Bob Madley's comical errors for Mahrez Penalty.

[Vestan Pance]

The rule is clearly there to stop a player dribbling the ball toward the goal. The referee has misinterpreted it, Mahrez didn't 'play' the ball twice, it hit him. Goal.

[Guest ttfn]

3 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Really, we having a go at a ref for making a correct decision because he might have not been looking directly at the incident   pretty sure the encroachment rule doesn't count in the case of a double contact as well but come on .

 

The only thing that was comical was the penalty taker himself

 

if you want get your knickers in a twist about something I'd have a look their first goal which should not have stood.

What do you mean "pretty sure it doesn't count"? Of course it counts!

 

Mahrez "misses" the penalty at the moment the ball is next touched by him or another player. If the penalty is missed the laws state it is to be retaken if an opposing player is in the penalty area. 

 

Realistically you never see penalties retaken for encroaching so I'm not surprised. Then again you never see penalties retaken for double contact but Madley managed to notice that technical offence.

[Guest ttfn]

1 hour ago, Number 6 said:

2 players and no punishment because the 2 touch take was a foul. If Mahrez had taken one touch and missed then the encroachment should have been punished.

 

53 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

But the encroachment offense is strange because it's dependent on outcome. A Leicester player encroachment is only a foul if the penalty is legitimately scored. So in this instance it's after the foul of two touches by Mahrez and so the correct decision was made.

Sorry this makes no sense.

 

The offence takes place the moment Mahrez kicks the ball. In effect, advantage is played between then and the moment the ball either goes in (goal awarded) or doesn't (retake). The ball "doesn't" go in when the ball strikes his other foot, at which point the advantage we've been given disappears.

 

It should have been retaken. Of course it wasn't because you never see penalties retaken for encroachment. Madley made a good call on an obvious foul by Mahrez but missed something else he should have seen (but nobody ever does) which would have negated it.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 minutes ago, ttfn said:

 

Sorry this makes no sense.

 

The offence takes place the moment Mahrez kicks the ball. In effect, advantage is played between then and the moment the ball either goes in (goal awarded) or doesn't (retake). The ball "doesn't" go in when the ball strikes his other foot, at which point the advantage we've been given disappears.

 

It should have been retaken. Of course it wasn't because you never see penalties retaken for encroachment. Madley made a good call on an obvious foul by Mahrez but missed something else he should have seen (but nobody ever does) which would have negated it.

 

As mentioned previously, but put in a different way - the way the rule is structured, encorchment is only considered after the result of a legitimately taken penalty... the penalty in this instance wasn't legimately taken, therefore this action negates any consideration in respect of encourchment. 

 

Admittadly, the law isn't written very well, but that is the understanding I take from it and I feel we have to accept the outcome here for danger of looking Spursy. There's much more point in arguing the offside decision, because that was incorrect, but not this one.

[Manwell Pablo]

9 minutes ago, ttfn said:

 

Sorry this makes no sense.

 

The offence takes place the moment Mahrez kicks the ball. In effect, advantage is played between then and the moment the ball either goes in (goal awarded) or doesn't (retake). The ball "doesn't" go in when the ball strikes his other foot, at which point the advantage we've been given disappears.

 

It should have been retaken. Of course it wasn't because you never see penalties retaken for encroachment. Madley made a good call on an obvious foul by Mahrez but missed something else he should have seen (but nobody ever does) which would have negated it.

 

I don't know it's which rule takes priority and if you read he rule it seems to indicate if the ball is touched twice it's an immediate free kick regardless of encroachment as it's not a miss it's actually committing a foul, like I say I don't actually know though.

 

Any case Slimani is in the box as well so it's encroachment on both sides if we want to be petty.

 

And I've never seen a player take to touches and not get blown up for it before Greizmann but then only Henry and today spring to mind it's not exactly common.

[Beachyboy]

3 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

The real mistake was Mahrez taking the Penalty in the first place. He was shite all day apart from the winning Penalty.

It should have been taken by Slimani.

 

However, the decision by the Ref although right was harsh. Especially when they did encroach the area before the kick. But the Ref can't watch everything.

Which is why Video evidence is a must.

Yeah when Mahrez stepped up I didn't fancy him to score if I'm honest.

[Corky]

All the focus was on the double touch and the encroachment was discussed afterwards. As soon as the double touch occurred that was going to be it and our chance had gone.

 

Just one of those things.

[Guest ttfn]

13 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

I don't know it's which rule takes priority and if you read he rule it seems to indicate if the ball is touched twice it's an immediate free kick regardless of encroachment as it's not a miss it's actually committing a foul, like I say I don't actually know though.

