Bob Madley's comical errors for Mahrez Penalty.

[Jakewilk]

4 minutes ago, ttfn said:

That the ball goes in is neither here nor there whichever way you look at it.

 

The issue begins and ends with Mahrez kicking the ball twice. At that point the penalty is "missed", under the laws of the game it's incorrect to award a goal.

 

The only issue is whether the encroachment is relevant in the case of a penalty being struck twice. I maintain that it is but I understand why people think it isn't.

But had it not gone in then it would have been a retake. 

 

It's simple. If the attacking team commit an offence and it goes in then it's a free kick to the defending team, if it misses then it's a retake. Vice versa for defending teams.

[Guest ttfn]

15 minutes ago, Jakewilk said:

But had it not gone in then it would have been a retake. 

 

It's simple. If the attacking team commit an offence and it goes in then it's a free kick to the defending team, if it misses then it's a retake. Vice versa for defending teams.

Had Mahrez kicked the ball onto his foot and the ball went wide it would have been exactly the same result - indirect free kick to Manchester City for an illegally taken penalty.

 

Law 14 doesn't talk about the result of an illegally taken penalty.

 

its not simple at all, it's why there's 8 pages of debate about it.

[Guest ttfn]

17 minutes ago, Jakewilk said:

But had it not gone in then it would have been a retake. 

 

It's simple. If the attacking team commit an offence and it goes in then it's a free kick to the defending team, if it misses then it's a retake. Vice versa for defending teams.

Sorry, just to be clear, your understanding of the rule is that had Mahrez' illegal penalty missed then it would have been a retake?!

 

That is the weirdest interpretation of the rules I've heard so far because it makes absolutely no sense. Do something wrong successfully and you get punished but do something wrong terribly and you get the chance to do it again?

 

No, a 2 touch penalty is always punished by an IFK. In this instance my belief is that an offence takes place before the 2 touch penalty which means I think it should have been retaken. Other perfectly well-argued interpretations of this weird incident are available, but any which don't involve the same punishment for a 2 touch penalty whether missed or not are not consistent with what the rules actually say.

[katieakita]

Well all have an opinion but still maintain due to the encroachment it should have been retaken. We were punished for foul play Man City were not one thing though we should all agree on is what an absolute bell Madley is and had his usual shocker, the guy really does need to be held to account but on a positive has an impact on the Arse and their CL God given right to be playing in it.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

I'll post this again, as many have ignored this important point...

 

The way the rule is structured, encroachment 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 encroachment. 

 

[justfoxes]

 where does it say in the rules that if you slip on your Arse and and the ball hits your slipping foot as you hit the ball and score then it's classed as hitting it twice you have no chance at all when a shit pitch takes away your leading leg and the ball goes in off your other foot as you slip to the floor it's not as if Mahrez hit it twice deliberately ffs????

What a stupid fuching rule !!

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 minute ago, justfoxes said:

 where does it say in the rules that if you slip on your Arse and and the ball hits your slipping foot as you hit the ball and score then it's classed as hitting it twice you have no chance at all when a shit pitch takes away your leading leg and the ball goes in off your other foot as you slip to the floor it's not as if Mahrez hit it twice deliberately ffs????

What a stupid fuching rule !!

 

 

It doesn't... it simply says you can't strike the ball twice.

 

Unlike handball where intent is written in, this rule is black and white - it doesn't matter about the circumstances of how the offence occurred. 

[katieakita]

Infringements and sanctions

Once the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, the kick must be taken. If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

the player taking the penalty kick or a team-mate infringes the Laws of the Game:

• if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
• if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts with an indirect free kick

except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored:

• a penalty kick is kicked backwards
• a team-mate of the identified kicker takes the kick; the referee cautions the player who took the kick
• feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker 

the goalkeeper or a team-mate infringes the Laws of the Game:

• if the ball enters the goal, a goal is awarded
• if the ball does not enter the goal, the kick is retaken; the goalkeeper is cautioned if responsible for the infringement 
•  

a player of both teams infringes the Laws of the Game, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. illegal feinting)

 

Still going with this

[Guest ttfn]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I'll post this again, as many have ignored this important point...

 

The way the rule is structured, encroachment 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 encroachment. 

 

Show me where the law says that and I will happily concede I'm wrong.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

25 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Show me where the law says that and I will happily concede I'm wrong.

http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/law-14---the-penalty-kick.ashx

[joachim1965]

A handball in the penalty area will result in a penalty, but if it is accidental handball (say ball to hand) then it is not a penalty. If the same logic is applied to the Mahrez penalty then it should have stood as the double touch was accidental and non intentional. Technically the ref was correct but as has been said earlier, this law was designed to stop players dribbling the ball into the goal. Common sense should be applied.

