The mancityfans.net football forum

This happened in the qualification to the Italian 6th division.
The final game had gone to penalties. The ref allowed the goal, but the Italian FA are now discussing whether the game should be replayed or not.

It not over until the fat lady sings!

[youtube]DZeSwgAihp8[/youtube]

Got to be a goal, surely?

I can't see any reason why the goal shouldn't stand as the ball didn't go out of play. It's the goalkeepers fault for celebrating prematurely

Goal.

No-one touched the ball after the shot, didn't go out of play.

Goal.

I'm pretty sure the rules in a penalty shoot out say that as soon as the ball starts to travel away from the goal (ie back off the woodwork) it becomes 'dead'. Therefore no goal.

Although as it continued to travel and didn't stop moving I personally think it should stand

I say goal. Not for any official reason, but purely for the way the guy goes to ground after it hits the bar.

For the benefit of those of us who can't see videos at work, can someone describe it?

Did it hit the bar, bounce off the floor into the air and then bounce back into the goal while the goalie was running off in celebration?

Scatman wrote:For the benefit of those of us who can't see videos at work, can someone describe it?

Did it hit the bar, bounce off the floor into the air and then bounce back into the goal while the goalie was running off in celebration?

Hit the bar, then bounced high up into the air and landed a few (5-6 yards) out, but with a lot of backspin.
While the penalty kicker was on his knees burying his head in his hand, and the keeper was running away to celebrate with his team mates, the ball slowly rolled over the goal line.

The game has officially been declared null and it will be replayed because of a technical error of the ref.
The judge said that the rules state that in PK-shootouts once the ball bounces clear it's not in play anymore hence the goal should not have stood even though the ball rolled into the net afterwards.

I do believe it's a tricky decision, just imagine what would have happened if the ball had hit the bar and then bounced off the keeper's back into the net. For this judge it'd not stand and a brawl would certainly follow.

Because this is the funniest GK ever. Seriously, look him up on Youtube:

[youtube]_6-4vyrtWd8[/youtube]

markuse wrote:The game has officially been declared null and it will be replayed because of a technical error of the ref.
The judge said that the rules state that in PK-shootouts once the ball bounces clear it's not in play anymore hence the goal should not have stood even though the ball rolled into the net afterwards.

I do believe it's a tricky decision, just imagine what would have happened if the ball had hit the bar and then bounced off the keeper's back into the net. For this judge it'd not stand and a brawl would certainly follow.

If I'm not mistaken that happened in the '86 world cup against Brazil. It hit the post then the back of the Brazil keeper and went in. I don't remember there being much said about it then (although I was only 8). Brazil got beat on pens by France and didn't concede against anyone else (says wikipedia) so it must have been in that shootout.

It probably all hinges on the meaning of the word "clear"

Goal without question for all the reasons already mentioned

Nickyboy wrote:[highlight]I'm pretty sure the rules in a penalty shoot out say that as soon as the ball starts to travel away from the goal (ie back off the woodwork) it becomes 'dead'.[/highlight] Therefore no goal.

Although as it continued to travel and didn't stop moving I personally think it should stand

Really? What if it hits the post or bar, hits the keeper on the back of the head and goes in?

I'm not having that.

Law states

The ball may touch the goalkeeper, posts and/or crossbar any number of times. This was clarified after an incident in the 1986 World Cup shoot-out between Brazil and France. Bruno Bellone's kick rebounded out off the post and back into the goal off goalkeeper Carlos's back. Referee Ioan Igna gave the goal to France, and Brazil captain Edinho was booked for protesting that the kick should have been considered a miss as soon as it rebounded off the post. In 1987, the IFAB clarified Law 14, covering penalty kicks, to support Igna's decision.

Wonderwall wrote:Law states

The ball may touch the goalkeeper, posts and/or crossbar any number of times. This was clarified after an incident in the 1986 World Cup shoot-out between Brazil and France. Bruno Bellone's kick rebounded out off the post and back into the goal off goalkeeper Carlos's back. Referee Ioan Igna gave the goal to France, and Brazil captain Edinho was booked for protesting that the kick should have been considered a miss as soon as it rebounded off the post. In 1987, the IFAB clarified Law 14, covering penalty kicks, to support Igna's decision.

Cheers!

markuse wrote:The game has officially been declared null and it will be replayed because of a technical error of the ref.
The judge said that the rules state that in PK-shootouts once the ball bounces clear it's not in play anymore hence the goal should not have stood even though the ball rolled into the net afterwards.

I do believe it's a tricky decision, just imagine what would have happened if the ball had hit the bar and then bounced off the keeper's back into the net. For this judge it'd not stand and a brawl would certainly follow.

Hang on - you are saying that the ref made a mistake and awarded a goal because the ball crossed the line. But he made a mistake and so the game has to be replayed. BUT if the ball crosses the line and the ref makes a mistake and doesn't award a goal its just "part of the game".

The double standards in football never cease to amaze me

Thank goodness it is just a game and no money is involved

blues-clues wrote:

markuse wrote:The game has officially been declared null and it will be replayed because of a technical error of the ref.
The judge said that the rules state that in PK-shootouts once the ball bounces clear it's not in play anymore hence the goal should not have stood even though the ball rolled into the net afterwards.

I do believe it's a tricky decision, just imagine what would have happened if the ball had hit the bar and then bounced off the keeper's back into the net. For this judge it'd not stand and a brawl would certainly follow.

Hang on - you are saying that the ref made a mistake and awarded a goal because the ball crossed the line. But he made a mistake and so the game has to be replayed. BUT if the ball crosses the line and the ref makes a mistake and doesn't award a goal its just "part of the game".

The double standards in football never cease to amaze me

Thank goodness it is just a game and no money is involved

The judge said that the goal shouldn't have stood because the ball in Penalty Shootout is considered a "dead ball" when it starts to move away from the goal line (bar for the exception clarified by Wonderwall earlier). Instead in that game the ref awarded the goal hence the judge ruled that the game must be replayed due to a grave technical error by the ref.

Had the goal NOT have been awarded we'd have heard lots of complaints by the team to whom the decision went against but the final outcome of the game would have stood because that would have been the correct decision. I do find more scary that the ref for a play-off final didn't know the rules regarding one of the possible outcomes of this key game rather than the fact that the ruling went towards replaying the game.

Alioune DVToure wrote:

Nickyboy wrote:[highlight]I'm pretty sure the rules in a penalty shoot out say that as soon as the ball starts to travel away from the goal (ie back off the woodwork) it becomes 'dead'.[/highlight] Therefore no goal.

Although as it continued to travel and didn't stop moving I personally think it should stand

Really? What if it hits the post or bar, hits the keeper on the back of the head and goes in?

I'm not having that.

Me neither mate, it's a goal. The 'keeper shit the bed big time.

Why are people still saying it should be a goal when the rules have been explained?????
The game is being replayed becasue of the mistake by the referee... yet still people are saying it should be a goal.... im baffled!