Rangers pen

[JimBHibees]

Watched football for years genuinely no idea that encroachment and scoring from rebound would not be a retake of the penalty. Don’t think i have ever seen that happening before. Just assumed would be retake.

[wookie70]

Watched football for years genuinely no idea that encroachment and scoring from rebound would not be a retake of the penalty. Don’t think i have ever seen that happening before. Just assumed would be retake. Why would the infringing team get an advantage. The goalkeeper is the bank at the penalty so if simultaneous infringements happen the keeper gets the benefit. I never knew that. There is a nice summary table here (https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-penalty-kick/#offences-and-sanctions)

[MKHIBEE]

Watched football for years genuinely no idea that encroachment and scoring from rebound would not be a retake of the penalty. Don’t think i have ever seen that happening before. Just assumed would be retake.
Not if it’s your teams penalty thats missed, would be retaken if a Hibs player encroached

[CropleyWasGod]

Watched football for years genuinely no idea that encroachment and scoring from rebound would not be a retake of the penalty. Don’t think i have ever seen that happening before. Just assumed would be retake.

Would only be a retake if he'd scored.

[JimBHibees]

Would only be a retake if he'd scored.

If the penalty had been scored? Not sure that rule is strictly applied.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Unless I’m reading it wrong, the penalty should have been retaken due to players of both teams offending. We both had players in the box when the kick is taken.

Either way, we got off with one and it’s one of those that folk would usually argue ‘you’ll never get against the Old Firm’. On this occasion though I’m pretty stunned we got it going our way, think it’s a poor decision.

[Northernhibee]

Watched football for years genuinely no idea that encroachment and scoring from rebound would not be a retake of the penalty. Don’t think i have ever seen that happening before. Just assumed would be retake.

I think it would have been a retake if we’d cleared it but they got advantage from it

[JimBHibees]

Not if it’s your teams penalty thats missed, would be retaken if a Hibs player encroached

So if ball cleared then retake as looked like some Hibs players encroaching also.

[CropleyWasGod]

If the penalty had been scored? Not sure that rule is strictly applied.

It should be. The SFA apparently sent out a directive this season to ensure it was properly enforced.

[Potty78]

So if ball cleared then retake as looked like some Hibs players encroaching also.

Might be wrong but I only see one foot encroaching and it's Scott Wright's?

[davhibby]

Unless I’m reading it wrong, the penalty should have been retaken due to players of both teams offending. We both had players in the box when the kick is taken.

Either way, we got off with one and it’s one of those that folk would usually argue ‘you’ll never get against the Old Firm’. On this occasion though I’m pretty stunned we got it going our way, think it’s a poor decision.

I’ve not seen a replay but no Hibs player got an advantage as they scored so why would it get retaken? Mental

[Paulie Walnuts]

I’ve not seen a replay but no Hibs player got an advantage as they scored so why would it get retaken? Mental


From the rules posted above:

If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting)

I’d say that’s what’s happened in this instance. I’m not sure getting an advantage matters. Both teams had players in the box encroaching (ours were probably encroaching marginally more than Rangers imo). If Tavernier had scored and Scott Wright was 4 yards inside the box he wouldn’t have gained any advantage, it still should be retaken.

Unless I’m reading something wrong, that decision was wrong and has went in our favour.

[WeeRussell]

From the rules posted above:

If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting)

I’d say that’s what’s happened in this instance. I’m not sure getting an advantage matters. Both teams had players in the box encroaching (ours were probably encroaching marginally more than Rangers imo). If Tavernier had scored and Scott Wright was 4 yards inside the box he wouldn’t have gained any advantage, it still should be retaken.

Unless I’m reading something wrong, that decision was wrong and has went in our favour.

I think your reading of the rules is correct but not the bit about our players encroaching marginally more, from the photo I’ve just seen. Wright is the only player with a foot in the box (except Tavernier obviously) when the penalty is hit.

