Is high feet not an indirect freekick?

[AndyB_70]

As far as I can remember should a foul for high feet not result in an indirect freekick? Therefore not a penalty.

[Cropley10]

No it's a Celtc penalty.

Mr Richmond had a very fine game. In fact I hardly noticed who was reffing.

[I'm_cabbaged]

As far as I can remember should a foul for high feet not result in an indirect freekick? Therefore not a penalty.

That's what I thought, unless you're Darren O'Dea it's not even a ****ing freekick.

[J-C]

As far as I can remember should a foul for high feet not result in an indirect freekick? Therefore not a penalty.


Unlike a direct free kick, an offence punishable by an indirect free kick does not result in a penalty kick (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Penalty_kick_(football)) when it occurs in the penalty area (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Penalty_area_(football)), rather it continues to be taken as an indirect free kick.[ (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-bbc1-0)

Unless it's intentional dangerous play, this as we seen was not.

[H18sry]

Playing in a dangerous manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defi ned as any action that, while
trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player
himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent
from playing the ball for fear of injury.A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the
referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the
players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable
with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the
referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also
been committed.
Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with
obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing in a
dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player
Restart of play
• Indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred

[PaulSmith]

Offence would be dangerous play which results in an indirect free kick, unfortunately in this case there is clear contact which impeeded Mcgeady is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty. Just my opinion though

[J-C]

Offence would be dangerous play which results in an indirect free kick, unfortunately in this case there is clear contact which impeeded Mcgeady is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty. Just my opinion though


The problem is though that at no time did Stokes look to impede McGeady, his eyes never once diverted from the ball, hence indirect fre kick.

[PaulSmith]

Post above spells out the law yet it's highlighted as if that ref still got it wrong, think you need to read it again, clear cut penalty.

[PaulSmith]

The problem is though that at no time did SAtokes look to impede McGeady, his eyes never once diverted from the ball, hence indirect fre kick.

sorry mate, your not correct here.

[J-C]

Post above spells out the law yet it's highlighted as if that ref still got it wrong, think you need to read it again, clear cut penalty.


That law states playing in a dangerous manner, which Stokes doesn't do as he atempts to kick the ball not McGeady......A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the
referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.

[Westie1875]

That law states playing in a dangerous manner, which Stokes doesn't do as he atempts to kick the ball not McGeady......A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the
referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.

Exactly, did McGeady not come flying in from behind him? Stokes didn't even know he was there. Never a pen.

[PaulSmith]

That law states playing in a dangerous manner, which Stokes doesn't do as he atempts to kick the ball not McGeady......A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the
referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.

Doesn't matter what he attempted to do, what he done was made contact with mcgeady.
It's a penalty offence.

[J-C]

Exactly, did McGeady not come flying in from behind him? Stokes didn't even know he was there. Never a pen.


Accidental contact, therefore indirect.........if it was intentional, why was Stokes not booked for a dangerous challenge. :wink:

[CapitalHibs]

Accidental contact, therefore indirect.........if it was intentional, why was Stokes not booked for a dangerous challenge. :wink:

Unfortunately it comes down to the ref's "get out of jail card"




"...in the opinion of the referee":grr:

[J-C]

Unfortunately it comes down to the ref's "get out of jail card"




"...in the opinion of the referee":grr:

And the opinion of the ref today was that Bamba bouncing the ball in frustration also warranted a yellow card, also Nish fairly challenging and winning a tackle the same.

[I'm_cabbaged]

And the opinion of the ref today was that Bamba bouncing the ball in frustration also warranted a yellow card, also Nish fairly challenging and winning a tackle the same.

I'm with you apart from the bit in bold, that's a booking any day of the week.

[CapitalHibs]

And the opinion of the ref today was that Bamba bouncing the ball in frustration also warranted a yellow card, also Nish fairly challenging and winning a tackle the same.

Yep. It's the refs decision which must be accepted on the field of play whether others see it as incorrect or not.

[PaulSmith]

Accidental contact, therefore indirect.........if it was intentional, why was Stokes not booked for a dangerous challenge. :wink:

Give up mate. Almost every free-kick is accidental but its still a free kick.

