Yesterday, the "referee circle" sent a misstep clip of Queen's Park Rangers against Manchester City in the 11th round of the 14-15 Premier League, asking how the mistake of the year should be awarded if it was placed today?
(Statistics from the referee circle)
This question and case are very good, we simply looked at the answers of the majority of netizens, more than 63% think that it is a penalty for indirect free kicks, 27% think that the goal is valid, and 8% think that indirect free kicks should be re-played.
In fact, this is not important, what is important is that a netizen left a message below: according to the current rules, whether the referee can use the benefits regulations based on the fact that the attacking party has been given a clear opportunity to attack. Simply put, netizens are asking whether this can be mastered advantageously, and the penalty goal is effective. Because the "referee circle" replied that it was not possible, when discussed in the group yesterday, some people were still unsure whether they could grasp the advantage. So let's analyze it, can this case be beneficial?
Let's first look at the general situation of this case, queen's park rangers first had a forward score a goal, but offside first, the referee awarded an offside foul, then, Joe Hart kicked an indirect free kick, the ball fell directly to the feet of the opposing player, the opponent shot directly to score, Joe Hart immediately signaled to the referee that he touched the ball twice, through the slow motion it was indeed the first to stab the football with the tip of his left foot, and then kicked the ball out with his right foot. The on-duty referee Mike Dean ruled the goal invalid.
Now we do not analyze whether the referee on duty under the rules of the football competition at that time is correct, let's say that under the current 2021-2022 version of the "Football Competition Rules", how should the referee decide the penalty?
First, let's determine that Johalt is playing an indirect free kick, and let's look at the rules for free kicks:
If the match has resumed and the penalty team member touches the ball again before the other player touches the ball, an indirect free kick is awarded. If a handball foul is thrown:
● Awarded a direct free kick.
● If the violation occurs in the penalty area of the penalty team member's own side, the penalty penalty will be awarded. Unless the penalty player is a goalkeeper, in which case an indirect free kick is awarded.
This is the rule that after the correct kick of a free kick (i.e. the game has resumed), the penalty player touches the ball again before the other player touches the ball, and the indirect free kick should be awarded.
Of course, if the opposing player who enters the penalty area before the game resumes, touches the ball or scrambles for the ball before the game resumes, the free kick should be re-kicked. In the case above, before Joe Hart kicked the ball, the opposing player was already outside the free throw zone, and there was no such thing as described here.
So, why can't the offensive side grasp the advantages of the defensive side's violations? I think referees should be in control of the advantage. First, in the current rules, it has been made clear that in the event that a goalkeeper resumes a match, the goalkeeper must be disciplined accordingly if the goalkeeper violates the second touch (whether using a hand/arm) before the other player touches the ball, and the violation prevents a promising attack, or destroys the opponent's goal or obvious goal scoring opportunity.
On the above description we briefly talk about a case, if the goalkeeper kicks the free kick out, but does not kick far, the opposing striker comes up to scramble, obviously the striker has a better chance to control the ball and face the goalkeeper, in a hurry, the goalkeeper again uses his foot to break the siege, according to the current rules, it should be a penalty for indirect free kicks, and to destroy the obvious goal scoring opportunity to send the goalkeeper red card, but if the goalkeeper is in a hurry to kick the ball to the feet of the opposing striker twice, the striker directly shoots to score, will you decide that the goal is invalid, Come back and award an indirect free kick and send the opposing goalkeeper a red card?
Therefore, since the referee determines that the second touch of the ball, then it is also determined that Joe Hart's tiptoe touch is the correct resumption of the game, and since the referee believes that the game is correctly resumed, then after the other party violates the law, the other party has a favorable situation, why can't it grasp the advantage?
What do you think of this case? Please express your opinion in the comment area!
Click Share
Click Favorites
Thumbs up