WAT vs MUN
- Thread starter one
- Start date
Yep if not already on a yellow I reckon thats a RC
Also would VAR change a SYC to a RC?
halter42
Member
I disagree here. If it goes to VAR, you have to be very forensic and come to the right decision. Also, for encroaching, the position of the feet is considered, not the upper body. And as the line is also the penalty area, both teams are always encroaching.
one
RefChat Addict
This is not about VAR. If the referee makes a clear error in law (with or without VAR) that changes the outcome of a match, the match may be replayed.
For example if a player kicks the ball directly into his own goal from a free kick and the referee awards an own goal then there is grounds for replay.
In the OP, on the first taking of the penalty, a goal was not scored form the penalty kick, no defenders committed an offence (this may be debated), but the referee gave a retake. That would be an error in law.
For example if a player kicks the ball directly into his own goal from a free kick and the referee awards an own goal then there is grounds for replay.
In the OP, on the first taking of the penalty, a goal was not scored form the penalty kick, no defenders committed an offence (this may be debated), but the referee gave a retake. That would be an error in law.
Someone help me out here.
I see no narrative about this - just in the summary table, where encroachment by defending and attacking players is a retake.
"Impacting"? Only relevant to offences by the GK.
"For encroaching, the position of the feet is considered, not the upper body". Says who?
Is this another case of "secret knowledge"?
one
RefChat Addict
I am not sure about your questions. You have asked for help to answer a lot of what seem to be rhetorical questions. I think it will be a lot easier if you told us the points you are trying to make?
I am not sure about your questions. You have asked for help to answer a lot of what seem to be rhetorical questions. I think it will be a lot easier if you told us the points you are trying to make?
I think it's a fair point tbh. Where is encroachment measured from? Feet position? Head position? Nothing about it in the good book
one
RefChat Addict
Ok I will give it 'my' answers since @es1 thinks you are asking fair and valid question. But at the very least I think there is plenty of sarcasm in it.
The narrative is in a couple of points. The procedure requires "The players other than the kicker and goalkeeper must be: outside the penalty area" and then in offences section later "a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless ..."
"impacting" is in the VAR protocol. If encroaching players don't impact, the VAR doesn't get involved. Without VAR the referee should punish all encroachments but we all know that doesn't happen.
For position of body of field players, it's not written anywhere but rather an accepted convention of position of feet is used.
For op, I firmly believe if Femenia (I think) who scored the goal was standing in a position similar to any of Man U players (as per my image above), the goal would have stood. Implying non of Man U players are encroaching.
Just watching it on MOTD and the commentator immediately points out the double encroachment and I have to say I thought it was a stretch. Figured it was my Man United bias kicking in so good to see some on here thinking same 
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?
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?