There is no law to book a player for the offence that Stokes committed.

There really is not an argument here guys and I'll even quote the post above from the laws of the game.

It really cannot be any clearer.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the
players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable
with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the
referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also
been committed.
Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with
obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing in a
dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player
Restart of play

[J-C]

I'm with you apart from the bit in bold, that's a booking any day of the week.


There are times the ref needs to show a bit of common sense and realise Bamba didn't throw or bouce it at anyone, very frustrating watching these refs.

[PaulSmith]

There are times the ref needs to show a bit of common sense and realise Bamba didn't throw or bouce it at anyone, very frustrating watching these refs.

Why should be ref show common sense when it's a clear sign of dissent and in the laws that the player must be booked, shouldn't Bamba show common sense and realise that he will be booked and miss the next 3 games due to his petulance?

[Biggie]

Unfortunately it comes down to the ref's "get out of jail card"

"...in the opinion of the referee":grr:

Must admit as soon as he made contact and he went down I thought pen....and if it happened at the other end we'd be screaming on a penalty...not sure what the rule is when this happens in the box, but I thought pk.
As for it being an accident, aren't most penalties mistimed tackles ?...in other words, acccidents ?...I thought pk, and at the end of the day it means hee haw to us....easy option for the ref, and he took it.....bet he doesn't know the rules himself...and nothing will come of it cos the tic got the pen......

[Biggie]

Why should be ref show common sense when it's a clear sign of dissent and in the laws that the player must be booked, shouldn't Bamba show common sense and realise that he will be booked and miss the next 3 games due to his petulance?

agree Paul, crazy booking...crazy.....3 f'ing games !!..keep the heid sol...

[J-C]

Give up mate. Almost every free-kick is accidental but its still a free kick.

There is no law to book a player for the offence that Stokes committed.

There really is not an argument here guys and I'll even quote the post above from the laws of the game.

It really cannot be any clearer.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the
players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable
with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the
referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also
been committed.
Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with
obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing in a
dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player
Restart of play


I know the rules of the game bud and if you see the post you're referring to he put in huge bold letters
Indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred
The rule is for the referee to interpret and I and many others feel he didn't interpret it correctly, you thought it was a penalty, I didn't.

You say it really can't be clearer but with this ruling it is a very shady areawere it depends on how the ref sees it, either accidental or deliberate.

[PaulSmith]

JC, read the rule from start to finish. There simply is not an arguement here, Stokes played in a dangerous manner by raising his feet to hook the ball away, missed the ball and made physical contact with Mcgeady. Penalty kick and no yellow. Referee got it spot on to the letter of the law. There is no interpretation required in this instance.

[Biggie]

I know the rules of the game bud and if you see the post you're referring to he put in huge bold letters
Indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred
The rule is for the referee to interpret and I and many others feel he didn't interpret it correctly, you thought it was a penalty, I didn't.

You say it really can't be clearer but with this ruling it is a very shady areawere it depends on how the ref sees it, either accidental or deliberate.
Your dead right JC it is very shady....far too ambiguous..however, I can't re-call a pk ever being given, or not being given for this type of situation. At the time I thought pen....and nothings changed my mind. If that had happend at the other end and we'd got a poxy in-direct freekick we'd be screaming blue murder....no ?.
As I said in an other post, I bet richmond doesn't know the rules on that one...so played "safe" and gave the pk.

[Speedy]

And the opinion of the ref today was that Bamba bouncing the ball in frustration also warranted a yellow card, also Nish fairly challenging and winning a tackle the same.

Definite yellow and I think the club should fine him for that.

As for the pen, I was in the front row of the FF Lower so didn't see it very clearly but we should've conceded a pen in the first half(Murray hand ball) and got a penalty in the second(Murray pulled back).

[HFC 0-7]

If it had been at the other end I would have been shouting for a pen. i think it is a penalty, what the difference from tripping someone and stopping them getting in on goal and kicking someone at neck level and stopping them getting in at goal

[Mikeystewart]

As far as I can remember should a foul for high feet not result in an indirect freekick? Therefore not a penalty.

I haven't seen the replay but I heard he caught him in the face if so its probably a foul but if no contact I agree shouldn't have been a pen.

