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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 when it occurs in the penalty area, rather it continues to be taken as an indirect free kick.[

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[CapitalHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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




"...in the opinion of the referee"

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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




"...in the opinion of the referee"

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

"...in the opinion of the referee"

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.