comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
Because a foul or handball in the box is assumed to be obstructing the goal chance. The assumption being that had said foul or handball not occurred, a strike on goal would have been the result. So penalty awarded to replace said strike.
=========
What?Any foul in the box is a penalty, even when there is no chance of a shot. What are you on?
PS, last man is not a red and never has been. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity isn't even a red card offence in cases where the defender has attempted to play the ball inside the penalty area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's a penalty regardless where the player is going. Because as I've just said, the damned rule makes a general assumption about attacking play inside the box. Jeez DJ, if I wasnt right in what I'm saying, then a player running wide of goal in the box WOULDN'T get a penalty even if he was fouled. Does though doesn't he.
Last man isn't a red card now? So why exactly have all those players been sent off DJ.
Rule has been the same for donkeys. Last man fouling attacker in on goal is a straight red card. Exception being when cover is close enough to have made a tackle. Or did all those refs just make it up when they were showing those red cards.
Last man isn't a red card now? So why exactly have all those players been sent off DJ.
======
Last man has never been a rule, it has always been a red for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
And in the case of a player giving away a penalty, as long as he has made an attempt to play the ball, it is not a red card.
if I wasnt right in what I'm saying, then a player running wide of goal in the box WOULDN'T get a penalty even if he was fouled. Does though doesn't he.
=====
No, if you was right in what you're saying then it wouldn't be a penalty as no shot was denied
I think you are trying to define why there is a penalty box, but making a hash of it.
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
Because a foul or handball in the box is assumed to be obstructing the goal chance. The assumption being that had said foul or handball not occurred, a strike on goal would have been the result. So penalty awarded to replace said strike.
=========
What?Any foul in the box is a penalty, even when there is no chance of a shot. What are you on?
PS, last man is not a red and never has been. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity isn't even a red card offence in cases where the defender has attempted to play the ball inside the penalty area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's a penalty regardless where the player is going. Because as I've just said, the damned rule makes a general assumption about attacking play inside the box. Jeez DJ, if I wasnt right in what I'm saying, then a player running wide of goal in the box WOULDN'T get a penalty even if he was fouled. Does though doesn't he.
Last man isn't a red card now? So why exactly have all those players been sent off DJ.
Rule has been the same for donkeys. Last man fouling attacker in on goal is a straight red card. Exception being when cover is close enough to have made a tackle. Or did all those refs just make it up when they were showing those red cards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are guessing at the rationale behind a penalty being the punishment in the area. Your rationale has logic but is simple.
As for last man red, this is wrong,. They have done away with the "triple jeopardy" where a player gets penalty and banned, unless there is no attempt to play the ball. Thats a fact mate, you;re behind the times here. You will rarely see a for a penalty even last man unless its just a take down of the player
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 23 seconds ago
I think you are trying to define why there is a penalty box, but making a hash of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 hours, 15 minutes ago
A penalty is awarded to replace the considered guaranteed SHOT
----
No it isnt. It is given for a foul in the penalty box.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a foul or handball in the box is assumed to be obstructing the goal chance. The assumption being that had said foul or handball not occurred, a strike on goal would have been the result. So penalty awarded to replace said strike.
That's why a foul in the box is a penalty and last man is red card because it is assumed (whether rightly or wrongly) his foul is a deliberate one because of no cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong, fouls are given for many reason's not just because a shot was denied....same principle as anywhere on the pitch.
Last man red card is now only if its a cynical foul to deny a chance rather than a genuine attempt, and a red can be issued for this reason outside of the box too.
You've got this wrong mate!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERALISED DJ GENERALISED.
You're talking about the specific individual things that are fouls which don't result in a shot. And how they're still penalties. I am talking about the general spirit in which the law was intended. So WHY a foul in the box gives a penalty and the logic behind the rule.
It's first and foremost the goalkeepers area! That is its purpose.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 23 seconds ago
I think you are trying to define why there is a penalty box, but making a hash of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Trying to define why a foul in the box is treated differently to fouls elsewhere, giving a shot straight at the goal from right in front of it.
You are talking to Devonshire there.
And, yes, as suspected you are trying to define why the penalty box exists but, as said, it is a simple definition that makes the rest of your comment look clumsy and hard to follow.
We all know why the penalty box is there, but that doesn't justify your reasoning for no penalty rebounds.
Accepting that it is just the keepers area (by the way, is the 6 yard box just there to place the ball at GKs...i see little other purpose, seems pointless!) then if normal rules followed you could have a foul 2 yards out, how then is that scenario allowed for, it would be chaos. SO its just a blanket penalty in the keepers area to avoid the chaos. It is also logical that it is a dangerous area of the pitch and therefore a stricter punishment should be applied otherwise the fouling in this dangerous part would become very cynical.