[Speedy]

If it had been at the other end I would have been shouting for a pen. i think it is a penalty, what the difference from tripping someone and stopping them getting in on goal and kicking someone at neck level and stopping them getting in at goal

There's no difference. I think what people are saying is that Stokes didn't touch him and the foul was given for high feet.

It looked like a pen to me but as I said my view wasn't great.

[HFC 0-7]

There's no difference. I think what people are saying is that Stokes didn't touch him and the foul was given for high feet.

It looked like a pen to me but as I said my view wasn't great.

Fair enough, if there was no contact then yes, free kick, but I think there may have been contact.

[Geo_1875]

No it's a Celtc penalty.

Mr Richmond had a very fine game. In fact I hardly noticed who was reffing.

you are taking the piss. Richmond wouldn.t know the laws of the game if they inserted themselves up his arse. Twice in the first half he allowed the weegies to get away with their old favourite the two footed challenge. He also only gave Hibs "advantage" when it let him avoid an obvious booking for a Celtc player. A total disgrace of a referee but unfortunately not alone amongst the current bunch of officials.

[Ryan91]

I haven't seen the replay but I heard he caught him in the face if so its probably a foul but if no contact I agree shouldn't have been a pen.

I was in the pub, Stokes does NOT kick McGeady's face, his boots hit him upper arm/shoulder area.

From what the rules say, if the offence in question is deemed to be a penalty then the player who committed the offence should be booked, Stokes was not booked, but even then both players were challenging for the ball, fair enough Stokes' foot was high but he did NOT intend to cause any harm to the McGeady, on TV heard no shouts from Celtic support claiming for PK, nor any shouts from Celtic players, Richmond only gives the Pen because McGeady goes down like he was shot. So to conclude it was an Indirect freekick within the penalty area, which does NOT constitute a Penalty.

[Zondervan]

A direct free kick (or penalty kick) is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

I am sure that everyone is in agreement that Stokes was a wee bit careless, and that he kicked an opponent. Yeh?

[Speedy]

you are taking the piss. Richmond wouldn.t know the laws of the game if they inserted themselves up his arse. Twice in the first half he allowed the weegies to get away with their old favourite the two footed challenge. He also only gave Hibs "advantage" when it let him avoid an obvious booking for a Celtc player. A total disgrace of a referee but unfortunately not alone amongst the current bunch of officials.

I think you might've cracked it :wink:


I was in the pub, Stokes does NOT kick McGeady's face, his boots hit him upper arm/shoulder area.

From what the rules say, if the offence in question is deemed to be a penalty then the player who committed the offence should be booked, Stokes was not booked, but even then both players were challenging for the ball, fair enough Stokes' foot was high but he did NOT intend to cause any harm to the McGeady, on TV heard no shouts from Celtic support claiming for PK, nor any shouts from Celtic players, Richmond only gives the Pen because McGeady goes down like he was shot. So to conclude it was an Indirect freekick within the penalty area, which does NOT constitute a Penalty.

Read the quote below:


Give up mate. Almost every free-kick is accidental but its still a free kick.

There is no law to book a player for the offence that Stokes committed.

There really is not an argument here guys and I'll even quote the post above from the laws of the game.

It really cannot be any clearer.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the
players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable
with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the
referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also
been committed.
Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with
obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing in a
dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player
Restart of play

[BS44]

JC, read the rule from start to finish. There simply is not an arguement here, Stokes played in a dangerous manner by raising his feet to hook the ball away, missed the ball and made physical contact with Mcgeady. Penalty kick and no yellow. Referee got it spot on to the letter of the law. There is no interpretation required in this instance.

Nonsense.

When Stokes went to play the ball there was no one in front of him, McGeady came in from behind him. Where exactly is the dangerous play?

[PaulSmith]

Nonsense.

When Stokes went to play the ball there was no one in front of him, McGeady came in from behind him. Where exactly is the dangerous play?

Well then if you want to call the offence of Stokes making physical contact with McGeady, after McGeady has played the ball, a straight forward foul then I'll not argue, either way it's still a penalty.