 

Any case Slimani is in the box as well so it's encroachment on both sides if we want to be petty.

 

And I've never seen a player take to touches and not get blown up for it before Greizmann but then only Henry and today spring to mind it's not exactly common.

Seem to remember Zenden scoring for Boro in a league cup final once upon a time with a double touch penalty.

 

I've got no problem with it being disallowed really, it would have been an amazing spot to notice a double kick and encroachment.

 

For those talking about a "legitimately taken penalty" I just can't understand the logic there. But if somebody is in the penalty area when he kicks it the first time THAT is the moment at which an offence has occurred and the game is effectively in suspense from that moment.

 

The oddity here is that both "kicks" happen in quick succession. As the law itself doesn't dictate that one offence supersedes the other surely it stands to reason that play should (in theory, and as I say it would have been a great spot in practice) stop at the point that the first offence is committed.

[Bert]

15 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

I don't know it's which rule takes priority and if you read he rule it seems to indicate if the ball is touched twice it's an immediate free kick regardless of encroachment as it's not a miss it's actually committing a foul, like I say I don't actually know though.

 

Any case Slimani is in the box as well so it's encroachment on both sides if we want to be petty.

 

And I've never seen a player take to touches and not get blown up for it before Greizmann but then only Henry and today spring to mind it's not exactly common.

Still a re-take if Slimani is in the box. 

[Clever Fox]

12 minutes ago, Beachyboy said:

Yeah when Mahrez stepped up I didn't fancy him to score if I'm honest.

Yes, I just knew we were in trouble when he stepped forward to take it. Penalties should always be taken by really good kickers of the Ball and he's not one of them.

[Number 6]

8 minutes ago, ttfn said:

For those talking about a "legitimately taken penalty" I just can't understand the logic there. But if somebody is in the penalty area when he kicks it the first time THAT is the moment at which an offence has occurred and the game is effectively in suspense from that moment.

 

The oddity here is that both "kicks" happen in quick succession. As the law itself doesn't dictate that one offence supersedes the other surely it stands to reason that play should (in theory, and as I say it would have been a great spot in practice) stop at the point that the first offence is committed.

Incorrect, there's no encroachment offence until the kick is scored or missed. It's neither in this instance due to a foul take.

[Guest ttfn]

Just now, Number 6 said:

Incorrect, there's no encroachment offence until the kick is scored or missed. It's neither in this instance due to a foul take.

No, that's not what law 14 states. It talks about "before the kick". It's there in black and white.

[Manwell Pablo]

4 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Seem to remember Zenden scoring for Boro in a league cup final once upon a time with a double touch penalty.

 

I've got no problem with it being disallowed really, it would have been an amazing spot to notice a double kick and encroachment.

 

For those talking about a "legitimately taken penalty" I just can't understand the logic there. But if somebody is in the penalty area when he kicks it the first time THAT is the moment at which an offence has occurred and the game is effectively in suspense from that moment.

 

The oddity here is that both "kicks" happen in quick succession.

 

Yeah I get where you are coming from but the offence is only judged at the end of a legitimately taken penalty as I understand it where as Mahrez is adjudged to have fouled the taking of the penalty, so it's not a case of it being missed the offence that takes priority is the one that he has failed to take the kick correctly as oppose to missing it. Again as I understand it the rule isn't exactly plain as day, I think Barry Hammond does a bit of reffing though and he's of the same opinion as me. 

 

Its messed up though you'd imagine if anyone did ever give encroachment a player hit the post and scored the rebound you can't imagine the ref giving a foul instead of a retake.

[Manwell Pablo]

6 minutes ago, Bert said:

Still a re-take if Slimani is in the box. 

 

Well yes but if he had he scored it it'd of been a retake as well? 

 

Head ache of a rule.

[Number 6]

3 minutes ago, ttfn said:

No, that's not what law 14 states. It talks about "before the kick". It's there in black and white.

The first offense is the Mahrez second touch. Otherwise refs would have to blow up before the kick was even taken which would be madness. Doesn't even matter if both encroach, the encroachment punishment is to whoever benefited from the penalty outcome. It never came into effect here because we were not able to take a legitimate penalty. 

[Guest ttfn]

1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Yeah I get where you are coming from but the offence is only judged at the end of a legitimately taken penalty as I understand it where as Mahrez is adjudged to have fouled the taking of the penalty, so it's not a case of it being missed the offence that takes priority is the one that he has failed to take the kick correctly as oppose to missing it. Again as I understand it the rule isn't exactly plain as day, I think Barry Hammond does a bit of reffing though and he's of the same opinion as me. 

 

Its messed up though you'd imagine if anyone did ever give encroachment a player hit the post and scored the rebound you can't imagine the ref giving a foul instead of a retake.

