My interpretation is that this rule came into effect to eliminate countless stutters in the run-upWHICH IS ALLOWED! "Feinting in the run-up is permitted" It actually says this in print, how can there possibly be any different interpretation?
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
you know what I realise I have just taken the answer i want to be true (fake news) and used it loads --- just trying to back it up and all sources are US so there is that.
although just found Law 14 – WineCape's Referee Blog where it was discussing the law pre 2010 and when the ruling came in ----Fifa decided to go for option (c) as suggested above. In my humble opinion the most reasonable decision. Only run-up feints (stop-start runs) will be allowed. Kicking action feints will now be sanctioned with a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.
Even if the decisions are right there's no place for it. Can't stop start a game that's designed to flow.
The thing is the decisions are still open to intterprtaion, so even with VAR there is debate about the interpretation, "excessive force" is open to interpretation of the ref, and every week having had multiple replays and slow-mo's there isn't always agreement.
For the record I love goal-line tech, it's fully automatic, it's confirmed within seconds of the ball crossing the line and it's definitive as it's checking a measurement, did the whole of the ball cross the line? yes by 1mm, no by 1mm. There is no interpretation, I trust it.
Drop the persecution complex mate.... I have not replied to anything you have posted for a long time...
My initial post was mild humour and non-personal.... You came back 'swinging' with some name-calling.
Maybe YOU should put ME on ignore instead.... Or better still:
Get over yourself, you silly boy.
Where does it say that? Please show me.
What part of this sentence actually writing in the laws of the game supports your interpretation? "feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted).
I never said feinting is not permitted - I'm arguing stopping your run is no longer allowed. What's your problem pal?
Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher's verdict on decisions in Tottenham's win over Rochdale
While a stutter during a run-up to a penalty is allowed in the Laws of the Game, if a player is deemed to have feinted at the end of his run, the rules state a yellow card must be given and an indirect free-kick awarded to the opposing team.
"I'm not sure that the VAR was used there," added Gallagher. "It was certainly used to arrive at the penalty. It started outside the box, and finished inside, in the old days that would be a free-kick and is rightly a penalty today.
"Paul Tierney probably made that decision himself, and there's no evidence for me it came down to VAR. What I think is that Paul judged Son in his run-up had got too close to the ball, and therefore completed his run-up and that's why he disallowed the goal and gave an indirect free-kick, as per law."
if the stopping in the run up was not allowed then Gallagher would have said here - the fact he says its the end of the run up and the wording of the rule shows that the stop is allowed - ref fucked up.
While a stutter during a run-up to a penalty is allowed in the Laws of the Game, if a player is deemed to have feinted at the end of his run, the rules state a yellow card must be given and an indirect free-kick awarded to the opposing team.
"I'm not sure that the VAR was used there," added Gallagher. "It was certainly used to arrive at the penalty. It started outside the box, and finished inside, in the old days that would be a free-kick and is rightly a penalty today.
"Paul Tierney probably made that decision himself, and there's no evidence for me it came down to VAR. What I think is that Paul judged Son in his run-up had got too close to the ball, and therefore completed his run-up and that's why he disallowed the goal and gave an indirect free-kick, as per law."
if the stopping in the run up was not allowed then Gallagher would have said here - the fact he says its the end of the run up and the wording of the rule shows that the stop is allowed - ref fucked up.
Indeed.
Can't we just apply a similar process/tech to offsides and leave the rest be? ....Bonus being it'd free up the ref/linos to focus on the less linear, behaviour-based decisions too.
How is there any interpretation in a law that used the words allowed and complete in it?
What Son did was allowed because his run wasn’t complete.
Does anyone think when he stopped he was in a position to strike the ball with his next movement? If not, what he did was allowed as his run wasn’t complete.
If you start to walk from one wall to another, but stop a yard short, you’ve not completed your walk.
What Son did was allowed because his run wasn’t complete.
Does anyone think when he stopped he was in a position to strike the ball with his next movement? If not, what he did was allowed as his run wasn’t complete.
If you start to walk from one wall to another, but stop a yard short, you’ve not completed your walk.
mate at hawkeye wasn't enjoying the banter this morning – thinks the ref was a moron and isn't doing them any favours. Apparently it's working well within the Dutch Football League, although if it works there why doesn't it work here?
this was shown earlier
WATCH: Dutch Super Cup hit by VAR controversy as Feyenoord have goal ruled out and referee awards Vitesse penalty
this is VAR working correctly - err no thanks.
the way the offside law is now not sure how tech can judge if you are interfering or not.
Did anyone else think the Rchdale boss seemed a complete and utter twat and he irked Poch , I think Poch demanded the team to crush them because of it where he would have been happy to do the minimum and nick a scrappy 3-1
''What constitutes “unsporting behavior” is not clear, but has generally been interpreted as running right up to the ball, pausing for the keeper to move in one direction, and then kicking it in the other direction. That kind of move was rampant for many years before this rule was clarified as stated above. However, “feinting” in the run-up is fine and dandy, and it happens all the time when there are penalty kicks in football.
Son runs up towards the ball and clearly hesitates in his run-up, however he then takes another full step before shooting the ball. Notably, the keeper does not take the bait — Josh Lillis in fact takes a small step forward before Son takes the kick, but does not look at all imbalanced. He does go the wrong direction, but it’s difficult to make the argument that Son’s stopping his run is what made him guess incorrectly.''
Sums it up nicely.
Son runs up towards the ball and clearly hesitates in his run-up, however he then takes another full step before shooting the ball. Notably, the keeper does not take the bait — Josh Lillis in fact takes a small step forward before Son takes the kick, but does not look at all imbalanced. He does go the wrong direction, but it’s difficult to make the argument that Son’s stopping his run is what made him guess incorrectly.''
Sums it up nicely.
Haha I've no problem because in the laws of the game there is nowhere where it says stopping your run is not allowed. I would have a problem I think if I imagined that the laws said that you weren't allowed to stop your run-up. If you can show me this law that says you can't stop your run-up I concede I'm wrong.
Rules refer to illegal fainting. Do one, pal
No not really.
I don't have anyone on ignore what so special about you that I got to start.
You ramble so much as usual bitch would you pls get off my dick this morning
It's fan culture to scream and shout at a ref, at the game it's our job to be the 12th man, to think we might put pressure on the ref's for a penalty, to sing about their decisions. All this is ok, all this will remain (should remain), nothing changes, juts as it's always been. But don't confuse this a a cry for VAR, it's not, nor never has been, it's the pantomime of football culture, it's home advantage, it's fun. I've done it ever since I was a kid, I still do it. But I don't want VAR.
Without VAR I will still call a ref a bastard.