Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] New rule. Looks weird.









Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,287
Quite a good idea!
 




Postman Pat

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
6,971
Coldean
Don't think it should be allowed as per rules.

Screenshot_20190729-223056_Chrome.jpg
 
















Tom Bombadil

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2003
6,032
Jibrovia
For the small percentage of occasions when a team ****s it up and concedes a comedy goal, I think it should be allowed. :thumbsup:

Shame the Hawk isn't still playing. I feel this would be an opportunity too good for him to resist.
 






PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
18,704
Hurst Green








Postman Pat

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
6,971
Coldean
The goalkeeper flicks the ball up, so it circumvents the law. This will be used for time wasting by many teams.

As far as the laws of football are concerned, the goalkeeper is a defender in this instance, both should be cautioned for unsporting behaviour and an in-direct free-kick awarded.
 


Northern_Gull

Member
Mar 30, 2019
40
Yorkshire
As far as the laws of football are concerned, the goalkeeper is a defender in this instance, both should be cautioned for unsporting behaviour and an in-direct free-kick awarded.

I think in this situation the law means that the defender performing the header cannot perform the trick to bring it to head height, as for another player passing it to him that seems to be allowed, even if it is the goalkeeper
 


Official Old Man

Uckfield Seagull
Aug 27, 2011
8,546
Brighton
The way the law is written, a player must not pass the ball to another player in a way that would circumnavigate the rules. So Dunk cant flick the ball on to Duffy's head to pass back to Ryan. So therefor Ryan cant flick the ball onto Duffy's head to get around the laws.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here