David Dickinson

[Rigamonti 49]

10 hours ago, SuperLeeMcCulloch said:

Also think the reason it wasn't retaken is because we scored from the rebound, if Tav sticks it away then it would have been retaken.

The rule says if players from both teams have encroached, then the kick should be retaken whether a goal has been scored or not. 

If the ref (even after a VAR check) thinks only Wright encroached, then what you've posted is correct.

Hibs players WERE encroaching (into the D), so it should have been retaken.

[soulboy 2,521]

On 30/03/2024 at 17:15, Redmond7 said:

The one he gave when the hibs player fell over in the box, I cant remember who it was, was about to shoot, he stops the game... then gives the ball to marshall. But we had the ball when he stopped it so it should have been a drop ball at the edge of the area for us. I mean most of the things he did were innocuous, but they all add up and the lack of consistency was glaring. Who refs the refs cos this guy needs put back to the juniors.

I thought it was ridiculous to but I read on FB if the ball is in the box it's a drop ball to the goalie, whoever came up with that rule is an idiot. I didn't believe it when I saw it so googled it and it's true. 

So players need to get wise if player goes down holding his head get ball out of box and that way we get drop ball next time. 

[Redmond7 1,202]

1 hour ago, soulboy said:

I thought it was ridiculous to but I read on FB if the ball is in the box it's a drop ball to the goalie, whoever came up with that rule is an idiot. I didn't believe it when I saw it so googled it and it's true. 

So players need to get wise if player goes down holding his head get ball out of box and that way we get drop ball next time. 

True, but the thing that annoyed me most was, the ref had plenty of time to stop the game during that passage of play and should have stopped it instantly if the player really did have a headknock. Instead, he waits till our player is in the act of shooting. Now, he might be right by the letter of the law, and he might not have any malice in mind, but I can only go by what I saw and make my own conclusions.

[SuperLeeMcCulloch 2,351]

11 hours ago, Rigamonti said:

The rule says if players from both teams have encroached, then the kick should be retaken whether a goal has been scored or not. 

If the ref (even after a VAR check) thinks only Wright encroached, then what you've posted is correct.

Hibs players WERE encroaching (into the D), so it should have been retaken.

But the goal has not been scored directly from the penalty, the encroaching player has knocked it in, its a daft rule but its the only possible reason it wasn't retaken.

[Southsider 320]

7 minutes ago, SuperLeeMcCulloch said:

But the goal has not been scored directly from the penalty, the encroaching player has knocked it in, its a daft rule but its the only possible reason it wasn't retaken.

Another possible reason is that they are incompetent idiots

The penalty was saved and there were Hibs players encroaching, so the rule is pretty clear that the penalty should be retaken.

The fact that an encroaching player then scored shouldn't matter

 

[Rigamonti 49]

1 hour ago, SuperLeeMcCulloch said:

But the goal has not been scored directly from the penalty, the encroaching player has knocked it in, its a daft rule but its the only possible reason it wasn't retaken.

It doesn't matter what happens once the kick's been taken. According to the rules, if players from both teams have encroached, then its a retake. There are no exceptions.

[theiconicman 3,012]

4 hours ago, Rigamonti said:

It doesn't matter what happens once the kick's been taken. According to the rules, if players from both teams have encroached, then its a retake. There are no exceptions.

Unless you are the SFA and upset at Rangers calling out the incompetence of their refs. Circle the wagons by the refs, make no mistake.

[SuperLeeMcCulloch 2,351]

On 01/04/2024 at 18:04, Southsider said:

Another possible reason is that they are incompetent idiots

The penalty was saved and there were Hibs players encroaching, so the rule is pretty clear that the penalty should be retaken.

The fact that an encroaching player then scored shouldn't matter

 

But it does matter as that is the rule.

[SuperLeeMcCulloch 2,351]

On 01/04/2024 at 19:42, Rigamonti said:

It doesn't matter what happens once the kick's been taken. According to the rules, if players from both teams have encroached, then its a retake. There are no exceptions.

There is an exception because wright scored from the rebound, if a hibs player gets in before him then its a retake but because Wright got there first its hibs ball.

[Roy Hobbs 2,284]

2 minutes ago, SuperLeeMcCulloch said:

There is an exception because wright scored from the rebound, if a hibs player gets in before him then its a retake but because Wright got there first its hibs ball.

That's not the rule. If both attacking and defending players are encroaching it should be a retake.

[SuperLeeMcCulloch 2,351]

5 minutes ago, Roy Hobbs said:

That's not the rule. If both attacking and defending players are encroaching it should be a retake.

If the penalty was scored which it wasn't, the encroaching player got an advantage by scoring hence why it wasn't a retake.

I dont agree with it but thats the rule as far as I can gather.

[Roy Hobbs 2,284]

Just now, SuperLeeMcCulloch said:

If the penalty was scored which it wasn't, the encroaching player got an advantage by scoring hence why it wasn't a retake.

I dont agree with it but thats the rule as far as I can gather.

That's not the rule. It's immaterial whether there was a goal or not. If both players encroach it should be a retake.

 

[SuperLeeMcCulloch 2,351]

1 hour ago, Roy Hobbs said:

That's not the rule. It's immaterial whether there was a goal or not. If both players encroach it should be a retake.

 

I knew I had read it somewhere but saying it won't take effect until next season even though law 14 is the current approach they take.

[Roy Hobbs 2,284]

13 minutes ago, SuperLeeMcCulloch said:

I knew I had read it somewhere but saying it won't take effect until next season even though law 14 is the current approach they take.

That's the way it should be to honest. I posted earlier that's how it's approached in England so it might actually be the case up here. Somebody should come out and explain it though.

[SuperLeeMcCulloch 2,351]

9 minutes ago, Roy Hobbs said:

That's the way it should be to honest. I posted earlier that's how it's approached in England so it might actually be the case up here. Somebody should come out and explain it though.

They change the rules that often now its hard to keep track.

[Southsider 320]

14 hours ago, SuperLeeMcCulloch said:

But it does matter as that is the rule.

No, it's not