pooshooter
Level: John Aldridge
(141 Apps, 90 Gls)
In men's game goalkeeper can move about for a penalty but in women's game they don't. Asking for a friend?
How comes?
- Thread starter pooshooter
- Start date
Level: John Aldridge
Foley
Level: Colin Harrington
(260 Apps, 30 Gls)
I think that in.voth you cant move off your line.
I think that is the same rule in both.
I think that is the same rule in both.
ZeroTheHero
Level: Les Phillips
(224 Apps, 15 Gls)
Yes, you aren't supposed to move off the line before the ball is kicked in either. They are using the infernal VAR to check that.
I think the 'not allowed to to jump up and down or wave your arms about' ruling is a new one though. I don't know why they don't just get rid of the goal keeper altogether
I think the 'not allowed to to jump up and down or wave your arms about' ruling is a new one though. I don't know why they don't just get rid of the goal keeper altogether
It is the same for both. The womens game is the first to use var to implement the new laws. Stupid professional players who obviously haven't read the laws.
mooro
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
Maybe instead of the keeper have the defender who committed the foul stood on the line, because then we can have more time wasted deciding whether anything they did stop was chest or arm and whether the arms were in the right place and whether the fingernails were regulation length and whether and whether and whether etc etc ad infinitumYes, you aren't supposed to move off the line before the ball is kicked in either. They are using the infernal VAR to check that.
I think the 'not allowed to to jump up and down or wave your arms about' ruling is a new one though. I don't know why they don't just get rid of the goal keeper altogether
mooro
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
They have read the rules, but are just using the previous, sane, interpretation rather than the lets see how much enjoyment we can take out of the game by getting it clinically right but spiritually wrong
Or just stand there and when a penalty gets banged down the middle, just let it go in? Seems to be what the scottish keeper did when it was retaken. Embarrassing.
The way this is being forced down our throats by the BBC and the media is bad but when they try and conjure arguments for equal pay, based on that standard of play, it's borderline insanity.
The way this is being forced down our throats by the BBC and the media is bad but when they try and conjure arguments for equal pay, based on that standard of play, it's borderline insanity.
Last edited:
warksox
Level: Jack Midson
(68 Apps, 15 Gls)
The Referees' Association - IFAB Law Changes 2019/2020
Are you aware of next season's law changes?
www.the-ra.org
Penalty Kick - Law 14
Changes
- The team’s penalty taker can have (quick) treatment/assessment and then take the kick
- The goalkeeper must not be touching the goalposts/crossbar/nets; they must not be moving
- The goalkeeper must have at least part of one foot on/in line with the goal line when the kick is taken; cannot stand behind the line
Explanation
- It is unfair if the kicker needs assessment/treatment and then has to leave the field and cannot take the penalty kick.
- The referee must not signal for the penalty kick to be taken if the goalkeeper is touching the goalposts, crossbar or net, or if they are moving e.g. the goalkeeper has kicked/shaken them
- Goalkeepers are not permitted to stand in front of or behind the line. Allowing the goalkeeper to have only one foot touching the goal line (or, if jumping, in line with the goal line) when the penalty kick is taken is a more practical approach as it is easier to identify if both feet are not on the line. As the kicker can ‘stutter’ in the run, it is reasonable that the goalkeeper can take one step in anticipation of the kick.
sarumox
Level: Billy Beechers
(7 Apps)
Completely agree with this. I have tried to get into this tournament but can't. There are dozens of items on the BBC website and I get the feeling that they are trying too hard. The only advantage to this information overload is it keeps the premier league news down the pecking order.
Manorlounger
Level: Les Phillips
(224 Apps, 15 Gls)
What the rule fails to comprehend is when the penalty taker misses, the rules allow an infringement by the keeper to provide another chance for the taker to correct themselves. A miss should be a miss. End of.
A very, very minor infringement it seems , if WWC (mis)use of VAR when pens are being taken is any indication
once VAR has awarded a pen, shouldnt any decisions re keeper infringements etc be for the referee to make?
Its the BBC so if it serves some form of agenda then it's no wonder they are fully behind it. The over inflated sense of entitlement from some of the players and coaching staff is laughable and quite frankly, groundless. The womens game simply couldn't function without the commercial success of the mens game so to hear the calls of equality and equal pay is PC gone mad.
I read an article in which a current womens team manager said that "managing in the mens game isn't necessarily a step up" - Are you having a laugh?
mooro
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
Is that only if the kicker stutters? What counts as a stutter? What counts as 'one step'?
Fortunately the PL have announced that VAR will not be used for this purpose next season, so thank F for that
warksox
Level: Jack Midson
(68 Apps, 15 Gls)
No, the new law is at least part of one foot on/in line with the goal line.
As I understand it, the 'kicker stutter' bit is just IFAB's attempt to explain their reasoning behind the new law.
