How was this restarted ?
- Thread starter RefGod
- Start date
- Status
It was disallowed, no idea who alerted them though as it clearly looked like the referee and AR were giving the goal.
www.dailystar.co.uk
Wales Women get lucky after Switzerland goal disallowed due to rare penalty law
Wales Women were given a reprieve in their crunch World Cup qualifying play-off against Switzerland on Tuesday evening as a rarely seen penalty rule came to their aid
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
Poor on the officials part, but I also think it proves how little players know the laws.......
I reckon most player know it is a disallowed goal.
Just they instinctively dive on the rebound with no real idea it was themselves that touched it last. No time to process it real time.
Just they instinctively dive on the rebound with no real idea it was themselves that touched it last. No time to process it real time.
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
Look at the defending team, not one player appeals
I'm just guessing everything happens too fast for anyone to actually piece it together.
The main purpose of the law is to stop the taker dribbling forward, and there's probably a good argument for changing law to not penalise a touch after the ball has touched the goal frame.
I couldn't agree more.
Why are we removing goals from the game.
No player can consistently and deliberately hit the woodwork.
I think the woodwork should count as another player, unless it goes directly in the net (eg indirect free kicks).
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
i disagree, primarily b/c of the advantage it gives to a PK taker who misses the shot. And it almost never happens on anything other than a PK.
I'm sure someone else has seen the clip but it happened from a free kick fairly recently. Can't remember the teams, the match or anything really just remember seeing the clip, free kick off the bar, back to the taker and ended up in the net. Was correctly (by law) disallowed.
**Edit- after a quick google it was Rennes vs Villarreal in the Europa League last month
LothianRef
Member
Surely that advantage still exists if the goalkeeper saves the penalty though?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
In a world where many of the Laws can be super complex and illogical, it would be a shame to lose the elegant simplicity that EVERY double touch by the taker of a restart currently leads to a free kick to the opposition (normally an indirect one)
I thought that initially, but on looking closer with slo-mo she didn't really get that close to it.
Disagree on that, as every other restart doesn't allow a double touch so it would just lead to an anomaly. A free kick has been mentioned above, but I've also seen it happen from a corner where the ball hit the post and went back to the taker. Unfortunately the referee wasn't switched on and missed it, although nothing came of the attack.
You're right, it does add more sweeping changes. Leave the referees with yet another law change to manage.
I just think it would add more goals to the game.
As seen in both the free kick clip and this clip, nobody protests the goals. Because the game expects the goal to be given.
It is only when an extremely vigilant (a)referee or var spots it, is it put right.
I just think any goal being chopped off, that isn't being protested, is usually an indicator that unnecessary entertainment is being robbed from the game.
I find this argument difficult to reconcile when contrasted with referees arguing that players, managers and spectators don't know the rules (mostly they don't). Because, if they did, then they absolutely would be protesting it.
Ignorance, or negligence should not really be a precursor to change
My argument is simply. More = better. As long as nobody gained an unfair advantage.
I hate seeing goals being knocked off for niche rules. Unless there is a very specific game breaking reason for the rule.
I don't think the ball hitting the bar and falling to the original taker offers any advantage that would differ from the keeper or defender interfering with the ball.
It isn't a hill I am willing to die on. It so rarely comes up, that you are lucky to see it come up once in a 1,000 games (obviously I am plucking this figure out of thin air). But for that same reason, why should it result in no goal, if it is such an outsider.
Just to me, it feels like IFAB are unnecessarily removing goals from the game.
When I say, what the game expects. I don't mean feed the players ignorance, as it also fooled the officials also (as they originally allowed the goal), and they obviously know the rules. It is more, 'the feel' I am going for. Once that penalty was scored, just like the freekick on the other post. It felt like a goal. Then to have the officials (or in both those cases VAR) overrule the goal afterwards using a niche rule. Rules are rules and so on, but I personally (not strongly) feel the rule should be changed.
" Russell Jones said:
In a world where many of the Laws can be super complex and illogical," @Russell Jones (apologies for the butchered quote, couldn't get it to play ball)
I think the same could be said for the opposite. That maybe the ball being struck into play, hitting off the woodwork, and making it's way back to the player, more fits the complex and illogical law.
Again I am just having fun here, and like disagreeing with people. I might be missing a fundamental reason why this law is extremely important to the game.
I isn't a "niche rule" though is is? The premise is for any restart that you can't touch the ball again until someone else has touched it, penalties are just one of many restarts.
- Status