brentfords goal

[mexy]

am i being stupid??
just seen brentfords goal against shrewsbury.. a penalty.
the penalty taker takes it,it hits one post rolls across, hits the other post
then rolls back across the box and the penalty taker puts it in.
i thought another player had to touch it before the taker touches it again
and it didnt appear to touch anyone else.
the thing that makes me think im wrong is that the ref allowed it and the commentator,the pundits in the studio and the post match interviews with the managers never even mentioned it.

 

[The Dowg]

Not seen it but if that's the case, no goal and indirect free kick against the penalty taker.

 

[Erick1011]

So you're saying the penalty taker can't score a rebound?
Because it happens all the time.

 

[SouthwesternWolf]

So you're saying the penalty taker can't score a rebound?
Because it happens all the time.

Only when another player has touched the ball, for example a keeper saving it

 

[mexy]

So you're saying the penalty taker can't score a rebound?
Because it happens all the time.

my understanding of it erick is, that another player must touch it first
be that an opposition player,the goalkeeper or even one of your own players.

 

[Erick1011]

Ahhh.
Well, I'm pretty sure I've seen penalties hit the post, bounce back out and being tapped in.
Perhaps Jonzy will clarify this in the morning

 

[Meis_Corn]

To me it looked like the keeper tipped it onto the post, not sure though. It shouldn't have been a penalty anyway!

 

[wolfyjoe]

To me it looked like the keeper tipped it onto the post, not sure though. It shouldn't have been a penalty anyway!

Not sure about that rule but I agree with this. It definitely wasn't a penalty!

 

[mexy]

To me it looked like the keeper tipped it onto the post, not sure though. It shouldn't have been a penalty anyway!

thats what i thought,so kept rewinding it but it looks like it just hit the post.

 

[AW]

Has to touch another player before the taker can touch it again.

 

[marrs-guitar]

If, after the penalty kick has been taken:

the kicker touches the ball again (except with his hands) before it has touched another player:

an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team, the kick to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footb...eing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290872.html

 

[Jonzy54]

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footb...eing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290872.html

Haven't seen it yet but it does have to be touched by an opponent before he can play it again.However,there is a slight variation on the answer.As with all offences in the 6 yard area if that is where it happened the ball is to moved to the 6 yard line and not just where the infringement took place .
Will watch it this morning.

 

[vega recollection]

Has to touch another player before the taker can touch it again.

This is the rule.As with ANY free kick the player taking the free kick is not allowed to touch the ball twice unless another player has touched it after the first kick.There,hope that explains things!

 

[Jonzy54]

I have just seen it.By the Keeper's reaction when it went in he touched it hence the award of a goal.We see many a strange decision but I doubt the Ref would have guessed at that.It would have been easier to have just gone with the indirect free kick.

 

[ProudWolf]

It looked like it hit the post but it actually came off the keeper then onto the other post.

 

[Ponty]

I have just seen it.By the Keeper's reaction when it went in he touched it hence the award of a goal.We see many a strange decision but I doubt the Ref would have guessed at that.It would have been easier to have just gone with the indirect free kick.

Easier? Sounds like the ref got it right and suggesting the ref should have taken the easier option is ridiculous. The ref should always make the decision he believes is correct, if not you get dreadful decisions like Dowd failing to send off Vidic in the League cup final versus Villa, and many of Halsey's decisions against Wolves.

 

[Jonzy54]

Easier? Sounds like the ref got it right and suggesting the ref should have taken the easier option is ridiculous. The ref should always make the decision he believes is correct, if not you get dreadful decisions like Dowd failing to send off Vidic in the League cup final versus Villa, and many of Halsey's decisions against Wolves.

You have jumped in and totally missed my point.I said it looks like he touched it and the ref believed it too.What I am alluding to is if the ref was not 100% he could have given the indirect free kick because no-one could tell.So it's not ridiculous at all.I have been there have you?

 

[PumpKing]

In Jonzy we trust 100%.

 

[AW]

This is the rule.As with ANY free kick the player taking the free kick is not allowed to touch the ball twice unless another player has touched it after the first kick.There,hope that explains things!

I pulled an U11 player up on it a few months ago and half the parents were bemused and were not aware of the law.

 

[Ponty]

I have just seen it.By the Keeper's reaction when it went in he touched it hence the award of a goal.We see many a strange decision but I doubt the Ref would have guessed at that.It would have been easier to have just gone with the indirect free kick.

You have jumped in and totally missed my point.I said it looks like he touched it and the ref believed it too.What I am alluding to is if the ref was not 100% he could have given the indirect free kick because no-one could tell.So it's not ridiculous at all.I have been there have you?

You say you doubt the ref saw it and implied he should have therefore gone with an indirect free kick. All I was saying is the ref should base his decision on what he’s seen, if he saw the keeper touch it it’s a goal. Easiest shouldn’t come into it!

 

[WS10Wolf]

I believe it's also the same rule for goalkeepers, once they've played the ball. I remember being on the line for a game at the indoor academy at Albion once, when the goalkeeper booted the ball from his hands, it went in the air, hit the roof, and he caught it as it came down. The referee gave an indirect free kick, much to the bemusement of the people watching, but it was the right decision.

