THE RULES!! AN EXCITING NEW THREAD!!

[PUNKISDEAD]

There, i go again, this is great, hang on to your hats, here comes the question

If a player , standing in his own penalty area, strikes an opponent whilst the ball is in play in his opponents penalty area, should the referee award a penalty kick

[campdave]

Yes, it's a foul. The player should also be sent off.

[PUNKISDEAD]

Over to you campdave pose your question, this is brill

[campdave]

A player (already on a yellow card) commits a foul, but the ref decides to play advantage and book him during the next break in play. However, after the advantage is played, the fouled player's team regains possession, passes to the player about to be booked, who scored. The ball hasn't gone out of play since the original foul.

What should the referee do?

[Mark S]

The goal stands, player booked and sent off! Surely?

[campdave]

The goal stands, player booked and sent off! Surely?

Not according to Keith Hackett!

[shrimper]

That's one for the ref on the pitch. If he wants he can stop play the moment the offending player gains possession, book him and send him off (judging that, even though it's a while after the original incident, there would be an obvious disadvantage to the team offended against).

If he doesn't do that then he has to allow the goal and deal with the player afterwards - then take the flak from the whole world including muppets like Hackett who seems to interpret the laws in a very warped way sometimes.

[campdave]

You should have stopped play long before the player had a chance to score. But as you didn't, you should now disallow the goal, show the player the red card and restart with a free-kick close to the original offence. This is a mess and it should never have happened. The situation is clear: any player committing a second cautionable offence should be sent off immediately. The only exception is when you believe the opponents have an obvious goalscoring chance. So in this situation, you were right to play on, but you should have stopped play the moment that chance was no longer "obvious". When the ball was cleared, you should have blown up, dismissed the player and restarted with an indirect free-kick from where the ball was when play was stopped.

Hackett's version of events

[PUNKISDEAD]

As there seems to be no reply to marks answer I am deeming it correct and awarding him the honor of posing the next question

[matty]

what number of fouls constitutes persistant fouling. Is my dog eligible?

[PUNKISDEAD]

matty

its a yellow card for you bucko

posing a question on THE RULES, is an honor that has to be earned

please ignore this question, THE RULES, fans, we all wait eagerly for a more sensible question from mark

[ezz]

How many SV's does it take to change a lightbulb?

[outsider]

How many SV's does it take to change a lightbulb?

That should be an O/T thread !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mark S]

Just after a match, two players from opposing sides walk off the pitch and into the separate dressing rooms. One player comes out of his dressing room, into the other and punches the opposing player. The Referee is walking past the dressing room and witnesses this. What power does he have?

[bigreddog]

as the tie hasn't finished because the ref hasn't filed his report maybe he can send them both off?

[shrimper]

You should have stopped play long before the player had a chance to score. But as you didn't, you should now disallow the goal, show the player the red card and restart with a free-kick close to the original offence. This is a mess and it should never have happened. The situation is clear: any player committing a second cautionable offence should be sent off immediately. The only exception is when you believe the opponents have an obvious goalscoring chance. So in this situation, you were right to play on, but you should have stopped play the moment that chance was no longer "obvious". When the ball was cleared, you should have blown up, dismissed the player and restarted with an indirect free-kick from where the ball was when play was stopped.

Hackett's version of events

Yep - and that's just his version. This one is not a clear cut 'laws of the game' issue, it's one of interpretation and I think most referees would disagree with him.

It's okay saying 'should' but the ref 'didn't' stop play, he allowed it to go on and a goal was scored. If it had happened straight after he waved to play an advantage, then fair enough.

[ezz]

The ref can send people off after matches have finished and probably also report them to the FA where they will surely be banned.

[PUNKISDEAD]

If mark can read ezz s answer and confirm it is right, Ezz can pose a question, THE RULES, has had over a thousand views already, this is great!!

I have just had a Barcelona fam pm me asking if he can run a thread called LA RULEZ on their board, I think THE RULES could go global, ynow, all over the GLOBE ;)

[heysham_mfc]

If mark can read ezz s answer and confirm it is right, Ezz can pose a question, THE RULES, has had over a thousand views already, this is great!!

I have just had a Barcelona fam pm me asking if he can run a thread called LA RULEZ on their board, I think THE RULES could go global, ynow, all over the GLOBE ;)

you mean that place in Overton

[Mark S]

Ooops! Sorry! Didnt realise you had to know the answer

Yes Ezz you are right. The Ref has the power to show him a red card and add it to his report.

[PUNKISDEAD]

Thank you mark, ezz now has the honor of posing his question, THE RULES is going great guns, so lets all keep it real for the fans, fire away ezz

[PUNKISDEAD]

Down to me then, as Ezz has not asked a question.

If a ref dies during a match how many feet underground is he buried

[morecambe mick]

Perhaps Ezz is as bored of this as I.

[Mark S]

Perhaps Ezz is as bored of this as I.

Yet still strangely compelled to look

[outsider]

If a ref dies during a match how many feet underground is he buried

And this is in what copy of the rules/laws of the game ?????????????????????

you are making it up as you go along, just let it die