at the moment, there is consistency between restarts & offside in that you basically ignore the ball hitting the woodwork in your decision making. So, as with most proposed law changes, it runs the risk of opening a can of worms. As you conclude, probably better left be!

 

[OldNavyRef]

Whilst I like the simplicity as it stands, I'm all up for a discussion . If there was overall consistency over the restart implications of the ball 'hitting the woodwork' (FK / Corner, PK) then you certainly could tweak things in order to allow a second touch by the restart taker in those circumstances ... as you suggest, the goal posts / crossbar would effectively be classed the same as other players. And it would certainly deliver the marginal benefit you suggest. My two objections would be 1) it's tinkering with things at the edges when there's far greater issues / inconsistencies to solve and 2) there might then be a further decision to make about whether to change what happens when the ball hits the woodwork in offside situations ... at the moment, there is consistency between restarts & offside in that you basically ignore the ball hitting the woodwork in your decision making. So, as with most proposed law changes, it runs the risk of opening a can of worms. As you conclude, probably better left be!

Fully agree.

 

[OldNavyRef]

You said it was a niche rule yourself ...

I hate seeing goals being knocked off for niche rules

This is a discussion forum, I replied to your suggestion with what I think was a perfectly sensible reply yet you stated "you have joined in to say your opinion is more right than mine". So why did you feel the need to make that comment, I just replied to your suggestion so why the attack around my opinion being more important than yours?

I don't understand what you mean by I said it was a niche rule. Of course I did. Several times. Did you read my reply? "especially when I said it was niche". I've literally said I said it. I don't understand you or your angle.

I just explained in detail why I think your reply wasn't sensible. You said my opinion was wrong, you said football has no double touch on restarts, you said there is more to football than penalties. To me, you were just posting something completely irrelevant.

@Russell Jones reply above shows he's read everything and he's engaging. You just joined to argue that the double-touch rule isn't rare and football has other things than penalties. Completely missing the point in my opinion.

We are going in circles.

I fully addressed why I think you weren't being constructive, and you've come back saying I did use the word niche... I don't think we are having the same discussion.

It would be awesome if we let this thread die, as I've analysed (at your request) your short reply within an inch of its life.

 

[ASM]

That’s enough folks.

Quite frankly I (and the other staff) don’t have the time nor inclination to continually pick up and deal with behaviour befitting toddlers who need a good sleep.