Sounds like your problem isnt with VAR, its with the rule
Gary Baldi
Level: Paul Moody
(197 Apps, 75 Gls)
It seems harsh that VAR (but in the rules), but as it happened to Scotland, it's very, very funny.
With all due respect. In regard to the BBC force feeding, you can chose or not to watch/read articles. It is a public service broadcaster. All kinds of things ranging from cooking shows, BBC 6 music and art shows are not watched by the majority, it's there to serve everyone. The womens game is the fastest growing participation sport for females in this country. Women make up half of our population. Female sport has been massively neglected in this country with research showing young girls are far less likely to engage in sport than boys and missing out on the lifelong health benefits this brings. The womens game having been neglected means it is starting from a backwards position compared to the men. However, we owe it to every young girl in this country to try and grow womens sport.
14 articles on the football news front page is force feeding. Female players commentating on the mens game is force feeding. Female players being pundits for mens games on Sky Sports is force feeding. There is a clear anti-male agenda at hand in society right now and it's now being ploughed into football on a daily basis. I may be wrong but that's my opinion.
I choose to read mens football news because that is my preference. However, there is such a thing as over-exposure and this is most definitely the case right now, with the womens world cup. I disagree with your comment about female sport being massively neglected because if you look at the success of our Olympians, the majority are female. Women are massively successful in other sports. I get your point about health benefits and that is the same for either gender and sport should be accessible for everyone. They (BBC/Media etc) are selling womens football as something it isn't and that is actually counter-productive to the cause.
I'm all for growth but I'm also all for realism. I'm also all for equality but it appears that cannot happen without it being at the detriment of men...
One minute fans want consistency another they don't want the Laws (they are NOT rules!) enforced. Referees really cannot win and I used to be one. If you don't like the law then change it but none of this subjective b*****s like the hand ball law (you can see how we effectively have two games the english one and a champions league game). The good thing about requiring one foot on the line is it is absolutely objective. Scotland cannot argue the keeper didn't commit an offence the photographic evidence proves it and hopefully the players will see they cannot take the p**s and behave accordingly. And lets start penalising encroachment too and yellow carding all descent it will be a shock as a few games end up 8v8 and penalties might need to be taken a few times but they will soon get the idea.
Oh come on.
It's the Women's World Cup. The pinnacle of women's football every four years. And it's being played at a time when there's no senior men's football going on this side of Egypt and precious little in the way of interesting transfer activity. Everyone's on their holidays.
One month every four years women's football dominates the BBC football news; 47 months every four years men's football dominates the BBC football news. And you're complaining that the women's game is getting too much exposure?!?
mooro
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
My problem is how the use of VAR is changing the implementation of this rule (and others).
Accuracy and consistency are all very well, but not if they come at the price of losing the spirit and flow of the game.
VAR just kills all the spontinaity, celebration and euthoria in the game I hate it.
By "Interpretation" in this context you really mean "ignoring of". So what you dont like is the rule. VAR, spirit, flow wouldnt even have been involved if the rule wasnt "wrong".
ZeroTheHero
Level: Les Phillips
(224 Apps, 15 Gls)
The problem is that the rules (e.g. the handball rule) are being changed to pander to VAR. I know of no natural jumping in which your hands stay firmly by your sides (except when pogoing or Irish dancing perhaps!) - so to say that if the ball hits your hand when it's anywhere other then within a couple of inches from your hip then it is deliberate hand ball is plainly daft. And the reason it's been brought it is because in slow motion every single handball LOOKS terrible. But a plain and obvious mistake by the ref in every case - no. And in the WWC, VAR is being over-used. After every goal to see if a player 30 seconds ago who didn't touch the ball was offside, or if there was a marginal foul somewhere? As thegrumpyporter says, it kills the spontinaity completely.
But my major reservation about VAR is that we are getting to a situation where the rules and conditions under which the game is played are now different at different levels. It used to be that the game was the same whether it was a cup final at Wembley or a Sunday League game and that accessibility was exactly what made it so universal. Once you introduce a system where that is no longer the case, you are on a very rocky road IMO.
But my major reservation about VAR is that we are getting to a situation where the rules and conditions under which the game is played are now different at different levels. It used to be that the game was the same whether it was a cup final at Wembley or a Sunday League game and that accessibility was exactly what made it so universal. Once you introduce a system where that is no longer the case, you are on a very rocky road IMO.
mooro
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
Disagree - it is not the rules that I dislike, it is the means by which they are adjudicated(implemented) and how that affects the interpretation(outcome). It is all about the grey area of doubt and whether it is really in the best interests of the game to micro-analyse these to the nth degree to get the 'corrrect' outcome, or whether it is better to allow a natural buffer zone (typically that which used to come from using a human in real time) to maintain the flow, feel and spirit of the game.
