Penalty retake, correct in law but harsh on the keeper! (Encroachment)
Last edited:
Naughty tackle by Norwich 23 McLean
As @RustyRef said, it was #2 from Norwich, Aarons.Penalty retake, correct in law but harsh on the keeper! (Encroachment)
Eh, I said it was correct in law, how is that not keeping up with the blooming law???As @RustyRef said, it was #2 from Norwich, Aarons.
He encroached and interfered (he was the one who cleared the rebound).
That's the line that was drawn in the sand last year. I'm shocked that you haven't kept up with this stuff.
If he had been the one penalised and got a yellow for it, things would have got very interesting - he'd just been cautioned about 30 seconds earlier for either delaying the restart or dissent.I don't think it was for the GK - else he'd have been cautioned immediately (something I understand IFAB want to removed incidentally). It was for the defender who then ran in and cleared the ball.
Goals = £$€The problem I have with this is it seems to overly favour the attacking side.
If the Arsenal player encroaching had got the ball and scored then the penalty would presumably also have been retaken (like with the James Maddison one last week) as both players had.
But if the penalty had been scored then no retake would have been ordered by VAR.
I think it should either be that VAR orders the penalty to be retaken regardless of outcome if both teams have players encroaching or if an attacking player scores from the rebound after encroaching then the penalty is disallowed, regardless of if the defending team also encroached. That would at least keep the 'direct impact' clause balanced.
The problem I have with this is it seems to overly favour the attacking side.
If the Arsenal player encroaching had got the ball and scored then the penalty would presumably also have been retaken (like with the James Maddison one last week) as both players had.
But if the penalty had been scored then no retake would have been ordered by VAR.
I think it should either be that VAR orders the penalty to be retaken regardless of outcome if both teams have players encroaching or if an attacking player scores from the rebound after encroaching then the penalty is disallowed, regardless of if the defending team also encroached. That would at least keep the 'direct impact' clause balanced.
Not really a VAR issue, but a Law 14 issue. The "only if it matters" way of looking at encroachment came long before VAR, and has always had this asymmetry. (I suppose the difference with VAR is that it makes it harder to only see the attacker's encroachment when the attacker gains an advantage.) These issues are one of the reasons some are advocating for PKs to be dead when missed instead of continuing play.
Encroachment can only be reviewed if:
• an attacker who encroached scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored
• a defender who encroached prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball in a situation where a goal might be scored
I think what irritates and confuses the “normal” viewer of this is that when VAR can, can’t or won’t review something seems completely arbitrary to the bloke in the stands or pub, and equally the commentators. No one’s done a good job communicating anything to anyone.I'm not quite sure why there's so much debate on this as regards the use of VAR.The VAR protocol is quite clear and unequivocal on this issue:
I'm not quite sure why there's so much debate on this as regards the use of VAR.The VAR protocol is quite clear and unequivocal on this issue:
I don't understand - that's always been the way it worked, ever since a provision on encroachment was first brought in. If players from both sides encroach, the penalty is retaken, no matter what the outcome. Since both sides have offended against the Laws of the Game you can't single one of them out, you just have the kick retaken. That is (and has always been) the only solution available in the law.Oh there's no doubt that the VAR protocol is clear.
My point is that the balance seems unfiar in the application. Last week, an attacking player scored from a rebound and the penalty was retaken because there were also defenders who had encroached. This week, a defending player cleared the rebound and the penalty was retaken even though there also attackers who had encroached.
I don't understand - that's always been the way it worked, ever since a provision on encroachment was first brought in. If players from both sides encroach, the penalty is retaken, no matter what the outcome. Since both sides have offended against the Laws of the Game you can't single one of them out, you just have the kick retaken. That is (and has always been) the only solution available in the law.