 

[Jonzy54]

You say you doubt the ref saw it and implied he should have therefore gone with an indirect free kick. All I was saying is the ref should base his decision on what he’s seen, if he saw the keeper touch it it’s a goal. Easiest shouldn’t come into it!

Where did I say I doubt the ref saw it?Stop inventing words I didn't say?
I said if the ref wasn't sure he he would have given the free kick.He saw it so he gave the goal.Is that clear or are you going to misinterpret my words again?

 

[Jonzy54]

I believe it's also the same rule for goalkeepers, once they've played the ball. I remember being on the line for a game at the indoor academy at Albion once, when the goalkeeper booted the ball from his hands, it went in the air, hit the roof, and he caught it as it came down. The referee gave an indirect free kick, much to the bemusement of the people watching, but it was the right decision.

Hitting the roof isn't in the laws of the game unfortunately

 

[Jonzy54]

Where did I say I doubt the ref saw it?Stop inventing words I didn't say?
I said if the ref wasn't sure he he would have given the free kick.He saw it so he gave the goal.Is that clear or are you going to misinterpret my words again?

Yes Angry of South Staffs

 

[AW]

Hitting the roof isn't in the laws of the game unfortunately

Would be drop ball from underneath where it struck the roof wouldn't it? Roof is an outside object, like a pylon or tree across a playing field at the local park.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Is this why the North Bank roof is too short, in case Sako's shots hit it before they go out of play?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I believe it's also the same rule for goalkeepers, once they've played the ball. I remember being on the line for a game at the indoor academy at Albion once, when the goalkeeper booted the ball from his hands, it went in the air, hit the roof, and he caught it as it came down. The referee gave an indirect free kick, much to the bemusement of the people watching, but it was the right decision.

I have a vague memory of Grobelar taking a goal kick to pass it short and not hitting it hard enough to leave the area. He then chased after it and kicked it again giving away a n indirect free kick. It may have been a dream though.

 

[Jonzy54]

Would be drop ball from underneath where it struck the roof wouldn't it? Roof is an outside object, like a pylon or tree across a playing field at the local park.

In 'proper' football outside influence is a dropped ball but hitting the roof in 5 a side would be governed by competition rules which I can't comment on really.

 

[WolvesAreBoringOnCeefax]

Of course you can't touch the ball twice from a set piece, be it a corner/freekick/penalty/goal kick... threads like this alarm me! It's why Henry had to roll the ball back to Jones for his flick & volley freekicks

 

[Jonzy54]

I did a game a few years ago when the ball struck a pylon,the pylon fizzed and the ball propelled forward and into the goal.I then got surrounded by players from both sides arguing the toss.You need a clear mind believe me.
Result-dropped ball beneath the pylon yet Istill had players moaning it should have been a goal.

 

[WS10Wolf]

I did a game a few years ago when the ball struck a pylon,the pylon fizzed and the ball propelled forward and into the goal.I then got surrounded by players from both sides arguing the toss.You need a clear mind believe me.
Result-dropped ball beneath the pylon yet Istill had players moaning it should have been a goal.

Was the pylon overhanging the pitch then?

 

[Jonzy54]

Of course you can't touch the ball twice from a set piece, be it a corner/freekick/penalty/goal kick... threads like this alarm me! It's why Henry had to roll the ball back to Jones for his flick & volley freekicks

Until recently the ball had to travel it's circumference before it could be touched by a second player.The law was amended to say the ball now has to just move.

 

[Jonzy54]

Of course you can't touch the ball twice from a set piece, be it a corner/freekick/penalty/goal kick... threads like this alarm me! It's why Henry had to roll the ball back to Jones for his flick & volley freekicks

Was the pylon overhanging the pitch then?

Ok the wires

 

[Oaky65]

To me it looked like the keeper tipped it onto the post, not sure though. It shouldn't have been a penalty anyway!

Just seen it and the keeper got a hand to it

 

[WS10Wolf]

Oh right, I get what you mean now! I was just thinking that surely the ball would have had to have crossed the touchline before to hit the pylon, but yeah, I can see that happening with wires!

 

[Jonzy54]

Ok the wires

No doubt someone will ask are they cables or wires or conduits of electrical transferral?

 

[leedswolf]

I have a vague memory of Grobelar taking a goal kick to pass it short and not hitting it hard enough to leave the area. He then chased after it and kicked it again giving away a n indirect free kick. It may have been a dream though.

If the ball hadn't left the penalty area and had stopped before the goalkeeper kicked it for a second time would the correct decision be a retaken goal kick?

 

[Space Wolf]

If the ball hadn't left the penalty area and had stopped before the goalkeeper kicked it for a second time would the correct decision be a retaken goal kick?

The ball wouldn't be in play until it left the penalty area. It would be a retaken goalkick I believe.

 

[Jonzy54]

The ball wouldn't be in play until it left the penalty area. It would be a retaken goalkick I believe.

Correct

 

[Jonzy54]

You say you doubt the ref saw it and implied he should have therefore gone with an indirect free kick. All I was saying is the ref should base his decision on what he’s seen, if he saw the keeper touch it it’s a goal. Easiest shouldn’t come into it!

Still waiting for where I said it?