This must happen so rarely as to be something that nobody can know the answer to it, like an obscure question you might get in a refereeing exam.

 

As I say, the rules about encroachment are about BEFORE the kick is taken, so by the time Mahrez comes to take his foul kick, a foul has already taken place. Mahrez commits a foul which wouldn't have happened if it had been "properly" refereed in the first place.

 

This is not meant as a critique of Madley though as nobody ever gives retakes for encroachment.

[Guest ttfn]

3 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

The first offense is the Mahrez second touch. Otherwise refs would have to blow up before the kick was even taken which would be madness. Doesn't even matter if both encroach, the encroachment punishment is to whoever benefited from the penalty outcome. It never came into effect here because we were not able to take a legitimate penalty. 

Well let madness ensue then because that is the first offence.

 

As a comparison you see it at kick offs all the time (we saw it today). A player goes to take kick off, backs out of it, referee blows his whistle and orders the opposition players who've overstepped the mark back into their half.

 

As I said earlier, in practice an advantage is effectively played until it becomes clear whether or not a goal has been scored.

[ZeGuy]

10 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes, I just knew we were in trouble when he stepped forward to take it. Penalties should always be taken by really good kickers of the Ball and he's not one of them.

20/20 hindsight.

[Beachyboy]

Just now, Clever Fox said:

Yes, I just knew we were in trouble when he stepped forward to take it. Penalties should always be taken by really good kickers of the Ball and he's not one of them.

It depends horses for courses, I'm confused when Drinkwater or Vardy are hovering around free kicks, that's Mahrez/ Fuchs for me but pens I'd have been 1) Vardy 2) Slimani 3) Fuchs 4) Mahrez for me.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, ttfn said:

This must happen so rarely as to be something that nobody can know the answer to it, like an obscure question you might get in a refereeing exam.

 

As I say, the rules about encroachment are about BEFORE the kick is taken, so by the time Mahrez comes to take his foul kick, a foul has already taken place. Mahrez commits a foul which wouldn't have happened if it had been "properly" refereed in the first place.

 

This is not meant as a critique of Madley though as nobody ever gives retakes for encroachment.

 

Yeah I know your not criticising him.

 

again I see what your saying and yes they are in the box so mahrez can miss and have a retake or score and it counts (although slimani was in the box as well so I presume it's a retake regardless) however, to take advantage of that fact he still needs to take a legal penalty.

 

Anyway as I say not 100% sure anyway and thats what I originally stated could be wrong and without someone who actually knows we will be here all night  at the end of the day he ballsed up the pen.

[Guest ttfn]

Just now, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Yeah I know your not criticising him.

 

again I see what your saying and yes they are in the box so mahrez can miss and have a retake or score and it counts (although slimani was in the box as well so I presume it's a retake regardless) however, to take advantage of that fact he still needs to take a legal penalty.

 

Anyway as I say not 100% sure anyway and thats what I originally stated could be wrong and without someone who actually knows we will be here all night  at the end of the day he ballsed up the pen.

Agreed. I don't think there is a right answer here; my interpretation is one thing, I can see what others mean but at the end of the day it's irrelevant. 

[fazzyfox]

I know this isn't what happened to Mahrez but what if the encroachment is so blatant and close to the run up that it affects the taker and startles him / puts him off enough to accidentally perform the double Kick? Are we still saying it's no offense as the penalty was not legitimately taken?

[sylofox]

Five pages on a no issue. To me the talking point should be the cvnt leading with his elbow on Albrighton. How did he stay on?

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, fazzyfox said:

I know this isn't what happened to Mahrez but what if the encroachment is so blatant and close to the run up that it affects the taker and startles him / puts him off enough to accidentally perform the double Kick? Are we still saying it's no offense as the penalty was not legitimately taken?

Good point

 

the law is an ass in this case and needs changing. Imagine this was the last minute of injury time and you were trying to stay up. The defender dives to push your shot away off the line. He is sent off but it's no big deal as game is over. 

 

And then your penalty taker does a Riyad?  No attempt to gain an advantage - just an accident. The ball goes in but the other team get an indirect free kick. Where is the justice ?  You are denied a certain goal and have not had the benefit of retribution. Could even be due to the turf giving way as you take the kick. 

 

and then the final whistle goes and you are relegated..............

 

we can change the kick off (what's the point!) - we can get this law changed aswell. No intention should mean retake if the ball goes in. If you miss then it's just bad luck. You can't re write history. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, sylofox said:

Five pages on a no issue. To me the talking point should be the cvnt leading with his elbow on Albrighton. How did he stay on?

Shakey said it wasn't malicious.