However Alf appears to have a foot inside the D, which he shouldn’t have. If that does have an effect on the decision (despite him being nowhere near play and Wright being the only one to steal an advantage) I’m shocked it wasn’t scrutinised to the hills to allow a retake.

[wookie70]

Unless I’m reading it wrong, the penalty should have been retaken due to players of both teams offending. We both had players in the box when the kick is taken.

Either way, we got off with one and it’s one of those that folk would usually argue ‘you’ll never get against the Old Firm’. On this occasion though I’m pretty stunned we got it going our way, think it’s a poor decision. It isn't in the laws but I think the officials have taken the view that Wright had his foot in the box whereas the other players were stood outside but perhaps overhanging the line. That isn't in the laws though but seems sensible enough. The freezeframe of Sportscene showed there was only one foot in the box when the penalty taken and that was Wright. No controversy as far as I am concerned but the law really should be crystal clear

[Frazerbob]

Encroaching is basically the same as being offside.

[Carheenlea]

Said on another thread that I’m convinced that panic set in within the VAR room realising they’d made a grave error combined with the penalty. Was a case of then looking for the slightest infringement to rule out any goal, or worst case scenario hope it was missed.

[wookie70]

Encroaching is basically the same as being offside. Offside is defined in terms of what body part etc and I don't think encroachment is. Looking at the still though we got lucky as ALF may be encroaching in a similar manner to Wright at the end of the D

[Moulin Yarns]

Why would the infringing team get an advantage. The goalkeeper is the bank at the penalty so if simultaneous infringements happen the keeper gets the benefit. I never knew that. There is a nice summary table here (https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-penalty-kick/#offences-and-sanctions)

Thanks wookie, my hun neighbour will be shown the table at the earliest opportunity.

[He's here!]

Unless I’m reading it wrong, the penalty should have been retaken due to players of both teams offending. We both had players in the box when the kick is taken.

Either way, we got off with one and it’s one of those that folk would usually argue ‘you’ll never get against the Old Firm’. On this occasion though I’m pretty stunned we got it going our way, think it’s a poor decision.

Not as poor a decision as awarding the penalty in the first place.

[CentreLine]

Unless I’m reading it wrong, the penalty should have been retaken due to players of both teams offending. We both had players in the box when the kick is taken.

Either way, we got off with one and it’s one of those that folk would usually argue ‘you’ll never get against the Old Firm’. On this occasion though I’m pretty stunned we got it going our way, think it’s a poor decision.

That was certainly the narrative from the usual “unbiased” reporting on Sportscene. However, I struggle to see any other player encroaching when the kick is taken. I’m pretty sure VAR would have studied that very closely and been disappointed not to find anything.

[Brightside]

Rangers said post game that they were told Rocky wasn’t over the line.

[gbhibby]

I don't know what the fuss is about. If the penalty was saved and cleared by one of our players who encroached its a retake. If its saved and scored by an attacking player who encroached its an indirect free kick. You cannot gain an advantage by committing an offence. Basically it depends on if the penalty is scored or saved. Sure its been like that for years. I am sure there was an incident recently where the ref got it wrong in Europe.

[Moulin Yarns]

I don't know what the fuss is about. If the penalty was saved and cleared by one of our players who encroached its a retake. If its saved and scored by an attacking player who encroached its an indirect free kick. You cannot gain an advantage by committing an offence. Basically it depends on if the penalty is scored or saved. Sure its been like that for years. I am sure there was an incident recently where the ref got it wrong in Europe.

My hun neighbour was saying that the same situation occurred in a European game when again it was Wright who encroached and the penalty was retaken.

[gbhibby]

My hun neighbour was saying that the same situation occurred in a European game when again it was Wright who encroached and the penalty was retaken.

What game was that?

[Moulin Yarns]

What game was that?

Can't remember, I'll ask him when I see him.

