That would be right, guess.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Uddersfield v Norwich
- Thread starter nicko31
- Start date
That would be right, guess.
So there is a bit of inconsistency with the rules - it depends on where the ball goes as to whether a live offence has been committed. Instead, the rules are more along the lines of having a punishment, but not too much.
BensGrandad
New member
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 bite at the cherry with little or no punishment for infringement of the rules.
Nope. You're trying to equate two different offences.
In the case of the penalty, the offence occurs when the ball is kicked, because the player is in the box at that time.
In the theoretical punching of Bridcutt, the offence occurs when he gets hit. It would be a red card if it happened after the final whistle went so not even the game has to be live.