Search results

There is obviously an anomaly with the rule and I spent a long time on Surrey FA Rules revision committee reading into rules and possible scenarios to alleviate any misinterpretation and I believe that is needed in this case. I also believe that it is wrong for an offending team to get a 2nd...

What you are saying is that nothing can happen because the game 'is not live' so the same argument could be attached to my point about a red card. It is then obvious that action can be taken whether the ball has been kicked or not and has no need to be live. If a player encroached early...

Why should Kayal get a red card because as you say the ball is not in play in one scenario so consequently no action can be taken so how is it different in another?

It could have if he had distracted the keeper.

That is an absurd argument. Common sense tells the attackers to stay out of the box until it is kicked, not difficult for even a footballer to take in. Technically as you say the ball isnt in play until kicked so if Wood was taking the kick and Kayal smacks Bridcutt in the mouth no action...

We must just agree to differ the team taking the penalty had the opportunity to score a goal but to me they forfeited that with a player going .into the box bto try to gain an extra advantage. If a defender goes into the box I agree the goal stand or kick be retaken.if it is missed,.

I disagree with that bit IMHO should be a free kick as given last night. as I have said many times why should the attacking team get another chance?

I agree it is absurd that the goal kick is retaken because I have seen it haopen when a keeper has taken a short goal kick and the player realized he was going to be under pressure so jusr ran in the box to stop it going out and the kick retaken. Logically it should be an idirect free kick...

It is an advantage because one of your team has offended so it should then take away your chance and hand it to the non offenders ie the defending team who after the original foul did nothing wrong,

It has highlighted the fault in the rule as Matt Ritchie would have had a 2nd chance after a Newcastle player breaking the rule as it stands now. Surely it must be wrong that they could gain such an advantage.

I always thought that the free kick was given for any infringement by the attacking side and a retake if by the the defending side. To me that seems the logical action rather than give the attacking side a 2nd bite at the cherry, having offended. I wonder if in the light of this...

I have just read FIFA Rule 14 page 8 (sorry cant copy and paste) but basically I have got this wrong after all these years as it shows action after the whistle has blown: Infringement for encroachment ...................... Out come of kick...

A 1 - 0 win for us on Friday will suffice.

Did anybody really expect Newcastle or Huddersfield to drop points tonight?

I accept that but it as I always thought was the case in such incidents

The pressure in the remaining games is still on Huddersfield and they rely on us dropping points.

Lets hope they can nick a goal

I do not have sky but son phoned and said Sky are going crazy saying Keith Stroud is wrong, From what I have seen I believe it was for encroachment and his interpretation of the rules were to order a free kick and I agree with him as I do not believe he could possibly have seen a double kick...

Not only me that is wrong but Keith Stroud also. so it will be interesting to see what Mark Halsey says in The Sun tomorrow as he is bound to analyse the decision.

As I quoted is as I have always found and my interpretation of the rule in 60 + years of playing coaching, refereeing and watching the game If I have interpreted wrong then it has been for a long time and I would stand corrected but I dont think my interpretation of the rule is wrong.