The Ref Stop

Shaking the bar at penalty

one said:
@Brian You are correct in your quote and conclusion however as we all do at times we allow some common sense to prevail over the exact wording of the LOTG (often written for common circumstances only). Consider the scenario of after we signal for the penalty kick to be taken the keeper walks up to the pen taker in anger because apparently he saw/heard something from pen taker he didn't like. Should we stand back and "allows the kick to be taken"? What about after the keeper punches the pen taker in the face? :)

I am with prevention and as with my earlier post manage it without cards if possible.
Click to expand...
The comment was that there was no requirement to proceed with the kick in the scenario set out in the original post. I countered that with a direct quote from Law 14.

With regard to your scenario, you wouldn't proceed with the kick because the goalkeeper hasn't remained on his goal line, facing the kicker, between the goalposts until the ball has been kicked. Also Law 14. MTH
 
The Ref Stop
Brian Hamilton said:
With regard to your scenario, you wouldn't proceed with the kick because the goalkeeper hasn't remained on his goal line, facing the kicker, between the goalposts until the ball has been kicked. Also Law 14. MTH
Click to expand...
So.... you signal for the kick to be taken. Taker starts his run up. Keeper takes a big step forward to close the angel. you (wouldn't proceed) stop the pen taker and ask the keeper to step back on the line. correct?
 
one said:
So.... you signal for the kick to be taken. Taker starts his run up. Keeper takes a big step forward to close the angel. you (wouldn't proceed) stop the pen taker and ask the keeper to step back on the line. correct?
Click to expand...
Why do you keep changing the scenario? Is it because you can't win the argument?

Shakes bar, keep going, see outcome, take action.

Keeper runs out, strikes kicker before played, stop procedure, take action.

Keeper steps off line, don't attract attention to yourself unless his action affects the outcome of the kick, await outcome, take action if needed.

Any other changes to the scenario you would like to try out?
 
No all good. Both my scenarios have the keeper stepping off the line which infringe your quote of law 14. It seems that you are using Law 14 AND common sense to workout what to do when the keeper steps off the line (assuming you would NOT wait until the keeper has struck the kicker before you react in the first case). The referee action is based on the intention of the keeper. One is not the same as the other so different action is taken.

I think my idea of common sense is not exactly the same as yours on the OP. We will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Oh and by the way.; this is not about winning an argument to me :)
 
Brian Hamilton said:
If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken
Click to expand...

So what's wrong with telling the keeper to calm his tits BEFORE blowing the whistle to signal that the penalty has to be taken?

We see in every penalty on tv the red doing all a procedure before allowing the steicker to kick (check if the ball is on the spot, check if the players are out of the area, prevent them to enter, check if the goal is on this line and telling him to stay on it...) How is that situation different ? If from the moment you gave a penalty to the moment the player actually kicks the ball, all you must do is wait and see, than no referee should do all this procedure.


Edit: okay, read again the op, it indicates that the ref has already blowed the whistle so you're right
 
?calm his tits? :) maybe a translation thing there or perhaps it is a French colloquialism @Yacinho ?

@one - I don't really wish to step in, but you are talking nonsense. Pack it in before I view what you are doing as deliberately provocative behaviour and issue you warning points and remove you from discussion. You asked a question with a scenario, it was answered and then you moved the goal posts. I see what you are trying to highlight, but it's annoying please stop it.
 
Lol learn something new everyday. I suspect from the description that is a massively sexist phrase though :D
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Why do you keep changing the scenario? Is it because you can't win the argument?

Shakes bar, keep going, see outcome, take action.

Keeper runs out, strikes kicker before played, stop procedure, take action.

Keeper steps off line, don't attract attention to yourself unless his action affects the outcome of the kick, await outcome, take action if needed.

Any other changes to the scenario you would like to try out?
Click to expand...

The point was that you agreed that if the keeper gets in the striker's face you'd intervene, despite acknowledging the laws had obviously been broken. So, obviously there is a point where we bypass the 'allows the kick to be taken' part for common sense. Once that 'in principle' agreement has been made, it's just a matter of debating the middle ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top