[Jamie]

My thoughts are stokes hardly touched him (his arm) and mcgreedy dived as he had knocked the ball far to far in front of him :grr:

[BS44]

Well then if you want to call the offence of Stokes making physical contact with McGeady, after McGeady has played the ball, a straight forward foul then I'll not argue, either way it's still a penalty.

No it's not always a penalty. A indirect free kick can be awarded when a player impedes the progress of an opponent.

[PaulSmith]

No it's not always a penalty. A indirect free kick can be awarded when a player impedes the progress of an opponent.

I'm talking about this incident, have we moved on from dangerous play, to a unententional foul to now impeding an opponent?

[BS44]

I'm talking about this incident, have we moved on from dangerous play, to a unententional foul to now impeding an opponent?

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
prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands;
commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player.
The indirect free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

[PaulSmith]

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
prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands;
commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player.
The indirect free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

What's your point here, are we back to the Stokes penalty again?

[thefifer1959]

It seems that people forget that Celtic and Rangers are bigger teams that the rest of the spl ( Crap) so SFA see them as bigger box office attractions in champions League so more money coming into the SFA coffers, Watch the rest of the season all 50/50's will be given to the so called big two.

To finish with Hibs are all top heavy with strikers what we need is a good all fashioned blood and guts midfielder some one who will not be frieghtend to get stuck in unlike or squad who think of the money rather than the club ( Mummsie id hurted my leg :faf:).

Sorry guys and gals but i was born a fifer with green and white in my veins I will die a hibee but until we can get blood and guts into this squad then we always going to be alsorans.

[StevieT]

As much as it hurts to say so, it was a stick on penalty for me and one that I would give 10 times out of 10.

If Stokes had made no contact then an indirect free kick but as soon as he made contact, a penalty every time.

Stokes was unlucky in that he didn't see the player coming from behind him, but that makes no difference to the referees decision.

[Jonnyboy]

Doesn't matter what he attempted to do, what he done was made contact with mcgeady.
It's a penalty offence.

You could argue that McGeady made contact with him. McGeady saw about to occur but kept going whereas Stokes made an effort to play the ball when no-one was in front of him :wink:

[PC Stamp]

You could argue that McGeady made contact with him. McGeady saw about to occur but kept going whereas Stokes made an effort to play the ball when no-one was in front of him :wink:

That was my take on it John. McPlastic played to the situation and got the benefit.

[lEXO]

I said this to the guy i sit beside at the time.need to see it again before i comment more, but always thought it was an indirect free kick.I remember Gordon Rae doing this when we beat the Yams at ER for the first time in years in the 80,s.Ref gave an indirect free kick.Thought the ref was crap again, but we lost our way once again after having a decent first half.

[One Day]

[QUOTE=hibs13681;2416489]If it had been at the other end I would have been shouting for a pen.

But you can bet your life we would not have got one

[Hibs On Tour]

FFS... dry yer eyes lads.

Contact *was* made, regardless of the fact it was unintentional. Therefore direct free kick, therefore penalty. Simples. Ref got that one right.

Unlike the other two he got wrong - IM's clearly deliberate handball in our box which should have given them a penalty [and had him sent off] and the one in their box where their defender clearly fouled IM [and he should have been sent off as a result]

Bamba was a div for bouncing the ball - gave ref no real option but to yellow card him. 3 game ban we could have well done without - nice one Sol.

IMHO he got the above calls against us right [with the other two penalty claims well wrong] - Ref was a *long* way from being decent however - pretty fair game with no real malicious tackles and what was it? 10 yellows? Mark of a ref who wants to be the star of the show instead of the players...

[cheltenhamhibee]

That law states playing in a dangerous manner, which Stokes doesn't do as he atempts to kick the ball not McGeady......A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the
referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.

good job i'm not Stokes then, i'd like tae kick mcgeady every time i was near him lol

[Ants]

Everyone has their opinion on this.
Below is the extract from the BBC sport report:-

"One minute later, Stokes was punished for a dangerous challenge on McGeady in the Hibs penalty area and Robbie Keane stepped up to convert the resulting penalty kick with confidence."

Swings and roundabouts springs to mind.

