The encroachment rule

[Prso's headband 35,669]

Surely has to be looked at before next season? How is it possible to just continue to let the attacking team take penalties if it’s their players that are causing the issue of running into the box before they should. 
 

I hadn’t really thought about it before until tonight when I seen it first hand. It’s mental and gives a ridiculous advantage when the biggest advantage on the pitch is a penalty, now we have a system where the attacking team can just keep taking them despite their players unable to follow the rule

[Moody Blue Legend 61,673]

Aye stinkin rule that.  Fuck knows what the thought process behind that is.

[NorthernLights 2,526]

It’s only an advantage if they miss, though. In theory he’d have ordered it retaken if they’d scored too

[Prso's headband 35,669]

Just now, NorthernLights said:

It’s only an advantage if they miss, though. In theory he’d have ordered it retaken if they’d scored too

It’s a huge advantage though. If the attacking team score it’s not spoken about. 
 

They could in theory take 6 penalties in a row tonight, each time the attacking players team encroaches? It’s a mental rule. 

[Inigo 32,552]

Also, our player encroached too.

If we hadn't encroached too I'd have said it was very unfair. Still feels unfair tbh. Maybe should be whoever gains the advantage by encroaching should be penalised if more than one does.

[Creampuff 22,628]

The penalty wasn’t retaken for encroachment, the goal was disallowed for encroachment. 

The penalty was retaken because McGregor came off his line.

[scottyc06 6,916]

11 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Also, our player encroached too.

If we hadn't encroached too I'd have said it was very unfair. Still feels unfair tbh. Maybe should be whoever gains the advantage by encroaching should be penalised if more than one does.

Was it Tav deemed to encroach, as his foot was defo still on the line from what I’ve seen

[scottyc06 6,916]

11 minutes ago, Creampuff said:

The penalty wasn’t retaken for encroachment, the goal was disallowed for encroachment. 

The penalty was retaken because McGregor came off his line.

No it wasn’t, his foot was clearly still on the line 

[Rangers_no1 32,732]

Just now, scottyc06 said:

No it wasn’t, his foot was clearly still on the line 

Clearly?

On the reply it was very close.

[Blacky Bear 882]

Been the rule as long as i can remember 

Defence slow as fuck, cheap ball yo give it away, all self inflicted 

[Badger 8,771]

The joy of slowmo replay.....

I played in goals.... You try to stay on your line, but in reality..... You aren't thinking about it.

[Inigo 32,552]

2 minutes ago, scottyc06 said:

Was it Tav deemed to encroach, as his foot was defo still on the line from what I’ve seen

Just showed the replay there. One of his feet was inside mate.

[scottyc06 6,916]

1 minute ago, Rangers_no1 said:

Clearly?

On the reply it was very close.

You’re really trying tonight! Regardless if it was “close” or not.. it was clearly on the line! 

[scottyc06 6,916]

Just now, Inigo said:

Just showed the replay there. One of his feet was inside mate.

The other was on the line though? Or am I missing something in regards to the rules? My understanding was that one foot had to be on the line which his was? 

[Inigo 32,552]

1 minute ago, scottyc06 said:

The other was on the line though? Or am I missing something in regards to the rules? My understanding was that one foot had to be on the line which his was? 

Can't even remember if it was. Looked in to me when I watched it there, but can't be fucked watching it back. Too depressing. Not even sure about the rule wording, all I know that other end I'd be screaming he was in.

[Rangers_no1 32,732]

4 minutes ago, scottyc06 said:

You’re really trying tonight! Regardless if it was “close” or not.. it was clearly on the line! 

 

[scottyc06 6,916]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

Can't even remember if it was. Looked in to me when I watched it there, but can't be fucked watching it back. Too depressing. Not even sure about the rule wording, all I know that other end I'd be screaming he was in.

Agreed mate! To save 2 penalties and still lose by 3 is heartbreaking! 

[five stars 1,653]

We need an explanation for this one.

[GetToTheChoppa 6,873]

Wengers got a few belters with new rules. One being to remove throw ins. His logic being if you get a throw its actually a disadvantage due to have less players on the pitch and not being able to get the ball far. As mental as it is he's probably not wrong.

[Essandoh 21,228]

10 minutes ago, GetToTheChoppa said:

Wengers got a few belters with new rules. One being to remove throw ins. His logic being if you get a throw its actually a disadvantage due to have less players on the pitch and not being able to get the ball far. As mental as it is he's probably not wrong.

Remove throw ins and do what exactly?

Kick ins? Utter nonsense.

Throw ins are fine. Every single summer the cunts at FIFA bring in a new rule or dismantle a perfectly functional one present and it’s a fucking shambles.

Leave the game alone ffs

[docspiderman 1,243]

1 hour ago, Blacky Bear said:

Been the rule as long as i can remember 

Defence slow as fuck, cheap ball yo give it away, all self inflicted 

Same here and I am 72.I remember  a school team game where the ref kept ordering a penalty to be retaken because I didn’t know the rule and kept running into the box in case the goalie blocked the penalty and I might score from the rebound. It was only when the ref explained what encroachment meant that I stopped doing it.

[Nk89 1,289]

10 hours ago, Inigo said:

Also, our player encroached too.

If we hadn't encroached too I'd have said it was very unfair. Still feels unfair tbh. Maybe should be whoever gains the advantage by encroaching should be penalised if more than one does.

I thought about that aswell, but I would say Tav encroaching is because there player has already started his run into the box.

[KeyserSoze 14,627]

10 hours ago, Creampuff said:

The penalty wasn’t retaken for encroachment, the goal was disallowed for encroachment. 

The penalty was retaken because McGregor came off his line.

It was this, dunno what’s difficult to understand tbh. 
McGregor came off his line, retake ordered. 
 

 

[G.E.C. 18,871]

9 hours ago, GetToTheChoppa said:

Wengers got a few belters with new rules. One being to remove throw ins. His logic being if you get a throw its actually a disadvantage due to have less players on the pitch and not being able to get the ball far. As mental as it is he's probably not wrong.

He only wants them banned because of Delap IMO.

[The Dude 20,026]

11 hours ago, Prso's headband said:

Surely has to be looked at before next season? How is it possible to just continue to let the attacking team take penalties if it’s their players that are causing the issue of running into the box before they should. 
 

I hadn’t really thought about it before until tonight when I seen it first hand. It’s mental and gives a ridiculous advantage when the biggest advantage on the pitch is a penalty, now we have a system where the attacking team can just keep taking them despite their players unable to follow the rule

The ref got it wrong. It shouldn't have been retaken but should have been an indirect free-kick to us. Should only be retaken if the original penalty is scored.