No DJ, I'm defining why all fouls in the box are punished the more harsh penalty. The box is there to define the area in which a foul becomes considered to be obstructing a goal. Albeit, despite many fouls not doing so. Basically because they had to put a line somewhere.
As I said its a very generalised ideal but the overarching spirit behind it is "fouls in box obstruct goal attempts" hence any foul in there is a penalty.
If true, that first one is long, long, overdue.
In a sport that requires a range of skills combining fitness, strength, balance, coordination, athleticism and control of both mind and body etc., - and in a sport that specifically requires only ball control by the foot/feet and NOT hands (there is a clue in the name of the sport) then not getting ones hand out of the way should be penalised.
And subjectivity has no place in pure sport.
This idea of 'deliberate' and 'accidental' - or the even greater nonsense that is labelled "ball to hand" - in relation to this are ridiculous.
And before some pseudo wise-ass suggests some of the more skillful players will take advantage of that by deliberately directing the ball to an opponent's hand. So what. It's a skill in a game of skills.
Martyn Ziegler
✔
@martynziegler
Some websites including Marca + Sky reporting that IFAB has changed penalty law so that play stops if it is saved or hits post. Not true - that idea was dropped in November.
This one isn't happening apparently just the other 4
Am I missing something ?
Whats the point of the new rule re no rebounds from penalties, if refs do their job properly then there should be any encroachment etc. Appreciate that they do this on penalty shoot outs , but rebounds from penalty saves or hitting posts are a big part of the excitement of football
2. No rebounds from penalties
Arguably the worst-enforced rule. Encroachments by both teams invariably happen every time a pen is taken. Good riddance.
Seems a bit weird the attacking players in the wall thing..
What if a team has 2 players sent off or they're chasing the game and they're not allowed to have attacking players in the wall
comment by Ronny Van lack of Banterous - It's only m... (U5996)
posted 2 minutes ago
Seems a bit weird the attacking players in the wall thing..
What if a team has 2 players sent off or they're chasing the game and they're not allowed to have attacking players in the wall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You joker
No attacking players in the wall is a great idea, will eliminate a lot of pushing and shoving with the inevitable stopping of play by the official in charge. This should speed up the game.
How about eliminating the 2 yellow card rule with the offending team playing a player short for 15-20 mins.?
Sign in if you want to comment
New Football Rules from next season
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 5/3/19
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
Because a foul or handball in the box is assumed to be obstructing the goal chance. The assumption being that had said foul or handball not occurred, a strike on goal would have been the result. So penalty awarded to replace said strike.
=========
What?Any foul in the box is a penalty, even when there is no chance of a shot. What are you on?
PS, last man is not a red and never has been. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity isn't even a red card offence in cases where the defender has attempted to play the ball inside the penalty area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's a penalty regardless where the player is going. Because as I've just said, the damned rule makes a general assumption about attacking play inside the box. Jeez DJ, if I wasnt right in what I'm saying, then a player running wide of goal in the box WOULDN'T get a penalty even if he was fouled. Does though doesn't he.
Last man isn't a red card now? So why exactly have all those players been sent off DJ.
Rule has been the same for donkeys. Last man fouling attacker in on goal is a straight red card. Exception being when cover is close enough to have made a tackle. Or did all those refs just make it up when they were showing those red cards.
posted on 5/3/19
*To me
posted on 5/3/19
Last man isn't a red card now? So why exactly have all those players been sent off DJ.
======
Last man has never been a rule, it has always been a red for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
And in the case of a player giving away a penalty, as long as he has made an attempt to play the ball, it is not a red card.
posted on 5/3/19
if I wasnt right in what I'm saying, then a player running wide of goal in the box WOULDN'T get a penalty even if he was fouled. Does though doesn't he.
=====
No, if you was right in what you're saying then it wouldn't be a penalty as no shot was denied
I think you are trying to define why there is a penalty box, but making a hash of it.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
Because a foul or handball in the box is assumed to be obstructing the goal chance. The assumption being that had said foul or handball not occurred, a strike on goal would have been the result. So penalty awarded to replace said strike.
=========
What?Any foul in the box is a penalty, even when there is no chance of a shot. What are you on?
PS, last man is not a red and never has been. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity isn't even a red card offence in cases where the defender has attempted to play the ball inside the penalty area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's a penalty regardless where the player is going. Because as I've just said, the damned rule makes a general assumption about attacking play inside the box. Jeez DJ, if I wasnt right in what I'm saying, then a player running wide of goal in the box WOULDN'T get a penalty even if he was fouled. Does though doesn't he.
Last man isn't a red card now? So why exactly have all those players been sent off DJ.
Rule has been the same for donkeys. Last man fouling attacker in on goal is a straight red card. Exception being when cover is close enough to have made a tackle. Or did all those refs just make it up when they were showing those red cards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are guessing at the rationale behind a penalty being the punishment in the area. Your rationale has logic but is simple.