[Mikeystewart]

Just seen the highlights, stokes booted McGeady in the arm probably would be a foul anywhere else. If it was at the hibs end i know i would have shouted for a penalty don't think stokes knew much about it.

[seanraff07]

Just seen the highlights, stokes booted McGeady in the arm probably would be a foul anywhere else. If it was at the hibs end i know i would have shouted for a penalty don't think stokes knew much about it.

Thing is McGeady starts being all theatrical holding his face, that's what gets on my nerves.

[JimBHibees]

FFS... dry yer eyes lads.

Contact *was* made, regardless of the fact it was unintentional. Therefore direct free kick, therefore penalty. Simples. Ref got that one right.

Unlike the other two he got wrong - IM's clearly deliberate handball in our box which should have given them a penalty [and had him sent off] and the one in their box where their defender clearly fouled IM [and he should have been sent off as a result]

Bamba was a div for bouncing the ball - gave ref no real option but to yellow card him. 3 game ban we could have well done without - nice one Sol.

IMHO he got the above calls against us right [with the other two penalty claims well wrong] - Ref was a *long* way from being decent however - pretty fair game with no real malicious tackles and what was it? 10 yellows? Mark of a ref who wants to be the star of the show instead of the players...

Only flaw being it needs to be intentional to be a direct free kick.

[1875godsgift]

Everyone has their opinion on this.
Below is the extract from the BBC sport report:-

"One minute later, Stokes was punished for a dangerous challenge on McGeady in the Hibs penalty area and Robbie Keane stepped up to convert the resulting penalty kick with confidence."

Swings and roundabouts springs to mind.
I read that too, the thing is it wasn't a challenge as Stokes was clearing the ball and didn't know McGreedy was there!
Typical BBC bias!

[SidBurns]

Why didn't Stokes header the ball?

I'm a ref, it WAS a penalty, simples!

[Spike Mandela]

So what type of incident does merit an indirect free kick in the box??

I may be cynical but if it was McGeady trying to clear the ball in the Celtic box and he hit Stokes I am 100% certain we would have seen an indirect free kick.

[PaulSmith]

So what type of incident does merit an indirect free kick in the box??

I may be cynical but if it was McGeady trying to clear the ball in the Celtic box and he hit Stokes I am 100% certain we would have seen an indirect free kick.

One where there is no physical contact.

[SidBurns]

So what type of incident does merit an indirect free kick in the box??

I may be cynical but if it was McGeady trying to clear the ball in the Celtic box and he hit Stokes I am 100% certain we would have seen an indirect free kick.

By the book, any of the following:-
If a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing
it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his
possession and before it has touched another 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, in the opinion of
the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player

[Hainan Hibs]

Why didn't Stokes header the ball?

I'm a ref, it WAS a penalty, simples!

THE WORD IS ****ING SIMPLE, there's no ****ing s on the end:grr::grr::grr::greengrin


On the incident what I want to know is who is the sniper following McGeady around Scotland. Every week it seems he is challenged and goes down like he has taken a bullet.

[duffers]

One where there is no physical contact.

So any over head kick should be an indirect free kick? Stokes goes to clear the ball and the wee cheating diving twat mcgeady jumps infront of him! No penalty.

[SidBurns]

THE WORD IS ****ING SIMPLE, there's no ****ing s on the end:grr::grr::grr::greengrin


On the incident what I want to know is who is the sniper following McGeady around Scotland. Every week it seems he is challenged and goes down like he has taken a bullet.

It was a penalty though - SIMPLES

[SidBurns]

So any over head kick should be an indirect free kick? Stokes goes to clear the ball and the wee cheating diving twat mcgeady jumps infront of him! No penalty.

Well no, if there is no player close to the player kicking the ball then why would there be an indirect free kick?!?

[J-C]

By the book, any of the following:-
If a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing
it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his
possession and before it has touched another 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, in the opinion of
the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player

:confused:

[SidBurns]

:confused:

Outwith penalty area taken from the Laws of the Game

[J-C]

Outwith penalty area taken from the Laws of the Game


So there is a difference where about on the pitch it takes place, a very grey area indead, no wonder nobody seems to know the exact ruling here.

Therefore if this had taken place outside the box it would've been indirect, personally can't see the difference where it takes place, still should be the same conclusion.

