That Arsenal Peno

[OwlsFan]

What was that all about ? For a start it would have been disallowed because Henri was half-way in the box by the time Pires touched the ball. Unless they were acting the clown and trying to make the news with a clever peno, why do it ? No need for that when facing a goalie from the peno spot. The odds are stacked in the taker's favour ?

Any thoughts on what they were up to ?

[Risteard]

L'arrogance.

[dancinpants]

From the bbc.co.uk (its the best explanation I've read so far):


On Saturday against Manchester City, Arsenal's Robert Pires and Thierry Henry were aiming to re-create an infamous penalty taken by Dutch master Johan Cruyff in 1982.

Back then, Cruyff passed to on-running Ajax team-mate Jesper Olsen, who drew the goalkeeper before passing back to Cruyff to score.

Astonishingly, the bungled attempt by Pires and Henry was let down by Pires' inability to kick the ball.

Although he managed to fire a penalty into the top corner earlier in the Premiership fixture, this time Pires tried to roll the ball to the on-rushing Henry.

This method is totally within the laws of the game which state that:


The player taking the penalty kicks the ball forward.
He does not play the ball a second time until it has touched another player.
The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward.
As it happened, Pires only brushed the ball with his studs so that the ball moved fractionally but didn't actually leave the penalty spot.

More on penalties

Once he had done this, Pires had given up his right to touch the ball again, which is why he stood motionless.


By this stage, Henry had run past Pires in anticipation of a pass, and amid the confusion Manchester City's Sylvain Distin cleared the ball.

The end result was an in-direct free-kick to Manchester City but, on a weekend of debatable decisions, even this is up for discussion.

Referee Mike Riley awarded the free-kick because he believed that Pires had touched the ball twice.

However television replays suggest that Pires only touched the ball once, but because the contact was so minimal, the ball actually rolled back into the penalty spot.

And for those who think Henry should have taken over once Pires had touched the ball, there is a cautionary note:

In order for the ball to be deemed in play it needs to move forwards a full circumference of the ball.

In fact, it didn't - leaving the opposition as the only players who could gain possession.

The Arsenal players were stuck in no-man's land; Pires couldn't touch it again and the ball was not strictly in play for others to latch onto.

Perhaps an in-direct free-kick was the only fair result.

A unique end to a unique penalty? Pires and Henry have certainly learnt their lessons.

[monutdfc]

Apparently the rule about the ball having to move a full circumference has been gotten rid of, so Henry could have hit it (assuming he hadn't encroached, which he probably had).

[Dodge]

Anyone ever see Johan Cruyff and Jesper Olsen doing it perfectly for Ajax?

[anto eile]

yeah its on the web somewhere. they were beating some smallish team 6-0 at the time, and cruyff passed it out to the left of the box before geting it passed back to him. the opposion players looked completely demoralised before the peno was taken. some of them werent even paying attention as cruyff took it.
the fact that the game was well beyond them having being humiliated helped ajax pull the "trick" off

[strangeirish]

See the attempt here (http://home.skysports.com/broadband.asp?showclip=yes) The Arsenal one that is.

[Clifford]

Once he had done this, Pires had given up his right to touch the ball again, which is why he stood motionless.


By this stage, Henry had run past Pires in anticipation of a pass, and amid the confusion Manchester City's Sylvain Distin cleared the ball.

The end result was an in-direct free-kick to Manchester City but, on a weekend of debatable decisions, even this is up for discussion.


Typical of the media to get things wrong as usual. It was David Sommeill who picked up the ball and was leading the charge on a 4 on 2 break, which if scored would have really made the cheating disrespectful idiots look stupid. Such fun and games.

[Junior]

Typical of the media to get things wrong as usual. It was David Sommeill who picked up the ball and was leading the charge on a 4 on 2 break, which if scored would have really made the cheating disrespectful idiots look stupid. Such fun and games.

FFS the city defender hadn't even got out of his own box with the ball and you have him scoring an equaliser!!!!! Even the 'media' would have struggled to ccome up with that conclusion!

[Metrostars]

I saw it done in MLS a few years ago. Everyone was stunned, the ref conferred with the assistant referees for about 5 minutes, I thought they were going to get the rule book out. The goal stood.