A&H

Tottenham v Rochdale

I watched the replay on the halftime show when I tuned in. Basic error on law interpretation. That is a good pk I believe
 
The Referee Store
For all those saying it was a valid penalty kick, consider: the goalkeeper dived at the feint, and all the defenders AND attackers ran in to the penalty box (hence the debate about encroachment). Surely, if it had been a valid PK, the keeper wouldn't have gone so early and we wouldn't have seen the amount of encroachment we did. Correct call for me.
 
xPositor said:
For all those saying it was a valid penalty kick, consider: the goalkeeper dived at the feint, and all the defenders AND attackers ran in to the penalty box (hence the debate about encroachment). Surely, if it had been a valid PK, the keeper wouldn't have gone so early and we wouldn't have seen the amount of encroachment we did. Correct call for me.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Opinion wont matter when it is clear and black and white in law.
1519885378922.png

Son's run up is not complete by any stretch of imagination. Some players start their run up from that spot.

1519885641739.png


And the keeper did not dive early. As for others, you can't punish the taker for other's infringements.

1519885551482.png
 
RustyRef said:
As an example I had no idea that clear and obvious error only applied to VAR telling referee of a mistake, not goals, and I doubt may other people did.
Click to expand...
Except that's not true. The protocol doesn't use the phrase 'clear and obvious error' at any point. It only talks about 'clear' errors and that standard is applicable to goals, as the extract given by @one shows.

Just to reinforce that, here is another extract from the protocol:

The referee’s decision can ONLY BE CHANGED if the video review shows a CLEAR ERROR

i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but:

'was the decision clearly wrong?’
Click to expand...

As mentioned, this principle applies just as much to incidents in the build-up to a goal as to any other reviewable decision.
 
xPositor said:
For all those saying it was a valid penalty kick, consider: the goalkeeper dived at the feint, and all the defenders AND attackers ran in to the penalty box (hence the debate about encroachment). Surely, if it had been a valid PK, the keeper wouldn't have gone so early and we wouldn't have seen the amount of encroachment we did. Correct call for me.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. His feint is right before he kicks the ball. Does that not mean his run up is completed?
 
one said:
Son's run up is not complete by any stretch of imagination. Some players start their run up from that spot.

View attachment 1746


And the keeper did not dive early. As for others, you can't punish the taker for other's infringements.

View attachment 1745
Click to expand...

Some players may start their "run up" there but in my opinion (I was sat directly in line in club Wembley) I thought, and your pictures kind of confirm it for me, he stopped and then took the kick. In the first picture it shows him effectively standing still, and in the 2nd picture he moves his standing leg next to ball and strikes. Does he do it 1 or 2 steps? Can't remember to be honest, but he had a long run up, 1 or 2 steps from the ball from a long run up to me would be he completed his run and then stopped, before taking 2 steps to shoot.
 
I believe the penalty should have been retaken as players from both sides were not positioned correctly before the ball was kicked. The referee's decision punished Spurs and in particular Son who received a caution for feinting at the end of his run. I believe Rochdale gained an unfair advantage from this decision and therefore against the spirit of the game.
 
Grasshopper said:
I believe the penalty should have been retaken as players from both sides were not positioned correctly before the ball was kicked. The referee's decision punished Spurs and in particular Son who received a caution for feinting at the end of his run. I believe Rochdale gained an unfair advantage from this decision and therefore against the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...


And had he missed would you still like a retake? Why should he get two goes, if there were Spurs players guilty of encroachment?
 
Ciley Myrus said:
And had he missed would you still like a retake? Why should he get two goes, if there were Spurs players guilty of encroachment?
Click to expand...
I don't see where he's getting two goes. The original take is not legal as there is blatant encroachment from both sides.
Once the players have returned to correct positions the kick can then be taken. Appreciate it's subjective but that is my view.
 
Edit, of course thats not to do with whether we are calling the feinting as right ir wrong, but it tells you what to do in black and white when you DO adjudge someone to have been guilty of thus....
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Edit, of course thats not to do with whether we are calling the feinting as right ir wrong, but it tells you what to do in black and white when you DO adjudge someone to have been guilty of thus....
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I should have been clearer. I'm of the view that Son did not feint at the end of his run, but midway which is legal and we see this type of penalty taken very frequently. My point is I would have blown as soon as the ball was kicked and had a retake. Sorry for any confusion.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Similar!!
Click to expand...

But not the same. Messi does not take any more steps after his hesitation so his run-up is complete. The next thing he does is kick the ball.

Son takes another step after his hesitation and before he kicks the ball.

This isn't a difficult distinction to understand but it all happens very quickly so I think it's a forgivable error. Certainly not the most serious error of that match.
 
Ashleigh Goodall said:
Some players may start their "run up" there but in my opinion (I was sat directly in line in club Wembley) I thought, and your pictures kind of confirm it for me, he stopped and then took the kick. In the first picture it shows him effectively standing still, and in the 2nd picture he moves his standing leg next to ball and strikes. Does he do it 1 or 2 steps? Can't remember to be honest, but he had a long run up, 1 or 2 steps from the ball from a long run up to me would be he completed his run and then stopped, before taking 2 steps to shoot.
Click to expand...
And he is allowed to stop in the middle of his run up (middle includes one step before the end). As you say he took one step after he almost stopped with his non kicking foot (and possibly 2 steps if you count the forward action of his kicking foot). The fact he took a step after stopping and before kicking the ball is enough to consider his run up was not completed.

The "feint" clause was introduced before 2010 world cup to stop pretending to kick the ball once your non-kicking foot was already planted next to the ball (hence the completed run up reference). This was becoming a growing problem in South America.
(More info here: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/football/05/19/football.penalty.FIFA.WorldCup/index.html)
Here is an example

This clause, in its wording or in its intent, does not apply to Son's action.
 
Again I'm unsure how you can class his run up as incomplete when the very next action after the feint is for him to put his planted foot next to the ball, and then strike the ball.

By definition, when is the run up judged to have ended?
 
Similar ˈsɪmɪlə/ adjective
  1. 1.
    having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.
    "a soft cheese similar to Brie"synonyms:alike, (much) the same, indistinguishable, close, near, almost identical, homogeneous, interchangeable; More
Its amazing how if you put certain words certain posters are like bees round a honey pot in trying to out-nerd you and points score!!!!
Get back to your Coco Pops, school will be back open tomorrow!!! :bag:;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top