[PaulSmith]

So there is a difference where about on the pitch it takes place, a very grey area indead, no wonder nobody seems to know the exact ruling here.

Therefore if this had taken place outside the box it would've been indirect, personally can't see the difference where it takes place, still should be the same conclusion.

I actually cannot believe there is still a debate about this even after the rules are quite clear and specific. There surely cannot be anyone who reads the following and still can't understand!
:confused:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player

And now the definition of playing in a dangerous manner:

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players.
If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick.
In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed.

Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with
obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing in a
dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player
Restart of play

[lapsedhibee]

Outwith penalty area taken from the Laws of the Game

Eh? In the same section is "• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands", which must shirley be referring to activity inside the penaltyareabox, non? :dunno:

[J-C]

I actually cannot believe there is still a debate about this even after the rules are quite clear and specific. There surely cannot be anyone who reads the following and still can't understand!
:confused:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player

And now the definition of playing in a dangerous manner:

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players.
If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick.
In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed.

Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with
obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing in a
dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player
Restart of play


You've posted this same piece now about 3 times, we understand it but a referee has now posted somethingwhich brings thing into doubt, see Sidburns posts.

[PaulSmith]

You've posted this same piece now about 3 times, we understand it but a referee has now posted somethingwhich brings thing into doubt, see Sidburns posts.

Can you please post where the doubt is and I will answer it clearly as per the laws of the game.

You're getting yourself very confused on this one me thinks when its quite straightforward.

[SidBurns]

Bottom line guys is that is was a penalty with no booking or sending off

[blackpoolhibs]

The only rule we need to know is, its a penalty if its against the old firm, and an indirect free kick for the rest.:bitchy:

[duffers]

Can you please post where the doubt is and I will answer it clearly as per the laws of the game.

You're getting yourself very confused on this one me thinks when its quite straightforward.

you seem like your not willing to give up?
There is no clear rule which states it is definatley or definatley not a penalty or indirect free-kick. Hence why most people still believe it shouldn't have been a penalty as there was no intention in it from Stokes.

[PaulSmith]

you seem like your not willing to give up?
There is no clear rule which states it is definatley or definatley not a penalty or indirect free-kick. Hence why most people still believe it shouldn't have been a penalty as there was no intention in it from Stokes.

Holy Jesus, how can you say there is no clear rule after Reading the laws only a few posts up.
Where is the doubt?

[SidBurns]

you seem like your not willing to give up?
There is no clear rule which states it is definatley or definatley not a penalty or indirect free-kick. Hence why most people still believe it shouldn't have been a penalty as there was no intention in it from Stokes.

Intention has jack all to do with it. If you take the direct/indirect out of it and the dangerous play aspect/rule the ref could've given it for 'kicking or attempting to kick an opponent'. Punishment = Direct Free Kick or Penalty

As I've said, I'm a qualified ref and it is a penalty 100% of the time, NO OTHER DECISION

[J-C]

Holy Jesus, how can you say there is no clear rule after Reading the laws only a few posts up.
Where is the doubt?


Posts 58 and 64. :confused:


http://www.corshamref.org.uk/law12/law12ind.htm

If an indirect free kick offence is committed by a defending team player against an attacking team player inside the defending team's penalty area (e.g. for impedance or dangerous play) then an indirect free kick kick (and NOT a penalty kick) is awarded to the attacking team to be taken from where the offence occurred.

Taken from Law 12 in the link I have just provided.

[SidBurns]

Posts 58 and 64. :confused:


http://www.corshamref.org.uk/law12/law12ind.htm

If an indirect free kick offence is committed by a defending team player against an attacking team player inside the defending team's penalty area (e.g. for impedance or dangerous play) then an indirect free kick kick (and NOT a penalty kick) is awarded to the attacking team to be taken from where the offence occurred.

Taken from Law 12 in the link I have just provided.

See my post above, the ref could've given it for another offence

[J-C]

See my post above, the ref could've given it for another offence


We understand this Sid, hence the reason it's all unclear, it seems to be the refs interpretation of what happened, some may give it others not, very grey, even the law doesn't make it clear.

