And I always thought that Cruyff was the first to do that penalty Check this out from the 60s http://www.greensonscreen.co.uk/mancity64H.htm
It's actually a Belgian that first did it in the 1950s I think, they mentioned it on Dutch telly the other week.
No. The ref thought Pires played the ball twice (he came out and said as such) and the result of that is an indirect free kick to the defending team. Even though he got that decision wrong (the ball was only played once) the outcome was correct, as Henry was clearly encroaching and as such the defending team should be awarded an indirect free kick.
The mistake that the official made was giving a free kick, rather than letting play continue. He thought Pires touched the ball twice but he only did once.
doesnt matter how many times he touches the ball. obviously you guys dont know the laws of the game either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_kick_(football) This is covered as Law 14 in the Laws of the Game. Notice the part under procedure which states:
thats irrelevant. point is that the ball isnt in play unless its been played forward. it wasnt. therefore the penalty was never taken. he should have been allowed to retake it. end of story.
Pires played the ball and it moved forwards slightly (there is no specified distance). The referee then believed Pires played the ball again (he did not but this is only obvious from replays) and the referee gave the correct decision for what he believed had occurred. Your point, therefore, the Enlgish referees do not know the laws of the game is redundant as this was the correct decision for what he believed happened. Even though this did not happen the correct outcome was applied as Henry was blatantly encroaching and the ball does not need to be in play at a penalty kick for an offence to occur.
No - which part of this is difficult to understand? Even if we take it that the ball was not in play, Henry's encroachment (he even made it passed the ball) would result in a free kick to the defending team. But that is besides the point - you originally claimed that this showed English referees did not know the laws of the game when the referee in this instance applied them perfectly correctly to what he believed had happened.