[BILLYHIBS]

The actual award was laughable but we all knew what was coming

Soapy Soutar hasn’t even jumped for the ball and Triantis has accidentally brushed his hand off his red face on his way down

An absolute joke

[gbhibby]

https://www.rangersreview.co.uk/news/24222151.rules-explain-rangers-vs-hibs-penalty--/
Their English FA summary in this article explains it all.

Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk

[gbhibby]

The actual award was laughable but we all knew what was coming

Soapy Soutar hasn’t even jumped for the ball and Triantis has accidentally brushed his hand off his red face on his way down

An absolute joke

Also Billy Souttars arms make contact with Nectars body as he is off the ground mid jump

[McGruber]

Just for the record it was never a penalty but was the correct call to disallow the goal for encroaching.

Offside and encroaching are not the same. Clement and Rangers obviously don't know the rule.

For encroachment it doesn't matter if Rocky and Youan are ahead of Wright. It is only contact with the ground in the box when the penalty is struck.

Only Wright's foot is down. Rocky & Youan are mid stride but no foot grounded.

ALF is the closest as the D counts but even then his foot is well in the D but still off the ground when the ball is struck (marginally but that's what VAR is for)

We never got away with anything on that call - most have just assumed same rule as offside.

That aside - we were well beat so is immaterial.

Just going on record that we are still waiting on our first dodgy VAR call

[Smartie]

See for “encroachment” - do you have to have a body part planted on the ground (like Wright’s foot) for it to be encroachment or can you be in the box if your feet are outside but the body is leaning in?

Is it like offside, where it’s to do with the part of the body that is legally allowed to play the ball, so an arm or hand would be ok?



This is all quite interesting tbh - as much football as I’ve played and watched over the years, I really don’t understand nuances of the rules.

[Callum_62]

Also Billy Souttars arms make contact with Nectars body as he is off the ground mid jumpHe done similar to Martin Boyle

He's going to cause a serious injury if thats how he's now operating

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[RIP]

Might be wrong but I only see one foot encroaching and it's Scott Wright's?

Correct. No Hibs player set a foot in the penalty box before Tavernier struck the ball

[CentreLine]

He done similar to Martin Boyle

He's going to cause a serious injury if thats how he's now operating

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

He did indeed and has already caused a serious injury in the case of Martin Boyle. Boyle may have returned but was out fur a fortnight and the potential for lasting effects are unimaginable.
The rule makers need to address cloggers like Souter.

[lapsedhibee]

Just for the record it was never a penalty but was the correct call to disallow the goal for encroaching.

Offside and encroaching are not the same. Clement and Rangers obviously don't know the rule.

For encroachment it doesn't matter if Rocky and Youan are ahead of Wright. It is only contact with the ground in the box when the penalty is struck.

Only Wright's foot is down. Rocky & Youan are mid stride but no foot grounded.

ALF is the closest as the D counts but even then his foot is well in the D but still off the ground when the ball is struck (marginally but that's what VAR is for)

We never got away with anything on that call - most have just assumed same rule as offside.

That aside - we were well beat so is immaterial.

Just going on record that we are still waiting on our first dodgy VAR call

:aok:

[007]

See for “encroachment” - do you have to have a body part planted on the ground (like Wright’s foot) for it to be encroachment or can you be in the box if your feet are outside but the body is leaning in?

Is it like offside, where it’s to do with the part of the body that is legally allowed to play the ball, so an arm or hand would be ok?



This is all quite interesting tbh - as much football as I’ve played and watched over the years, I really don’t understand nuances of the rules.

