c4countdown

The inconsistent enforcement of the rules on enroachment at penalties has been quite visible in the last few weeks. Tottenham's van der Vaart was forced to retake against Bolton, and having scored the first time, he missed the retake, which nearly cost Spurs the win. On the other hand, last night Fulham were not allowed to retake their missed penalty even though Chelsea's Drogba was virtually level with the ball when it was kicked, and since it was the 94th minute it effectively cost them two points.

Is this just one of those rules which people mostly agree to ignore, as with gaining a few steps on throw-ins? Should it be? It's arguably more important than the much-debated offside rule since an almost-certain goal is at stake.

YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE!

Yeah I think most officials choose to ignore the rule. It's the same with goalkeepers coming off the line. Rarely will you see a goalkeeper on his line by the time the opposing player is making contact with the ball. And another one is fouls in the box on things like corners. Some defenders get away with murder in the box and the best ones know exactly how far they can push it even though it is a clear foul but again officials just overlook it. They aren't bold enough to give penalties for these things.

Basically football is full of too many grey areas and it needs to get cleared up. In your example above there should be a zero tolerance on people in the area other than the penalty taker and of course it would be a farce at first with lots of retakes but eventually I think the players would get the message.

Charlie Reams wrote:Fulham were not allowed to retake their missed penalty even though Chelsea's Drogba was virtually level with the ball when it was kicked, and since it was the 94th minute it effectively cost them two points.

Yeah... still pissed off by that.

Ryan Taylor wrote: it would be a farce at first with lots of retakes but eventually I think the players would get the message.

Ta-da!

I remember one a few years back where Owen (maybe?) missed a penalty, and got to retake it because one of his team's players were in the box. That just seemed silly.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote: it would be a farce at first with lots of retakes but eventually I think the players would get the message.

Ta-da!

Nice! I remember seeing either this or something similar before and it clearly works despite being ridiculously tedious!

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's retarded that they don't enforce it all the time. I remember one a few years back where Owen (maybe?) missed a penalty, and got to retake it because one of his team's players were in the box.

Yeah. Likewise when the goalie moves and the player scores anyway.

That just seemed silly, but I don't know how you'd police it properly without the initial gayness where half of every penalty had to be retaken for a while.

How bad would that be though? People would soon get the idea and it'd be quite amusing in the meanwhile.

Personally I think penalties during the game should be like penalties in a shoot out. You shouldn't be allowed to follow up if the keeper saves them. Just award a goal kick if the penalty is missed. That way there'd be no point in encroaching. Also, anyone think the box is too wide? It should be an 18 yard by 18 yard square not an 18 yard by 44 yard rectangle.

The thing that makes me laugh, and I laugh at this as I do it in Sunday football, is that standing on the line and leaning forward as the guy runs up is about the most retarded thing you can do to get an advantage. I could be literally 5 yards behind everyone else when the guy kicks the ball, and I'd still beat everyone who uses the line technique to the edge of the 6 yard box in a race, so long as I was already running. Which I would be, cos that's what I do. So, optimal tactic is long run-up and be 3 yards or so outside the box when the taker kicks it so there's no doubt in the ref's mind.

Another thing. Spurs just scored an "invaluable" away goal, to win 1-0 away to Milan.

I will bet with any football commentator, player, pundit or manager that Spurs will not win on away goals.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Another thing. Spurs just scored an "invaluable" away goal, to win 1-0 away to Milan.

I will bet with any football commentator, player, pundit or manager that Spurs will not win on away goals.

If we're being charitable, we might say that it's an invaluable goal which was scored away, and not necessarily the awayness that is being described as invaluable.

But yes, they're obviously idiots.

The phrase "away goals count double" always irked me as well, since they don't.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Another thing. Spurs just scored an "invaluable" away goal, to win 1-0 away to Milan.

I will bet with any football commentator, player, pundit or manager that Spurs will not win on away goals.

If we're being charitable, we might say that it's an invaluable goal which was scored away, and not necessarily the awayness that is being described as invaluable.

But yes, they're obviously idiots.

The phrase "away goals count double" always irked me as well, since they don't.

Also I suppose it has value if Milan were to equalise. But still, a bit silly. But by no means the silliest thing in football.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Another thing. Spurs just scored an "invaluable" away goal, to win 1-0 away to Milan.

I will bet with any football commentator, player, pundit or manager that Spurs will not win on away goals.

If we're being charitable, we might say that it's an invaluable goal which was scored away, and not necessarily the awayness that is being described as invaluable.

But yes, they're obviously idiots.

The phrase "away goals count double" always irked me as well, since they don't.

Also I suppose it has value if Milan were to equalise. But still, a bit silly. But by no means the silliest thing in football.

It has value as a goal but not as an away goal. If Milan score one at Spurs then they'll have an away goal too and cancel it out. I personally think the away goal scheme should be abolished anyway. Or maybe do it like the Carling Cup where it only counts after extra time.

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's retarded that they don't enforce it all the time. I remember one a few years back where Owen (maybe?) missed a penalty, and got to retake it because one of his team's players were in the box. That just seemed silly

The referee's fucked up there, then. If there's encroachment (or any other rule infringement) then the team not making the infringement get the advantage - if your team encroaches and you miss, you don't get to retake, whilst if their team encroaches and you score, you get the goal.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's retarded that they don't enforce it all the time. I remember one a few years back where Owen (maybe?) missed a penalty, and got to retake it because one of his team's players were in the box. That just seemed silly

The referee's fucked up there, then. If there's encroachment (or any other rule infringement) then the team not making the infringement get the advantage - if your team encroaches and you miss, you don't get to retake, whilst if their team encroaches and you score, you get the goal.

Yep, it was a huge error.

Anyone else not realise the title of this thread has a typo until now?

Mark James wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: If we're being charitable, we might say that it's an invaluable goal which was scored away, and not necessarily the awayness that is being described as invaluable.

Also I suppose it has value if Milan were to equalise.

It has value as a goal but not as an away goal.

Anyone else want to say the same thing as me?

Anyone else not realise the title of this thread has a typo until now?

Haha, yep! Don't think I'll change it now, my reputation is already in tatters.

"One might find that a Rizla packet is handy in the execution of a successful enroachment."

Jon O'Neill wrote:Anyone else not realise the title of this thread has a typo until now?

I'm just too polite to say.

.

I like it when gingers tease gingers over being ginger. I thought I was missing an in joke with the spelling to be honest, as it's also misspelt in the post.

Andy Wilson wrote:I like it when gingers tease gingers over being ginger. I thought I was missing an in joke with the spelling to be honest, as it's also misspelt in the post.

I think it's just some kind of mental habit, because it doesn't even look wrong to me when I look back at it now.

Of course, as this is about men's football, it ought to be COCKROACHMENT

Andy Wilson wrote:I like it when gingers tease gingers over being ginger. I thought I was missing an in joke with the spelling to be honest, as it's also misspelt in the post.

Well, gingers are just dyslexic niggers.