RSL vs. Rapids [R]

Old Ska · 05-31-2006, 06:06 AM

Definately an indirect kick for violations of the backpass rule.

If I recall correctly World Cup '94 was the first World Cup competition that used this rule, and I think the rule itself was formalized by FIFA in '92, so it is a fairly new one.

I_Believe_In_Kreis · 05-31-2006, 09:07 AM

All you referees out there, grab your handbooks:

FIFA Laws of the Game 2005, page 36: "An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area,......touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate."

Deuce · 05-31-2006, 09:20 AM

I was wrong.

Here is the rule from the FIFA website. It is an indirect free kick...

Quote:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:

takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his hands before releasing it from his possession
touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player
touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate.

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee:

plays in a dangerous manner
impedes the progress of an opponent

So now I am confused... Why did Owen get a penalty in '02 for a back pass?

Old Ska · 05-31-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

I was wrong.

Here is the rule from the FIFA website. It is an indirect free kick...
So now I am confused... Why did Owen get a penalty in '02 for a back pass?

Without looking it up myself (I am much to lazy for that) my opinion (which I am never to lazy to provide) is that according to Law 12 the ref thought that the player in question was using "a deliberate trick" to circumvent Law 12. The response to that may be a penalty.

Deuce · 05-31-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Ska

Without looking it up myself (I am much to lazy for that) my opinion (which I am never to lazy to provide) is that according to Law 12 the ref thought that the player in question was using "a deliberate trick" to circumvent Law 12. The response to that may be a penalty.

Makes sense I suppose.

Thanks

Dadof3 · 05-31-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Ska

Without looking it up myself (I am much to lazy for that) my opinion (which I am never to lazy to provide) is that according to Law 12 the ref thought that the player in question was using "a deliberate trick" to circumvent Law 12. The response to that may be a penalty.

Nope...you cannot create a direct free kick out of that scenario. You can give a card for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Old Ska · 05-31-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dadof3

Nope...you cannot create a direct free kick out of that scenario. You can give a card for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I stand corrected.

AreliusIV · 06-01-2006, 11:12 AM

Let’s not mince words: Jason Kreis pulls the tie with Colorado out of his ass. Mostly we are glad that Bouna Coundoul didn’t break Kreis’s leg with the odd-looking challenge on goal #103, but Kreis earned the nomination with tireless work on both sides of the ball. Many RSL fans are uncomfortable with him as a midfielder, preferring to highlight his strengths as a forward, but you can’t deny his two-way prowess. Isn’t this guy supposed to be too old and too injured to be the one making the 40 yard runs after minute 80, chasing down balls destined to go out before he gets there? But he still brings it, and scored a beauty to net RSL the tie.

http://aaxi.blogsome.com/