FIFA rules suggest referee Jonathan Moss should have blown his whistle after Harry Kane’s first penalty kick was taken thus denying him his follow up chance on the rebound.
The rules suggest:
When a match is extended at full-time, to allow a Penalty Kick to be taken the extension shall last until the moment that the Penalty Kick has been completed and the game shall terminate immediately the referee has made his decision.
This is looking a bit desperate, we messed up – move on.
Well, this is clear: the game should have ended after Adrian saved the kick, with us winning. However, I think we just have to move on and accept that the ref cost us the game, as I can’t see the final score being altered.
We let them get back into the game and that is why this decision was important. If we pushed up and put the pressure on Spurs instead of letting them come at us then they would not of got that lucky mis hit first goal and we would not be going on about this. Game over. Lets get ready for Crystal Palace and forget what happened on Sunday.
Yes I agree with you, this is the sport. Sometimes mistakes happen.
We played Sakho and broke FIFA rules and received a fine,how much do you think the referee will be fined ?
My guess is nothing
Yes I want to move on but this year there have been so many rules broken by referees
We need the offside rule looked at,we need diving ( not because of Kane ) sorted with maybe a committee of people looking at incidents the week after and maybe fines against divers,
Tbf I said this yesterday,the ref got it wrong.The extra time had been played and he should have blown for full time.the penalty is a simple single kick and Adrian saved it,three points to us.
Well it’s about time FIFA done us a favour. Give us the 3 pts from the Spurs game , a retrospective decision that they all harp on about must be made .
Or is it cos we are not a TOP team , nothing will be done.
Normally I would be very grown up about this and agree with the “let’s move on sentiment” we blew it again with 10 minutes to go. A fluky goal and a soft penalty that Song should have been more vary of.
But this is Spurs and Daniel levy and I can’t be grown up with them. To hell with it , let’s be childish and complain to FIFA.
Unbelievable.Kevin Kilbane has complained to the fa about chanting from our fans on sunday.Whether what they sang is bang out of order or not the geezer wasnt even at the match & is going on the word of a spurs supporter who also ghost wrote his book.Im all for action if something happened that was so wrong.But to complain to the fa on the strength of a phone call from a friend at the game is just kicking the arse out of his position as a pundit.In my opinion anyway.It may well of happened but keep your bugle out of it whether you have a daughter with a disability or not.You wasnt there,its f*ck all to do with you.
Rads just look at the people we are talking about Kilbane,Savage,Collymore,Townsend and Murphy real top class players a big man who likes hitting women a pretend Irish men a gangly second rate winger a ballroom dancer who chased people with class around to kick them and a second rate midfielder.they make me cringe every time they open there mouths and talk so much rubbish.between them they make so any wrong calls there not worth talking about.
Rads I missed the main one who hates WHU with a vengeance Clarridge he is so anti us and he was such a talented player.
Your right if Kilbane was not there he should leave it to the people effected and as a pundit talk about football and call for FIFA to be doing things on a level playing field if it was not a goal but can’t change the result suspend the ref and the club should sue him for loss of earnings.
Another made up anti West Ham story! We didn’t play spuds at the weekend per chance?!
This 7 (b) paragraph was expunged in 1997.
Interesting http://www.kenaston.org/the-pitch/law-14.htm site clearly shows that the goal should not have been allowed.
A extended time penalty is effectively the same as a shoot out penalty. It is defined as a penalty when there is no time left to restart the match after the penalty has been taken (I wasn’t there but I assume that was the case?). The changes that occurred 1988 and 1997 only changed the definition of the motion of the ball according to that site i.e. prior to that the 1901/03 rule defined it as ‘forward’ motion which meant that a ball hitting the post or bar hitting the keeper and going in should be ruled out which was against the spirit of the game. Italy complained about such a goal being allowed and as such the definition was changed to be defined as until the motion of the ball from the kick was complete to allow such a goal. The penalty is complete once the ball has gone in, out of play or most significantly in this case when the ball rebounds out into play. That defines that no second touch by the penalty taker is allowed. This definition is backed up by the fact that no outfield player is allowed to touch the ball again or take any part in it, and must be told that by the ref. So one could have the ludicrous example of a defender getting to the ball before the pen taker clearing it and thus committing an offence and indeed the same would go for any other attacking player. They are not allowed to enter the penalty area at all indeed at any stage prior, during or after the penalty shot has been taken. Thus it is completely clear that equally the penalty taker is not allowed to touch the ball again otherwise such a penalty would be advantagous to the attacking side over and above a penalty during the game. Indeed i would theoretically be possible otherwise for the ball to be cleared 20 odd yards the pen taker going to retrieve it and everyone else having to jump out the way as he dribbled it one on one back to the goal. Clearly the rules are not intended to allow that.
So Poll and others have misunderstood the FIFA rules on the matter. Poll even said after he realised this I believe claiming that the ref added a few seconds that were outstanding when in fact a referee is specifically not allowed to add further time during an extended time penalty.
There is an extra get out added back in 1988 giving the ref the position of final arbiter as to when the penalty is over. However quite clearly that is not there to give the ref the opportunity to not apply the rules correctly but to do so within the rules. However referencing the Italy affair above it quite clearly has the secondary intention of covering the ref (Governing bodies too) as and when the ref makes a mistake as happened last Sunday in as much as no application to have the goal ruled out or match replayed will succeed.
Finally it is very concerning that so called experts seem to misunderstand the laws yet pontificate in the media as if they know the rules inside out when clearly they don’t or are interpreting them subjectively. Poll Yes I mean you.
Comments are closed.