Like McGruber says, a part of the body has to be touching the ground. Something the Sportscene pundits don't know and no doubt it will be the same on Superscoreboard this evening.

https://i.ibb.co/zr1Z7kV/Screenshot-20240401-124303-Chrome.jpg (https://ibb.co/SP2BdLw)

https://i.ibb.co/C686mT3/20240401-122748.jpg (https://ibb.co/QkQkp13)

[darwenhibby]

And Dermott Gallagher says it was a definite penalty and yellow card this morning on Sky Sports News

[Paulie Walnuts]

Like McGruber says, a part of the body has to be touching the ground. Something the Sportscene pundits don't know and no doubt it will be the same on Superscoreboard this evening.

https://i.ibb.co/zr1Z7kV/Screenshot-20240401-124303-Chrome.jpg (https://ibb.co/SP2BdLw)

https://i.ibb.co/C686mT3/20240401-122748.jpg (https://ibb.co/QkQkp13)

I’m not sure who’s boot it is, but the Hibs players boot looks planted inside the D? The sort of turquoise-ish boot with white toe?

[WeeRussell]

I’m not sure who’s boot it is, but the Hibs players boot looks planted inside the D? The sort of turquoise-ish boot with white toe?

Looks like Traintis. Not sure his foot is on the ground inside the D from that picture though.

[Moulin Yarns]

What game was that?

Apparently it was rangers v napoli

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/napoli-strike-late-after-politano-penalty-beat-rangers-3-0-2022-09-14/#:~:text=Zielinski's%20tame%20shot%20was%20first,b y%20the%20Napoli%20forward%20line.

Zielinski's tame shot was first saved by McGregor before Politano reacted sharply to slide the ball home but the Video Assistant Referee ordered the penalty to be retaken for encroachment by the Napoli forward line.


It was retaken because, although a napoli player was in the box, so was a rangers player. Tavernier!!

https://www-footballscotland-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/other-football/why-napoli-penalty-rangers-retaken-25021594.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17119758722872&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.footballscotland.co.uk% 2Fspfl%2Fother-football%2Fwhy-napoli-penalty-rangers-retaken-25021594

[DaveF]

And Dermott Gallagher says it was a definite penalty and yellow card this morning on Sky Sports News

Gallagher is probably the biggest ******** to be ever given telly time and thankfully I've not had the misfortune to see the irritating prick for ages. Whatever he says is usually the total opposite of the truth.

[gbhibby]

Apparently it was rangers v napoli

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/napoli-strike-late-after-politano-penalty-beat-rangers-3-0-2022-09-14/#:~:text=Zielinski's%20tame%20shot%20was%20first,b y%20the%20Napoli%20forward%20line.

Zielinski's tame shot was first saved by McGregor before Politano reacted sharply to slide the ball home but the Video Assistant Referee ordered the penalty to be retaken for encroachment by the Napoli forward line.


It was retaken because, although a napoli player was in the box, so was a rangers player. Tavernier!!

https://www-footballscotland-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/other-football/why-napoli-penalty-rangers-retaken-25021594.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17119758722872&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.footballscotland.co.uk% 2Fspfl%2Fother-football%2Fwhy-napoli-penalty-rangers-retaken-25021594
Thought that was the one he would quote so not the same as the one on Saturday.

[007]

I’m not sure who’s boot it is, but the Hibs players boot looks planted inside the D? The sort of turquoise-ish boot with white toe?

The paragraph underneath the one I highlighted is also relevant. The player has to have a material impact on the outcome. Scott Wright had a material impact on the outcome because he stuck it in the net, any Hibs players encroaching is therefore academic. If they'd blocked the shot or got to it before Wright and cleared it then it would have been a retake.

[WeeRussell]

The paragraph underneath the one I highlighted is also relevant. The player has to have a material impact on the outcome. Scott Wright had a material impact on the outcome because he stuck it in the net, any Hibs players encroaching is therefore academic. If they'd blocked the shot or got to it before Wright and cleared it then it would have been a retake.

If that’s in the rules it’s case closed 👍

[Paulie Walnuts]

The paragraph underneath the one I highlighted is also relevant. The player has to have a material impact on the outcome. Scott Wright had a material impact on the outcome because he stuck it in the net, any Hibs players encroaching is therefore academic. If they'd blocked the shot or got to it before Wright and cleared it then it would have been a retake.

Didn’t notice that bit if that’s in there. If that’s the case then it’s the correct decision :aok: