Discussion in 'As Seen on TV' started by Ciley Myrus, Oct 29, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Friend sent me this earlier...
It looks like he does win the ball with his head...if you take the ball like that with a tackle with your feet you're probably ok, though he does follow through with his body
Clearly a case of endangering his own safety as well!
How does a player come up with that as an idea? He is not tripped. He deliberately does a McTwist dive at a ball on the ground head first taking the ball and player. insane move. Good call by the ref to give it as it was so bizarre.
Any1 think the restart is incorrect here?
Surely this falls into playing in a dangerous manner, which, I thought was an idfk offence.
Unless he's actually given it for a foul
I did have that thought, but I think the foul has actually been given as there is some body contact with the strikers legs before he heads the ball.
Yeh I was assuming he must have awarded a foul tackle or similar offence. Hadnt looked into too much detail as to whether the contact is player first... just looked at first viewing piadm... of course iootr he may have awarded it for something else.
"If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick."
Also law 12
Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the
ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself)
It could be argued he trying to play the ball, and was successful in doing so. I can see how a dfk is given here as ref could easily say the player charged or jumped at his opponent or that contact with player happened before ball.
I dont think its as clear cut as contact =dfk for this scenario personally though
Yes, and there's a reason that the Law includes the words "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick."
That means that, it may have been PIADM, but contact was made, so now it stops being PIADM and becomes one of the DFK offences.
This is a quote from the 15/16 LOTG which was removed in the big change.
I don't think it was removed because it doesn't apply anymore, but because it is now redundant as law 12 indicates any offence involving contact is a DFK.
Yes that makes sense.
Separate names with a comma.