[Saorsa]

We understand this Sid, hence the reason it's all unclear, it seems to be the refs interpretation of what happened, some may give it others not, very grey, even the law doesn't make it clear.I'd bet that particular refs interpretation of what happened would have been entirely different had it been at the other end.

[PaulSmith]

We understand this Sid, hence the reason it's all unclear, it seems to be the refs interpretation of what happened, some may give it others not, very grey, even the law doesn't make it clear.

JC...read this part, please cause I'm losing the will to live here!

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players.
If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Stokes made physical contact with McGeady...if he didn't then the offence would've been punishable by an indirect free kick, he did however and therefore it's a penalty/direct free kick.

[SidBurns]

JC...read this part, please cause I'm losing the will to live here!

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players.
If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Stokes made physical contact with McGeady...if he didn't then the offence would've been punishable by an indirect free kick, he did however and therefore it's a penalty/direct free kick.

HOPEFULLY this'll be the end of it! :wink:

[J-C]

JC...read this part, please cause I'm losing the will to live here!

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players.
If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Stokes made physical contact with McGeady...if he didn't then the offence would've been punishable by an indirect free kick, he did however and therefore it's a penalty/direct free kick.


Your starting to annoy me now, a ref has just stated that the penelty may have been given for another offence, the ruling if you read it properly says nowt about contact, it's the interpretation of the ref at the time which determines what decision he makes. Obviously Richmond decided that Stokes made contact with McGeady in a dangerous manner, what I and many others are saying is it was accidental contact so therefore it should've been indirect, I await another post from you telling me to look again at the post from earlier blah blah blah!


Definition and Factors:
(a). Note: Dangerous play is "In the opinion of the referee"
(b). "Dangerous" infer players in a 'closing' situation or where opponent might be expected to 'close' with offender.
(c). Player's Intention (to injure, inhibit, put off) NOT a factor.
Principle:
(d). Any playing situation which makes referee wince!

arises by chance or "unfortunately"
lack of concern for other players.
danger created inadvertently by the movement of an opponent over which the "offender" has no control
if reckless or careless, it amounts to a penal offence.
excludes practices accepted as normal part of the game (e.g. goalkeeper diving).
Examples:
(e). Raising foot/feet too high.
(f). Lowering head to a kickable ball.
(g). "Overhead" kick in proximity of other player(s) which puts him/her (them) at risk.
(h). Goalkeeper jumping for ball, knees or feet up toward oncoming attacker.
(i). Weather, elements, ground conditions may turn a fair challenge inadvertently into one that is dangerous to an opponent.
Action by referee:
(j). Demonstrate signals - quiet word or stronger reaction as appropriate.
Punishment:
(k) . Indirect free kick to opposing team

where offence occurred
remember the Special Circumstances which apply to the position of free kicks within the player's own goal area.

[PaulSmith]

JC, in simple terms then....assume the offence no longer becomes dangerous play if there is physical contact between the players. That may help you understand.

In almost every law of the game there is an interpretation of it which is clear. The interpretation of dangerous play is the bit that your just not getting in this thread.

[Mikey]

Your starting to annoy me now,

Whether he's annoying you or not, I can assure you he knows what he's talking about :wink:

[Danderhall Hibs]

Whether he's annoying you or not, I can assure you he knows what he's talking about :wink:

Is he Dougie McDonald? :greengrin

[J-C]

JC, in simple terms then....assume the offence no longer becomes dangerous play if there is physical contact between the players. That may help you understand.

In almost every law of the game there is an interpretation of it which is clear. The interpretation of dangerous play is the bit that your just not getting in this thread.


I understand it, I just don't agree with it, this is my interpretation of it, that it was accidental, I don't need reminded of it in every post you make, I too can point out the laws of the game, just like you, it's still a grey area.

[Mikey]

Is he Dougie McDonald? :greengrin

I said he knows what he's talking about :greengrin

[J-C]

I said he knows what he's talking about :greengrin

:faf:

[CapitalHibs]

By the book, any of the following:-
If a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing
it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his
possession and before it has touched another 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, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player


And that as I've posted before Ladies and Gentlemen is the answer. Rightly or wrongly in 99 out of a 100 cases the ref's bosses will back his decisions.

