Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 6 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Whether or not it blocks the ball is irrelevant. His hand is in a natural position for his action, because he's off balance and is trying to clear it. I also think encroachment is for wee guys and shouldn't even be a consideration for VAR, but in what world is Gent not in the box here? His head, arm, upper body and knee are all over the line, and the rules simply say that players should be "outside the penalty area", nothing to do with it only applying to his feet. His arm is not in a natural position. He has made himself bigger to block the ball Gent is not in the box the same way a player is not on the park when taking a throw in when their feet are behind the line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 imo players outside the box should have the same rules as the keeper. Any part of their body above the line should be enough for them to be considered as not encroaching 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said: His arm is not in a natural position. He has made himself bigger to block the ball Gent is not in the box the same way a player is not on the park when taking a throw in when their feet are behind the line. He has not made himself bigger to block the ball, that implies a deliberate action. His arm is extended, there is no doubt about that, but that is a natural consequence of his previous action, namely an attempt to clear the ball whilst off balance. The law for the throw-in specifically refers to a player's feet being on or behind the line - "the thrower must...have part of each foot on the touchline or own the ground outside the touchline". This is not the way it is defined for a penalty, where it is simply "must be...outside the penalty area". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 31 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Whether or not it blocks the ball is irrelevant. His hand is in a natural position for his action, because he's off balance and is trying to clear it. I also think encroachment is for wee guys and shouldn't even be a consideration for VAR, but in what world is Gent not in the box here? His head, arm, upper body and knee are all over the line, and the rules simply say that players should be "outside the penalty area", nothing to do with it only applying to his feet. I think they've just said "half the Dundee team are encroaching, f**k it" 35 minutes ago, Fifespud said: I agree the wind was the biggest factor but, although the pitch looked shite I didn’t see 1 incident where it changed the game or bounced oddly. Agree with this - the ball did take some dead bounces but nothing you wouldn't see on a "normal" heavy pitch... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 1 hour ago, Jastons6 said: Not sure what makes you think it wasn't a penalty. Clear handball. Need to amputate all players arms. IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 5 minutes ago, Swello said: I think they've just said "half the Dundee team are encroaching, f**k it" That should be a retake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 A clear penalty and zero encroachment, good job by VAR. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 29 minutes ago, craigkillie said: He has not made himself bigger to block the ball, that implies a deliberate action. His arm is extended, there is no doubt about that, but that is a natural consequence of his previous action, namely an attempt to clear the ball whilst off balance. The law for the throw-in specifically refers to a player's feet being on or behind the line - "the thrower must...have part of each foot on the touchline or own the ground outside the touchline". This is not the way it is defined for a penalty, where it is simply "must be...outside the penalty area". Craig why don't you go be a VAR nonce in the St Mirren - Hearts thread. The Hearts pealty should have bee re-taken according to you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 For player encroachment in the box, it is now judged on any part of a player’s body that is on the ground when the kick is taken. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 36 minutes ago, craigkillie said: This is not the way it is defined for a penalty, where it is simply "must be...outside the penalty area". https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/glossary/football-terms/ Restart position A player’s position at a restart is determined by the position of their feet or any part of their body which is touching the ground, except as outlined in Law 11 – Offside 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STFU_Donny Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 55 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Whether or not it blocks the ball is irrelevant. His hand is in a natural position for his action, because he's off balance and is trying to clear it. I also think encroachment is for wee guys and shouldn't even be a consideration for VAR, but in what world is Gent not in the box here? His head, arm, upper body and knee are all over the line, and the rules simply say that players should be "outside the penalty area", nothing to do with it only applying to his feet. For player encroachment in the box, it is now judged on any part of a player’s body that is on the ground when the kick is taken. Therefore, if any part of the foot is on the penalty area or arc line it is encroachment. The player must still have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297433 Offside should be the same imo. Wherever your feet are should be the line. Edited April 6 by STFU_Donny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 The only way the OF thread is surpassing the amount of posts on this is for 5 dodgy VAR calls and Brendan planting a Tricolour in the centre circle like Souness in Turkey. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 7 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: For player encroachment in the box, it is now judged on any part of a player’s body that is on the ground when the kick is taken. I'm not surprised that Sportscene pundits don't know the rules, but I expect better from @craigkillie Edited April 6 by Doctor Manhattan ETA: I'm stealing "VAR nonce" for later reuse 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 At least we've stopped talking about Victorian drainage systems 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 6 minutes ago, santheman said: At least we've stopped talking about Victorian drainage systems Happier talking about. ..... Moses parting the Blue Dee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DensParkNumber1 Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Not reading all this but felt Well definitely deserved the win 1st half was scrappy but last 5 mins we couldn't touch ball so the warning signs were there Got a huge favour by Kelly to go 2-0 then just chucked it I hope McCraken gets a wee shake tonight because he clearly let the whole pen debacle get to his head as his positioning for the equaliser was embarrassing If the split was 2/3 games later I'd back well to make it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 1 hour ago, welldaft said: You are hard to please Busta. Sorry mate. But you are the kind of fan that could find us winning the Champions League a negative. Kettlewell is no saviour but he has worked miracles with the lowest budget we have had in years. Let it go and accept you are a negative ninny whatever the circumstances. I'm not really. But I get that it seems that way. I think this squad of players could be managed better. That's all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meeniedee Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 the frustrating thing about the still photo's above is that the rangers got a goal chopped off for the very same scenario v hibs...how about just some fucking concidency(sp) its as if they just make up the rules as they go along,...or better still just make the penalty a one shot and one shot only...you score obviously its a goal the keeper saves or you hit the woodwork its goal kick. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Meeniedee said: the frustrating thing about the still photo's above is that the rangers got a goal chopped off for the very same scenario v hibs...how about just some fucking concidency(sp) its as if they just make up the rules as they go along,...or better still just make the penalty a one shot and one shot only...you score obviously its a goal the keeper saves or you hit the woodwork its goal kick. Talking of making things up - the Rangers player who scored the rebound was encroaching therefore it was correctly ruled out, whereas here the Motherwell player was not in the box. You should be more worried about the Dundee player's encroachment that would have meant a retake had he stopped the rebound shot going in (players should just give more margin nowadays with VAR). Edited April 6 by Ginaro 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Time to bring in the drainage experts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.