As for last man red, this is wrong,. They have done away with the "triple jeopardy" where a player gets penalty and banned, unless there is no attempt to play the ball. Thats a fact mate, you;re behind the times here. You will rarely see a for a penalty even last man unless its just a take down of the player
posted on 5/3/19
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 23 seconds ago
I think you are trying to define why there is a penalty box, but making a hash of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 hours, 15 minutes ago
A penalty is awarded to replace the considered guaranteed SHOT
----
No it isnt. It is given for a foul in the penalty box.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a foul or handball in the box is assumed to be obstructing the goal chance. The assumption being that had said foul or handball not occurred, a strike on goal would have been the result. So penalty awarded to replace said strike.
That's why a foul in the box is a penalty and last man is red card because it is assumed (whether rightly or wrongly) his foul is a deliberate one because of no cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong, fouls are given for many reason's not just because a shot was denied....same principle as anywhere on the pitch.
Last man red card is now only if its a cynical foul to deny a chance rather than a genuine attempt, and a red can be issued for this reason outside of the box too.
You've got this wrong mate!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERALISED DJ GENERALISED.
You're talking about the specific individual things that are fouls which don't result in a shot. And how they're still penalties. I am talking about the general spirit in which the law was intended. So WHY a foul in the box gives a penalty and the logic behind the rule.
posted on 5/3/19
It's first and foremost the goalkeepers area! That is its purpose.
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 23 seconds ago
I think you are trying to define why there is a penalty box, but making a hash of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Trying to define why a foul in the box is treated differently to fouls elsewhere, giving a shot straight at the goal from right in front of it.
posted on 5/3/19
You are talking to Devonshire there.
And, yes, as suspected you are trying to define why the penalty box exists but, as said, it is a simple definition that makes the rest of your comment look clumsy and hard to follow.
We all know why the penalty box is there, but that doesn't justify your reasoning for no penalty rebounds.
posted on 5/3/19
Accepting that it is just the keepers area (by the way, is the 6 yard box just there to place the ball at GKs...i see little other purpose, seems pointless!) then if normal rules followed you could have a foul 2 yards out, how then is that scenario allowed for, it would be chaos. SO its just a blanket penalty in the keepers area to avoid the chaos. It is also logical that it is a dangerous area of the pitch and therefore a stricter punishment should be applied otherwise the fouling in this dangerous part would become very cynical.
posted on 5/3/19
No DJ, I'm defining why all fouls in the box are punished the more harsh penalty. The box is there to define the area in which a foul becomes considered to be obstructing a goal. Albeit, despite many fouls not doing so. Basically because they had to put a line somewhere.
As I said its a very generalised ideal but the overarching spirit behind it is "fouls in box obstruct goal attempts" hence any foul in there is a penalty.
posted on 5/3/19
If true, that first one is long, long, overdue.
In a sport that requires a range of skills combining fitness, strength, balance, coordination, athleticism and control of both mind and body etc., - and in a sport that specifically requires only ball control by the foot/feet and NOT hands (there is a clue in the name of the sport) then not getting ones hand out of the way should be penalised.
And subjectivity has no place in pure sport.
This idea of 'deliberate' and 'accidental' - or the even greater nonsense that is labelled "ball to hand" - in relation to this are ridiculous.
And before some pseudo wise-ass suggests some of the more skillful players will take advantage of that by deliberately directing the ball to an opponent's hand. So what. It's a skill in a game of skills.
posted on 5/3/19
Martyn Ziegler
✔
@martynziegler
Some websites including Marca + Sky reporting that IFAB has changed penalty law so that play stops if it is saved or hits post. Not true - that idea was dropped in November.
This one isn't happening apparently just the other 4
posted on 5/3/19
Am I missing something ?
Whats the point of the new rule re no rebounds from penalties, if refs do their job properly then there should be any encroachment etc. Appreciate that they do this on penalty shoot outs , but rebounds from penalty saves or hitting posts are a big part of the excitement of football
posted on 5/3/19
2. No rebounds from penalties
Arguably the worst-enforced rule. Encroachments by both teams invariably happen every time a pen is taken. Good riddance.
posted on 5/3/19
Seems a bit weird the attacking players in the wall thing..
What if a team has 2 players sent off or they're chasing the game and they're not allowed to have attacking players in the wall
posted on 5/3/19
comment by Ronny Van lack of Banterous - It's only m... (U5996)
posted 2 minutes ago
Seems a bit weird the attacking players in the wall thing..
What if a team has 2 players sent off or they're chasing the game and they're not allowed to have attacking players in the wall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You joker
posted on 24/3/19
No attacking players in the wall is a great idea, will eliminate a lot of pushing and shoving with the inevitable stopping of play by the official in charge. This should speed up the game.
How about eliminating the 2 yellow card rule with the offending team playing a player short for 15-20 mins.?
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7