Fa Cup fifth round- rochdale afc v tottenham hotspur

[Joe Clash]

That's the point. Players have gotten round that by feinting their strike at a point whereby they can dummy the keeper into committing, then changing the direction to the vacated space.
It's considered foul play to stop, re start the run up and then do it.

I THINK that is the way it's intended. The rule isn't unequivocal in the laws of the game, but that is the illegal feinting mentioned in rule 14, I believe.

“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 only question is whether Son had completed his run up. In my opinion he hadn’t, others see it differently. Ah well.

 

[coughymachine]

I think that Sons actions stopped the game, for foul play. Therefore the game restarts from where the foul occurred, as a re-start by Rochdale

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?

 

[coughymachine]

No retake

Can you explain why?

 

[ArcspacE]

Can you explain why?

I think it has to do with the fact Son has infringed the rules hence Rochdale get a free-kick - unsportsman-like behaviour. That is how I interpret the rules

 

[Raiders]

“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 only question is whether Son had completed his run up. In my opinion he hadn’t, others see it differently. Ah well.

Or whether he was feinting? Is a stop feinting?

 

[coughymachine]

I think it has to do with the fact Son has infringed the rules hence Rochdale get a free-kick - unsportsman-like behaviour. That is how I interpret the rules

Let's assume I accept the unsporting behaviour part. We still have to consider the timeline of events. Players can clearly be seen encroaching before Son stopped. Encroachment is an offence and there are consequences. Here is a graphic from the FA's web site outlining what happens under various scenarios.

My interpretation is that the penalty should have been retaken.

 

[Joe Clash]

Or whether he was feinting? Is a stop feinting?

I honestly don’t know. The rule needs tightening up because it’s open to interpretation. From what I can read into the law that Mick posted Son did nothing wrong - he hadn’t completed his run up. I’m just glad it wasn’t again woolwich. Scenes.

 

[ArcspacE]

Let's assume I accept the unsporting behaviour part. We still have to consider the timeline of events. Players can clearly be seen encroaching before Son stopped. Encroachment is an offence and there are consequences. Here is a graphic from the FA's web site outlining what happens under various scenarios.

My interpretation is that the penalty should have been retaken.

But Son did score (illegal fainting) - so column 1 (outcome) applies

 

[coughymachine]

But Son did score - so column 1 (outcome) applies

Yes. I agree. But somehow I suspect we still disagree. Column 1 for encroachment by an attacking player stipulates a penalty retake.

 

[ArcspacE]

Yes. I agree. But somehow I suspect we still disagree. Column 1 for encroachment by an attacking player stipulates a penalty retake.

Perhaps the feinting supercedes the encroachment? Or you could argue they encroached because of Son's feinting since they had started running already

Anyway - I think it's a good rule as the like of Hazard, Neymar, Ronaldo have been doing it for years

 

[Tottenham Sean]

Pretty standard 2 nil win tonight. No dramas, just a professional job. Then onto Swansea.

In hindsight ,this is quite an amusing post

 

[Joe Clash]

Perhaps the feinting supercedes the encroachment? Or you could argue they encroached because of Son's feinting since they had started running already

Anyway - I think it's a good rule as the like of Hazard, Neymar, Ronaldo have been doing it for years

But is it even a rule? The rule says you can feint on the run up.

 

[coughymachine]

Perhaps the feinting supercedes the encroachment? Or you could argue they encroached because of Son's feinting since they had started running already

Anyway - I think it's a good rule as the like of Hazard, Neymar, Ronaldo have been doing it for years

It was tight (if only we had VAR! ), but the encroachment definitely occurred before Son stopped. Nothing against the rule in principle, but they need to find a way to make sure refs' interpretations are consistent.

 

[Mick Cooper]

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?

I get that POV, but I guess the ref calls for the offence he sees first?
Sooo not sure, probably the only decision he didn't ask the VAR

 

[r-u-s-x]

“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 only question is whether Son had completed his run up. In my opinion he hadn’t, others see it differently. Ah well.

the rule was changed slightly in 2010 to clarify you cant stop when at the ball but this is the clearest definition of feinting i can find.
FEINTING AT A PENALTY KICK – Ask A Soccer Referee

Feinting at a penalty kick is allowed, including a brief stop along the way to the ball.

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; in and after 2000 (based on the FIFA Q&A), certain forms of deception were allowed.

USSF, in a memo of October 14, 2004 on this subject, identified four specific actions by the kicker that could constitute misconduct:

– he delays unnecessarily after being signaled by the referee to proceed,
– he runs past the ball and then backs up to take the kick,
– he excessively changes direction during the run to the ball, or
– he makes any motion of the hand or arm


think its clear the ref fucked up there.

 

[pipes]

You can feint during a run up. The fact that he took another step after feinting meant it was during his run up, so legal. He has only completed his run up when he reaches the ball.

If he had planted his left foot at the ball, swung with his right and dummied, it’s a booking and a free kick.

As it happened, it should have stood from a run up perspective, but retaken due to the encroachment.

 

[GazzasLeftNut]

Crazy comical first half with all the dodgy officiating/VAR going on but we ended up coming out in the second half battering Rochdale.

Forget about all the rubbish that went with last night.

Onto the next one.

 

[Blanchflower]

The ref was desperate to make a game of that.

Great to FINALLY see Llorente put away lower league oppo, that's all we need him for really.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

Perhaps the feinting supercedes the encroachment? Or you could argue they encroached because of Son's feinting since they had started running already

Anyway - I think it's a good rule as the like of Hazard, Neymar, Ronaldo have been doing it for years

And not ONCE have they been pulled up on it, and shows that other refs interprets it as the law is written (which it clearly is a feint, which is clearly stated is permitted in the run-up).

 

[Boltonspur]

But is it even a rule? The rule says you can feint on the run up.

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.