Fa Cup fifth round- rochdale afc v tottenham hotspur

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Boltonspur said:
What is “illegal feinting”?
Looks to me like the ref can make it up as he goes along. The unambiguity is that a player can feint in the run up. The ambiguity revolves around what is the difference between a legal & an illegal feint?
I think we are going to see a lot of these penalties under the microscope. Keepers are forever coming off their line & narrowing the angle so the penalty taker seeks to combat that by causing his own element of confusion. I don’t see how that’s ever unsporting. Certainly no more so than the keeper who is “making himself big”, waving his arms and legs all over the place & coming off his line.
Game’s going to the fucking dogs. More so with this VAR wank.
Click to expand...
i don't think the ambiguity is there - the ref fucked up and some smart commentators (looking at you Marcotti) are doubling down to be different.

it wasnt illegal as he stopped before the end of his run up.
 
Mick Cooper said:
You can sit imagine all you want fella, just because you believe it to be true, doesn't make it so.
I come on here to talk to interesting people about a mutual interest in the club I support.
You stand out amongst the rest of the posters.
- For all the wrong reasons.

I no longer have any interest in communicating with you, as its a pointless exercise, you have no interest in moderating your posting style, despite advice from multiple posters and your immature, ignorant and boorish behaviour has ceased to be entertaining.
If you manage to live long enough, one day you will look back on your behaviour on here, and cringe with embarrassment. Assuming that you actually have the wit and perspicacity to accumulate any kind of understanding about normal human interaction.
Try and grow up.
Click to expand...
post-8794-1403702267.gif
 
ArcspacE said:
It is defined as illegal fainting. Bottom line - run has to be continuous - that is how I've interpreted the rules
Click to expand...
The issue of “feinting” underwent a significant change in 2000. Prior to that time, the kicker was expected to make one continuous, uninterrupted move to the ball;
 
Anyway pointless worrying about it now, you can be sure it will come back to cunt us in the not to distant future.

Someone will probably miss a pen against us having feinted and it will be retaken due to encroachment
 
What Son did is not illegal, but the ref interpreted as such under the broad ungentlemenly conduct. You are basically at the whim of the ref in these cases.
 
Last edited:
BF3 said:
What Son did is not illegal, but the ref interpreted as such under the broad ungentlemenly conduct. You are basically at the whim of the ref I’m these cases.
Click to expand...
in other words the ref fucked up (not having a go at you) - he can decide on a whim that anything is ungentlemanly in that case, red shoes --- yellow card.
 
The old feints were running to the ball at speed, stopping to let the keeper dive and then picking a spot.

The new way is to run up, massively slow your run up (almost stop) and lean into the next step.... It's the way pretty much everyone takes penalties these days to some degree... Son's was particularly extreme, but he does keep moving forwards at all times... albeit very slowly at one point.

Ref took the hard way out really, he could have had it retaken due to the encroachment, but maybe this was his way of making up for the fact that it was never a pen to begin with.
 
coughymachine said:
The encroachment clearly happened before Son stopped. My understanding is that a penalty should be retaken if there is encroachment. If so, what Son did after the encroachment is largely irrelevant, surely?
Click to expand...
Good point. So in the hierarchy of pedantry it should have been a retake
Regardless of the 'at what point did the feint take place'
 
Before it even was disallowed I had literally just announced to my old man how much I despise people who do that stuttered run up.

Like people have said wouldn't have been so bad if everyone got pulled up for it.

At least we put the game to bed early in the second half, wonder what they odds are for a Swansea / Spurs replay and spurs to win at wembley.
 
Mick Cooper said:
You can sit imagine all you want fella, just because you believe it to be true, doesn't make it so.
I come on here to talk to interesting people about a mutual interest in the club I support.
You stand out amongst the rest of the posters.
- For all the wrong reasons.

I no longer have any interest in communicating with you, as its a pointless exercise, you have no interest in moderating your posting style, despite advice from multiple posters and your immature, ignorant and boorish behaviour has ceased to be entertaining.
If you manage to live long enough, one day you will look back on your behaviour on here, and cringe with embarrassment. Assuming that you actually have the wit and perspicacity to accumulate any kind of understanding about normal human interaction.
Try and grow up.
Click to expand...
200w.gif
 
r-u-s-x said:
i don't think the ambiguity is there - the ref fucked up and some smart commentators (looking at you Marcotti) are doubling down to be different.

it wasnt illegal as he stopped before the end of his run up.
Click to expand...
You should be absolutely correct there because a feint during the run up is allowed. This is my opinion/interpretation of the rule.
But there is an ambiguity because opinion is divided (even on this forum) about whether the VAR got it right. Does the fact that he stopped during the run up mean that the run up was completed? It’s the only explanation for the decision but it’s a nonsensical one because he would have needed stretch Armstrong legs to reach the ball from where he paused/feinted his run.
If what Son did was “illegal feinting” then it re writes how penalties must be taken in future games. So many attackers use it as part of the duel in the same way keepers flail their arms & legs, pounce off their line etc.
 
ArcspacE said:
It is defined as illegal fainting. Bottom line - run has to be continuous - that is how I've interpreted the rules
Click to expand...
So what would constitute a “legal feint” then?
In fact, what is a “feint”?
The rule isn’t at all clear because it allows the ref to determine what is a legal or illegal feint. And that will vary from ref to ref or VAR to VAR.
And during a penalty, it’s a very important, potentially game changing moment, which can see a player like Sonny booked for unsporting conduct! Sonny!!??!!
:deledoubt:
It’s an interesting discussion.
(If you’re a boring cunt like me)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom