so here is the initial foul. https://streamable.com/uw8ca I don't think there is any question here. Good call. Now for a closer look at the PK.... Did you catch it from the initial clip of the PK??? https://streamable.com/ny72n So, do we call for the double touch? SHould be IFK coming out for Arsenel correct? Now this was also a FA cup match, I have seen examples of them using VAR in some matches but not all? Looks like a good(???) case for VAR????
Pretty clear the ball comes off the right foot, you can tell by the trajectory of the ball and the spin.
Sorry, I checked that one yesterday and it wan't there yet. Didn't recheck. If someone wants to merge this into the other thread that would be cool. Just so you have the video links.
Agreed I'm not so certain it's clear. I still can't tell if that spin is from the ball hitting the right foot or because, due to the slip, the left foot is striking the ball off center and sliding by at the same time. I can't actually see the ball hit the right foot. I would have no objection if ITOOTR a double touch was called. I also understand why it wasn't called. If you're not 100% certain, don't call it. Regardless, there is not enough for VAR to overturn this.
This is not a deliberate double touch. It is not like he played the ball and ran after it and kicked it again, or played it after it came back to him off the goal post. Those are the things that this rule is supposed to prevent. No player in his right mind would take a PK this way. This totally inadvertent, no call to be made. I have no idea why the referee felt the need to consult the AR about it, other than to get the Arsenal players off his back. PH
Because the players saw it. Half the Arsenal squad went up after the kick. As far as not clear and obvious I am not sure if you guys watch any pointy ball, but the way they have been ruling catches v non catches and other replay reviews. The "clear and obvious" can be a gray area. To me, in the replay you can see his right foot "clearly" move as the ball touches it. you can also clearly see the ball trajectory change after the contact. To me, under VAR this could be considered a double touch. I agree with you guys in saying this is trifling at best and not what the Law intended when it was created. However, this can fit into the Law of unintended circumstances. I don't think the NFL envisioned it's replay being used to see if a ball shifted 1/2" on the ground after a spectacular catch. But 4K and super slo motion have made it so. Maybe I can move this to VAR under review thread as well.
Comparing soccer LOTG with NFL rules is totally ridiculous. Soccer always has had the trifling and dubious criteria and VAR would not change that. VAR is supposed to look at factual events like offside position, ball over the line, correct red card decisions etc., not every little event as seemingly happens in NFL games. Besides, NFL is a limited closed operation, designed primarily these days for TV, so they can do what they like. PH
In 2014 Mike Dean disallowed a goal when Joe Hart commited a similar infraction while taking a free kick from inside his PA. He slipped and did a double touch. The ball went straight to an attacker outside the PA and he buried the ball. I believe is was QPR vs Man City. This is the best video I could find.
I am aware of the differences, I am just pointing out where the NFL STARTED with video replay and where it is now. Because VAR is in it's infancy in soccer, who knows where it will go once pandora's box is opened. When the NFL started, it was just 2 replays per team. Now it has evolved into 2 replays, but if you get them right you get a 3rd. Now every scoring play and every turnover is also automatically reviewed. Why?? Because they found two challenges per team wasn't enough. You don't think soccer will end up going down this road when fans see replays like the one above that in SOME peoples opinion it is clear and obvious that the ball hits his foot and the ball is affected by the second touch? You state "offside" decisions, have you seen the instant replay version of the NHL and how it reviews offside, They now look at a flipping skate to see if it is actually on the ice or not and show a split second view to determine offside. 2 years down the road are we going to see a stop motion of a player who's shoulder is 1/2" past the defender as a "clear and obvious" determination of offside? To the stop camera it was. Saying all of this, I do agree with you PH. I worry (like others here) that once you bring in VAR and once you let that horse out of the proverbial barn, there will be no going back. People will want more and more video review, people will want more and more "justice" for controversy that camera's capture. I fear of what that might become to a beautiful game that I don't want to see go the way of the NFL. Over the past 3-4 years NFL viewership has dropped about 8-11% every year. I personally think video replay is a real part of that.
This doesn't change my viewpoint. IMO he was wrong in Law, not a deliberate intended double touch, goal should have stood. PH
Puzzling over whether a double touch has to be "deliberate intended" to be sanctionable resulted in my learning that "backheeling is permitted provided the ball moves forward." I'm glad to know that; I had no idea. I didn't even know backheeling was a thing, and I probably would have carded it if I ever saw it. Aw jeez, now I will see it, and it will be in a HS game. Wonder what the NFHS ruling is on that? Sorry ... back to the double touch.
To counter the goal kick at least, all the law says is that if the ball is touched before it leaves the penalty area then it is a retake so I would discount intent for that. Especially since if the keeper tried to take a quick kick and hit someone in the back of their leg as they retreated out of the area, that would also be a retake regardless of the intent of the player it hit.
Yeah but that's different – that's just whether the ball is in play or not. The Law 14 language for the PK is: So here we have the question of what, in this particular context, does "play the ball again" mean? Note that unlike Law 11, Law 14 does not say "by playing or touching a ball;" it just says "play the ball." So, can a second touch that is not a "play" on the ball be a violation? Does a first touch that is not a "kick" causing the ball to "clearly move" matter at all? I dunno. I still don't see anything about "deliberate" or "intended," but maybe that's the difference between a "touch" and a "play?" Ah, but that pesky Law 11 also uses the term "deliberately plays the ball," implying that one can theoretically "play" the ball non-deliberately. Oy.
This is what I really don't like about the laws in a circumstance like this. Because to me (and I could be way off on this) it's making the referee have to do too much work. It shouldn't be a question of determining if it was deliberate or not. Obviously in this circumstance, it was not deliberate. The player clearly slips and the ball touches his foot as a result of that. In my thought process, the end result is what needs to be considered. A PK is meant to be "kicked" once. The second touch alters the end result of the intended kick and for me that qualifies as the "second touch" in Law 14.
Never mind all of this detailed analysis. The LOTG have always had the principles of deliberate and intentional breaches of the Laws, and ignoring of trivial and/or trifling infractions. Think of handling for example (at the risk of opening up another can of worms). These accidental double touches clearly fall under this category. As long as you understand this, the rest of it easy and you can dispense with all this legal parsing of meanings etc. Sheesh! PH
Of course one can and the hint lies in what that section used to say (the much misused section about "rebounds").
Bringing the words "deliberate" or "intentional" into this discussion is a huge misdirection. Double-touch doesn't have either pre-requisite. Please don't confuse the issue by trying to use the laws' handling term here. That said, the two words do have the layman meanings. So the argument you guys are making is really about the SotG. The double-touch punishment has clearly never been intended to punish a kick with both feet at the same instant, or one so close to the same instant that it imperceivable in real time and even a stretch to be certain in video freeze frame. So the referee (without the help of VAR) acts: "I can not say in real time that I saw two distinct touches. The restart is a kick-off." The professional referees can figure out themselves how to deal with this with VAR. I'm going to let them sort it out. They opened this can-of-worms. *shrug*
Great catch To go a step further with this. Look at the throw-in language. "The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player" and the language for a direct free kick. "If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player an indirect free kick is awarded"
The fun part about the parsing and IFAB's intent is what is actually in the laws... Not sure about whether this is up for trifling as whether a goal scored is a match critical decision. So, if the referee determines that there was a second touch, the restart if an indirect free kick for Arsenal. I am not sure that the second touch is clear.