Mike Cheating f*** pig Dean

[nasser95]

Did this need a new thread, when you're already having a discussion about it in another one?

Sorry, I actually brought this up here before I did on the other threads, could the mods merge?

[DeepcutHoop]

Sorry, I actually brought this up here before I did on the other threads, could the mods merge?

Sorry, should have spotted that. My apologies.

[nasser95]

Thought a free kick in the penalty box has the same rules applied as a goal kick, ie it has to leave the area before it is 'live'

Do you have the rule you're referring to to hand?

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team when a player commits a foul other than a penalty foul (e.g. dangerous play) or infringes certain technical requirements of the laws (e.g. touching the ball a second time following a restart, or the keeper touching the ball with his hands when a teammate has used his foot to pass it back to the keeper)
The keeper touched the ball a second time following the restart, therefore, an indirect free kick here should have been awarded to QPR

[nasser95]

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team when a player commits a foul other than a penalty foul (e.g. dangerous play) or infringes certain technical requirements of the laws (e.g. touching the ball a second time following a restart, or the keeper touching the ball with his hands when a teammate has used his foot to pass it back to the keeper)
The keeper touched the ball a second time following the restart, therefore, an indirect free kick here should have been awarded to QPR

Here is more.
If, after the ball is in play, the goalkeeper 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

[DeepcutHoop]

Part of Law 13

If, when a free kick is taken by the defending team from inside its own penalty
area, the ball is not kicked directly out of the penalty area:
• the kick is retaken

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

to those disagreeing with the Hart incident, West Ham had a goal disallowed against us a few weeks back, with the ref enforcing that EXACT same rule. These things work both ways. No one seems to have picked up on that one!

Oh dear

*facepalm*

[QPRDave]

The rules are a mess, and need to be brought into line, either you retake all incidents if you make a "mistake" like foul throws freekicks or you award the opposition a freekick.
Anyone remember the incident at Anfield in 2010? Sunderland defender has a fk, decides to roll it back to keeper for him to take. He didn't kick it hard as if to take it, he just flicked it with his toe,
like a lot of players do, almost habit like.
Any way defender runs forward leaving the ball, and Torres runs up takes the ball, draws the keeper , passes to Kuyt to score. Of course the goal stands, and yes i know it's not the same as
our incident, but if the defender had touched it again before Torres do you think the ref would've blown up??...No chance.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...-kick-decision

[West Acton]

Part of Law 13

Yes but the point Nasser is trying to make and sure he will correct me if I am wrong is that Hart committed an infringement by kicking it twice and therefore it over rules the above rule

Had Hart kicked it once and it had not gone out area then its a retake but he kicked it twice which is a breach of the rules and therefore a in direct freekick to us. Now its highly unlikely that the first kick would have taken the ball out the area but it never stopped to find out so its a free kick to us or that's how I see it Nasser please correct me if I have wrong end of the stick

[QPRDave]

http://www.supersport.com/football/b..._letoff_at_QPR
Last paragraph
The laws of the game state that in such instances, an indirect free-kick should actually be awarded to the opposing team, but Austin had the last laugh anyway as he put QPR in front in the 21st minute.

[DeepcutHoop]

Yes but the point Nasser is trying to make and sure he will correct me if I am wrong is that Hart committed an infringement by kicking it twice and therefore it over rules the above rule

Had Hart kicked it once and it had not gone out area then its a retake but he kicked it twice which is a breach of the rules and therefore a in direct freekick to us. Now its highly unlikely that the first kick would have taken the ball out the area but it never stopped to find out so its a free kick to us or that's how I see it Nasser please correct me if I have wrong end of the stick

Which part of the law takes precedence if the ball has been touched again before it left the area, and therefore before the ball is active actually in play?

[West Acton]

Which part of the law takes precedence if the ball has been touched again before it left the area, and therefore before the ball is active actually in play?

Minefield DC but I would argue the fact the second touch prevents the ball becoming active its therefore foul play and free kick to opposition

[QPRDave]

@GaryLineker
Aguero may have been offside, it may have been handball, but that first touch may have been the best of the season.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............................................
Danny Baker @prodnose · 20h20 hours ago @GaryLineker Then let us applaud him for that and give a free kick to QPR. I'm sure he'd be satisfied with the Best First Touch award.

[nasser95]

Which part of the law takes precedence if the ball has been touched again before it left the area, and therefore before the ball is active actually in play?

The law is only if a player other than the goalkeeper touches it in the box again, in this case, the goalkeeper touches it twice so it should be awarded as an indirect free kick to QPR from the spot of the original free kick

[DeepcutHoop]

The law is only if a player other than the goalkeeper touches it in the box again, in this case, the goalkeeper touches it twice so it should be awarded as an indirect free kick to QPR from the spot of the original free kick

From the explanations I've seen today, the ball isn't considered in play for an offence to occur though.

[brightonr]

I think the easy answer to this situation is as follows.

If the ref had allowed the goal to stand, I doubt that there would have been too many complaints from anybody involved in football. It would have been seen, quite rightly, as a gaff by Joe Hart which led to a goal. No fuss would have been made at all.

Plus of course, we all know despite the fact that others may attempt to argue otherwise, that if we had been playing a "lesser" team, that goal would have stood.