[Jakewilk]

5 hours ago, ttfn said:

Sorry, just to be clear, your understanding of the rule is that had Mahrez' illegal penalty missed then it would have been a retake?!

 

That is the weirdest interpretation of the rules I've heard so far because it makes absolutely no sense. Do something wrong successfully and you get punished but do something wrong terribly and you get the chance to do it again?

 

No, a 2 touch penalty is always punished by an IFK. In this instance my belief is that an offence takes place before the 2 touch penalty which means I think it should have been retaken. Other perfectly well-argued interpretations of this weird incident are available, but any which don't involve the same punishment for a 2 touch penalty whether missed or not are not consistent with what the rules actually say.

Your right my interpretation is wrong. Having read it again I found this

 

If, after the penalty kick has been taken:

the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player:
• an indirect free kick (or direct free kick for deliberate hand ball) is awarded the ball is touched by an outside agent as it moves forward:
• the kick is retaken 

 

I concede that point, however I still say the encroachment cannot count due to the ball entering the goal. I get that from the table in the picture. As someone else stated the encroachment cannot count due to it being an illegal penalty but you are right that regardless of the outcome it would have been an indirect free kick.

 

[katieakita]

But the infringements took place after the whistle was blown before the ball was touched the penalty should have been retaken.

[Legend_in_blue]

A stronger referee would have made a correct decision based on that situation. 

 

Problem is the situation occurred as a result of poor decision making in the first place.  It was never a foul in the box.

 

 

Weak referee's tend to compound their problems by making error after error.  Consistency is alien to them. 

 

We should just draw a line under it and put this inept referee into the incompetence list alongside Moss, Pawson et al.  Although tbf, he was already part of that shower imo.

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

A stronger referee would have made a correct decision based on that situation. 

 

Problem is the situation occurred as a result of poor decision making in the first place.  It was never a foul in the box.

 

 

Weak referee's tend to compound their problems by making error after error.  Consistency is alien to them. 

 

We should just draw a line under it and put this inept referee into the incompetence list alongside Moss, Pawson et al.  Although tbf, he was already part of that shower imo.

MOTD showed it was

[LesterGloster]

As far as I can see, Mahrez struck the ball once. He didn't kick it twice. The ball hit his other foot on the way to the goal. He did not kick it with his right foot. The law states you cannot kick the ball again before someone else touches it. he only kicked it once.

 

If the ref is so smart he can spot what happened the moment Mahrez struck the ball then why not the infringements of the Man City players at the same time. He chose to ignore them and became influenced by the Man City players' reactions.

[potter3]

30 minutes ago, LesterGloster said:

As far as I can see, Mahrez struck the ball once. He didn't kick it twice. The ball hit his other foot on the way to the goal. He did not kick it with his right foot. The law states you cannot kick the ball again before someone else touches it. he only kicked it once.

 

If the ref is so smart he can spot what happened the moment Mahrez struck the ball then why not the infringements of the Man City players at the same time. He chose to ignore them and became influenced by the Man City players' reactions.

 

The rule states you cannot touch it again before somebody else.

[Guest ttfn]

3 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/law-14---the-penalty-kick.ashx

Yes, show me where the law says that encroachment only applies to a legal penalty kick.

 

Actually I think the wording of this guidance lends further credence to the idea that a legal penalty kick was actually taken (it was kicked forward), but that the offence (the second touch) came straight after it.

 

Nowhere does it say anything about encroachment only applying when taking place after a legal penalty kick and in any event, all references to a second touch are referred to as being "after the penalty kick", I.e something else altogether.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

31 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Yes, show me where the law says that encroachment only applies to a legal penalty kick.

 

Actually I think the wording of this guidance lends further credence to the idea that a legal penalty kick was actually taken (it was kicked forward), but that the offence (the second touch) came straight after it.

 

Nowhere does it say anything about encroachment only applying when taking place after a legal penalty kick and in any event, all references to a second touch are referred to as being "after the penalty kick", I.e something else altogether.

 

"The kicker must not play the ball again until it has touched another player"

 

"If after the penalty kick has been taken;

 

the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player - an indirect free kick (or direct free kick for deliberate handball) is awarded"

 

"A player of both teams infringes the Laws of the Game, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence" (in this case the double hit classes as the more serious offence).

 

Furthermore, consider this scenario... player runs up, knowingly taps it forward 3 yards and then instantly smashes the ball into the net with a second touch, bemusing the keeper and all other players in the process - what would you award then? 

And say if there was encorachment in this scenario, how do you class the result of the penalty as a goal or not? If you say 'no goal' does allowing the player to take it again in this scenario feel correct given these actions? 