[Hibs On Tour]

Only flaw being it needs to be intentional to be a direct free kick.

Not if contact is made and its deemed to be dangerous. That's the point. It was dangerous without it being intentionally dangerous. Still a penalty.

[AndyB_70]

Intention has jack all to do with it. If you take the direct/indirect out of it and the dangerous play aspect/rule the ref could've given it for 'kicking or attempting to kick an opponent'. Punishment = Direct Free Kick or Penalty

As I've said, I'm a qualified ref and it is a penalty 100% of the time, NO OTHER DECISION

Not that I'm one to drag up old topics but at the PBS today a dirty dirty YAM, I think Obua, went to hook the ball away with a high foot. Coming in on his blind side was a dirty dirty Smeltic player who, for his troubles, gets a kick in the face by the high foot. Contact made and an indirect freekick is awarded. Please give me the wisdom of a qualified ref as to why it was indirect? :cool2: :fishin:

[SidBurns]

Not that I'm one to drag up old topics but at the PBS today a dirty dirty YAM, I think Obua, went to hook the ball away with a high foot. Coming in on his blind side was a dirty dirty Smeltic player who, for his troubles, gets a kick in the face by the high foot. Contact made and an indirect freekick is awarded. Please give me the wisdom of a qualified ref as to why it was indirect? :cool2: :fishin:

I still stand by the fact that the Stokes incident was indeed a penalty. There was no need for him to kick it when he could've easily headed the ball. It was dangerous play therefore a penalty.

I haven't seen the Obua incident but it would've come down to the intepretation of the referee, was it (a) dangerous or (b) a.n.other. There are seven offences punishable by a direct free-kick, one of them being dangerous play. If the referee 'in his opinion' didn't think it fell under any of these seven then an indirect free-kick sounds correct.

[Caversham Green]

I still stand by the fact that the Stokes incident was indeed a penalty. There was no need for him to kick it when he could've easily headed the ball. It was dangerous play therefore a penalty.

I haven't seen the Obua incident but it would've come down to the intepretation of the referee, was it (a) dangerous or (b) a.n.other. There are seven offences punishable by a direct free-kick, one of them being dangerous play. If the referee 'in his opinion' didn't think it fell under any of these seven then an indirect free-kick sounds correct.

Around the 3.30 mark here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8671352.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8671352.stm)

Have to say it looks worse than the Stokes incident as Obua must have been aware that the player was close to him - in Stokes's case McGeady ran into him while Stokes was watching the ball.

[J-C]

Yeo, not much different here and an indirect free kick awarded, it's the inconsistency that's annoying.

[SidBurns]

I can't have a look at it as at work but if it was worse that Stokes v McGeady then it should've been a direct free-kick and possibly a caution.

IMO, 99 times out of 100, high feet in the penalty area will result in a penalty. If it has been McGeady kicking Stokes in the head we'd all be crying penalty no? :agree:

[The_Sauz]

I can't have a look at it as at work but if it was worse that Stokes v McGeady then it should've been a direct free-kick and possibly a caution.

IMO, 99 times out of 100, high feet in the penalty area will result in a penalty. If it has been McGeady kicking Stokes in the head we'd all be crying penalty no? :agree:
But would we have got it...........No

[SidBurns]

But would we have got it...........No

I disagree, I think we would've... Too many chips on shoulders as regards refereeing in Scotland, infact everywhere IMO... People tend to forget, no referees/officials = no game...

[Danderhall Hibs]

But would we have got it...........No

Well we got a penalty at Parkhead in the 3-2 game for an almost identical incident, so yes we would have.

[delbert]

It's quite simple I'm afraid. Charlie Richmond got it right at Easter rRad (unfortunately) when he awarded a penalty to Celtc after Stokes' challenge resulted in contact being made. yesterday Craig Thomson got it 100% wrong when he awarded an indirect free kick, again the contact made is the defining factor and should have resulted in a direct free kick. I guess what is also funny is the fact that he stood there with his arm up clearly indicating an indirect free kick, but the player concerned once again showed their meticulous knowledge of the game by lashing it straight into the net, basically an incident wrong (and funny) on almost every level.