A&H

West Ham Burnley penalty miss.

The Referee Store
socal lurker said:
There is nothing illegal about a stutter in the run up. The only prohibition is a feint at the ball.
Click to expand...

Yes. I wasn't sure if you could stop like he did. But thanks.

Pretty sure I've seen others pinged for stopping and then kicking it.
 
Murri O said:
Yes. I wasn't sure if you could stop like he did. But thanks.

Pretty sure I've seen others pinged for stopping and then kicking it.
Click to expand...
Should only be called back if it was a feint at the ball. (Except I. The US I. High school games, which use a different rule…)
 
One other thing to note, the stutter caused the keeper to come off the line early, he then realised and stepped back before the kick was taken. Great quick thinking!
 

I was there on Sunday and to me this is the closest I have seen to illegal feinting. If you look at the run up he practically stops then continues another step to kick the ball. As a consequence Fabianski has moved off his line in anticipation. A lot of other penalty takers slow down but not stop, it just didn't feel right watching it.

According to IFAB, it's an illegal feint if the run up has been complete. So if he had feinted one step further in to his run up then it would meet the criteria.

https://www.facebook.com/theifab/posts/1691002821067864

There's no doubt that Fabianski was off his line and players from both teams were in the penalty area because of the stutter.
 
Murri O said:
Had he scored would that have been pulled up for a retake?
Click to expand...
It's important to note that if you do call an illegal feint once the run-up is completed, that there is no retake. No matter what the outcome of the kick is, the taker is cautioned and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opponents.
 
cwyeary said:
It's important to note that if you do call an illegal feint once the run-up is completed, that there is no retake. No matter what the outcome of the kick is, the taker is cautioned and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opponents.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Cheers.

Thanks
 
socal lurker said:
Should only be called back if it was a feint at the ball. (Except I. The US I. High school games, which use a different rule…)
Click to expand...
Interpretation 😉:
Called back = penalised (IFK, not retake)
At the ball = after completion of run up
 
one said:
Interpretation 😉:
Called back = penalised (IFK, not retake)
At the ball = after completion of run up
Click to expand...

The high school rule in the US is that stopping during any point of the run-up is illegal. It's really one I wouldn't mind seeing adopted by IFAB.

It wouldn't be the first time it's happened recently (cards to bench staff and allowing the coin toss winner to choose kickoff or end) for example.
 
Mada said:

I was there on Sunday and to me this is the closest I have seen to illegal feinting. If you look at the run up he practically stops then continues another step to kick the ball. As a consequence Fabianski has moved off his line in anticipation. A lot of other penalty takers slow down but not stop, it just didn't feel right watching it.

According to IFAB, it's an illegal feint if the run up has been complete. So if he had feinted one step further in to his run up then it would meet the criteria.

https://www.facebook.com/theifab/posts/1691002821067864

There's no doubt that Fabianski was off his line and players from both teams were in the penalty area because of the stutter.
Click to expand...
He made it back as the penalty was taken though which is pretty amazing
 

Attachments

  • 20220418_085525.jpg
    20220418_085525.jpg
    333 KB · Views: 13
cwyeary said:
The high school rule in the US is that stopping during any point of the run-up is illegal. It's really one I wouldn't mind seeing adopted by IFAB.

It wouldn't be the first time it's happened recently (cards to bench staff and allowing the coin toss winner to choose kickoff or end) for example.
Click to expand...

letting the winner to choose to KO isn’t borrowed from HS. That was the IFAB rule for decades before they inexplicably took the option away (I believe in the 90s). IFAB just went back to their old rule. (Though IIRC, they also (again inexplicably) changed from choosing which goal to defend to which goal to attack when they took away the choice to KO.)
 
socal lurker said:
letting the winner to choose to KO isn’t borrowed from HS. That was the IFAB rule for decades before they inexplicably took the option away (I believe in the 90s). IFAB just went back to their old rule.
Click to expand...
This.

Just to give the full history, from 1863 to 1873, the team winning the toss got choice of ends and the losers got the kick off.

In 1873 this was changed to the same as the current rule and it remained that way till 1997, when it reverted to the law as in the 1863-73 period.

Finally, in 2019 we went back to the situation that pertained from 1873 to 1997.

So the IFAB actually had the law as it currently is, for almost 125 years - the vast majority of its history.
 
Peter Grove said:
This.

Just to give the full history, from 1863 to 1873, the team winning the toss got choice of ends and the losers got the kick off.

In 1873 this was changed to the same as the current rule and it remained that way till 1997, when it reverted to the law as in the 1863-73 period.

Finally, in 2019 we went back to the situation that pertained from 1873 to 1997.

So the IFAB actually had the law as it currently is, for almost 125 years - the vast majority of its history.
Click to expand...
When I was playing junior football, I was captain, and nearly ever coin toss used the rules that are used now. Didn’t know choice of ends was the actual law until I qualified to be a ref
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top