 

Yes as a fan on the receiving end the decision feels harsh because the second touch wasunintentional and there's been examples in the past where players have got away with this type of double hit before... but let's not pretend the referee in this case didn't make the right call. 

 

[Clever Fox]

The word Intent plays such a big part in Football. Free Kicks, Hand Balls, Throw-ins, Arms across the body etc. The Referee makes a judgment call as to the intent of the player infringing the Rules or seeking and advantage.

It's clear the rule was intended to prevent a player tapping the Ball forward before kicking for Goal.

 

How many times have we seen Players make a mess of a Throw-in and the Referees either allows play to continue or orders a retake?

 

How any Referee could interpret what happened Mahrez yesterday as intent and seeking to gain an advantage is baffling. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Bloody hell what a crap thread. Nobody ever calls encroachment and mahrez touched it twice. The decision was right. Just let it go. 

[Guest ttfn]

6 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

"The kicker must not play the ball again until it has touched another player"

 

"If after the penalty kick has been taken;

 

the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player - an indirect free kick (or direct free kick for deliberate handball) is awarded"

 

"A player of both teams infringes the Laws of the Game, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence" (in this case the double hit classes as the more serious offence).

 

Furthermore, consider this scenario... player runs up, knowingly taps it forward 3 yards and then instantly smashes the ball into the net with a second touch, bemusing the keeper and all other players in the process - what would you award then? 

And say if there was encorachment in this scenario, how do you class the result of the penalty as a goal or not? If you say 'no goal' does allowing the player to take it again in this scenario feel correct given these actions? 

 

Yes as a fan on the receiving end the decision feels harsh because the second touch wasunintentional and there's been examples in the past where players have got away with this type of double hit before... but let's not pretend the referee in this case didn't make the right call. 

 

You yourself have identified in that quote that the second touch is "after the penalty kick". Encroachment can only happen "before the penalty kick". This is there in black and white in the rules and there is a very clear timeline around which offence takes place first. The "more serious offence" happens after advantage has effectively already been played.

 

In the scenario you've laid out I'd expect The penalty to be retaken, much as I wouldn't expect the referee not to restart play with a free kick to the team attacking  if somebody was hacked down from behind and then stood up and punched the perpetrator.

 

I wont be commenting on this any more, I've made my point and I don't think Madley has made a "mistake" here at all given the fact that we're still arguing about it 2 days later. It's a matter of interpretation, but suffice to say there's nothing in that law saying explicitly (or to my mind implicitly) that encroachment only applies on a legitimately taken penalty.

 

One for You Are The Ref perhaps.

[Sly]

Surely if we're arguing about encroachment .... most direct free kicks would be "re-taken" as its part and parcel of the game. 

 

The game is done. Let's move on.

[st albans fox]

Yes - think it's  time to finished this - it's pretty obvious that if the authorities care about justice in the game, this will be as per the 'frank lampard moment' re goal line technology,  the law is an ass in the context of Saturday and needs to be changed. Nothing more needs adding. 

[MikeyT]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/05/15/referee-correct-rule-riyad-mahrezs-penalty-time-change-rules/

 

There was an incident in the Premier League this weekend that I believe may lead to a change in the rule books.

I’m not talking about any of the deliberate handballs - and there were quite a few - that were missed by the officials, but rather the decision to disallow Riyad Mahrez’s penalty for Leicester against Manchester City.

Firstly, I must point out that referee Robert Madley’s decision to disallow the goal was not only correct but an absolutely fantastic piece of officiating. He did extremely well to spot the Leicester player had kicked the ball twice when he slipped, and quite rightly awarded a free-kick to Manchester City.

 

We saw a similar incident in last week’s Champions League semi-finalswhen Antoine Griezmann appeared to do the same thing when he scored a penalty against Real Madrid, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Madley had seen that and it was in his mind when Mahrez did exactly the same thing.

I do wonder, though, whether that incident may lead to the rules being changed this summer because this is clearly not a situation where a player is trying to bend the rules to gain an advantage.

 

Instead, it is an accident that I do not believe should be punished. No-one could argue Mahrez meant that double touch and, while it is against the rules, I do not think it was against the spirit of the rules.

It may be little consolation but he could be the last player punished for such an offence if it does lead to a change in the rules.

The other theme from the weekend’s games were handballs going unpunished. There were a number, most notably Peter Crouch’s goal against Arsenal, which he scored with his hand, as well as Georginio Wijnaldum’s combination of a handball and forearm smash on Winston Reid that bizarrely went unpunished by Neil Swarbrick.

 

The officials involved will be disappointed, but it has been a trend throughout the season that there is no consistency in which handballs are punished and which are not. It is something that needs to be addressed this summer.