11/05/24
November 12, 2014
Joe Hart prevented a goal: via some fancy football lawyering of Law 13. Hart was allowed to re-take the kick and Austin was denied his second goal of the game.
That's what I was wondering when I looked up the rule for this post. If the ref was right to allow the re-kick the current rule should be changed to be consistent with playing the advantage. Hart's double-tap shouldn't prevent a goal.
posted by yerfatma at 12:10 PM on November 12, 2014
I've heard that there were several of those indirect free kicks near the goal soon after they changed the rule that allowed the goalie to pick up the ball on a pass back from a defender.
posted by mbd1 at 03:01 PM on November 12, 2014
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team, the kick to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred.
Yes, and no. If a free kick is awarded and taken from within the penalty area (this includes goal kicks, too), the ball has to leave the penalty area before it is considered in play. No-one (from either side) can touch the ball until it fully crosses the line of the penalty area.
So, Joe Hart's second touch occurs when the ball is not yet in play. In these circumstances, the kick is retaken.
posted by owlhouse at 08:02 PM on November 12, 2014
When I saw it happen live, I knew exactly what had happened and I was glad the ref disallowed the goal (even though I was cheering for the minnow).
That said, I don't think the ref should have allowed the re-kick: (from the wiki link)
Free kick taken by the goalkeeper
If, after the ball is in play, the goalkeeper touches the ball again (except with his hands), before it has touched another player:
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team, the kick to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred.
QPR should have had an indirect free kick from the spot of the original kick (near the penalty spot, it seems). That would have been exciting to watch