My main beef is with offside, where a player was judged to be onside if he was, visually, level. This refers to the lino, and to the players themselves, even the crowd, who were able to judge whether they were more or less level or one was ahead of the other. It was an approximate measurement, but was one that all parties involved had a reasonable chance to judge.
Using VAR means that, while precise, it is no longer possible for the players in particular to judge out there on the pitch, unless they consciously hang back a certain distance to be sure they are behind the defender. So, the use of VAR has tipped the balance towards the defender, as an attacker can no longer rely on being level.
A practical (OK, longwinded, but an attempt to show my point) example, using three people, a wall and a tape measure.
One person acts as a defender, a second then acts as an attacker and stands in the best position they would stand to be 'level' to the human eye, and therefore onside (using the wall as the goal line). The third person acts as lino/VAR. They position themselves so that they can 'look across the line' (parallel to the wall) and then judge from where he is stood whether you are indeed level.
Next, get the lino to mark the floor at the nearest point to the 'goal' for each of the two players and then measure this using the tape measure to get the exact distance from the wall. The defender should stay in the same position, but the attacker has a decision to make - he should stand in the position in which he would feel comfortable taking a £100 bet that he was onside, using the tape method.
It would be a brave man, who wouldn't edge backwards.
In other words, the basic rule is fine, it is just that the way it is adjudicated/implemented changes the outcome, in a way that I feel is detremental to the game.
And as others say, VAR is only ever going to be used in a small (if significant) number of the games played in this country every weekend, and I think the rules, and their implementation, have to remain such that it is reasonable to expect the players to be able to judge whether they are breaking those rules or not as they are playing the game.
The handball rule was changed for clarity and to allow defenders to have their arms by their sides (natural silhouette) and not behind their backs as they were doing. It is supposed to help defenders. It's a big jump to say that's it's their because of VAR.
Again, whether what they've done is correct or not is unrelated to VAR.
The comment about different levels is the reason VAR was refused for so long but it makes no sense. Many sunday games have no qualified referee or linesmen or floodlights. Do we take those away from the professional game so that it is the same game at all levels?
ZeroTheHero
Level: Les Phillips
(224 Apps, 15 Gls)
Sunday games aren't played at night - no technology (floodlights) needed there. They aren't used in daylight on any games. The refs and linesmen may not be qualified at that level - but there ARE refs and linesmen at lower level games. There is NOT and will never be VAR down there. And (as we are seeing at the WWC) VAR is being used in a way that is making the whole experience quite different. Even the Prem have said that any VAR will not be used for the 'does the keeper have a foot on the line' rule (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48703852) - so I am not quite sure where that leaves us. It's being used to check that in one form of the game but not another one? And VAR STILL doesn't remove subjectivity - how was that German player not given offside when she was blocking the keeper from seeing the shot?
They dont play night games because there are no floodlights, not the other way round.
If your going to be pedantic then it would be easy to implement VAR at this level. Just need a sub to video the game with a mobile phone. Its no less valid than using the teams substitutes to run the line and referee, which is what happens round here. Without cards for discipline of course.
ZeroTheHero
Level: Les Phillips
(224 Apps, 15 Gls)
I'm not quite sure what your point is really. Yes, you could have people with mobile phones at 'park' matches - but that's pretty absurd isn't it? Which sort of proves the point that you won't end up with VAR everywhere, even at the lower reaches of professional/elite level football! As for the floodlights, it is not an integral part of the game. Play during the day, you'd only use them at night. But VAR would be being used for EVERY game at the top level, and that's the difference.
Here's a scenario and a question: In a couple of years time the Prem have been using VAR for that time, but we (OUFC) have not. I don't think that's outlandish. We get drawn against a Prem team in a cup game. There are now two options. If VAR isn't being used in the cup then we are playing under conditions that we are used to, if it is then the Prem team are playing under conditions they are used to. (Watching the WWC I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the games haven't been changed by VAR!). Is that fair? And how much more difficult are we making referee's lives by potentially asking them to switch from VAR to non-VAR matches from week to week?
Of course, the influence of VAR would be much less if it were reined back to how it was being used previously (i.e. 'clear and obvious mistakes' and matters of fact - offsides for example) but in the WWC it is being used as a safety blanket by (poor) refs.
Here's a scenario and a question: In a couple of years time the Prem have been using VAR for that time, but we (OUFC) have not. I don't think that's outlandish. We get drawn against a Prem team in a cup game. There are now two options. If VAR isn't being used in the cup then we are playing under conditions that we are used to, if it is then the Prem team are playing under conditions they are used to. (Watching the WWC I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the games haven't been changed by VAR!). Is that fair? And how much more difficult are we making referee's lives by potentially asking them to switch from VAR to non-VAR matches from week to week?
Of course, the influence of VAR would be much less if it were reined back to how it was being used previously (i.e. 'clear and obvious mistakes' and matters of fact - offsides for example) but in the WWC it is being used as a safety blanket by (poor) refs.