A penalty

[see's it]

whats the rules with taking a penalty i always thought you could not stop on the way up if this is the rule what was with ronaldo's penalty lastnight.should it of not been a retake?

[monutdfc]

If the taker breaks the rules and misses then he doesn't get another go. If, on the other hand, the goalkeeper moves off his line (or in normal time a defender encroaches) and the taker misses he does get another go. Obviously, in this second scenario if the taker scores he doesn't have to take it again.

AFAIK (and I am open to correction) the rule about stopping in the run-up was relaxed when they changed the rule to allow the goalkeeper move before the ball is struck so long as he stays on his line.

[monutdfc]

should it of not been a retake?

ps should it not have been a retake

[HarpoJoyce]

The rules are different between a Penalty Kick during a match and a PK during the penalty shoot-out. I understood the striker could not stop either.


I considered most of Aldo's penos invalid. There was a famous contempory of his (can't for the life of me remember who ) who was able to slow his body down and watch the movement of the 'keeper before striking the ball. Aldridge certainly wasn't able to do this.

There may be enough pressure on a referee, during a game, giving a peno in the first place, that they don't hold it up anymore with re-takes for movement, lack of movement.

France scored against Brasil in a '86WC quarter final shoot-out when the ball came back off the post and struck a diving 'keeper and ended up in the net. Goal was awarded, but the rules stated that (in a shoot-out) once the ball had stopped moving forward the PK is complete.

[pineapple stu]

If the taker breaks the rules and misses then he doesn't get another go.

You could argue that Ronaldo's penalty should have been aborted when he stopped on the run up. Don't think even the great Aldo's stops were as blatant as last night!

[stojkovic]

Remember this little gem from Mr. Cruijff ;

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=1sEk61...eature=related

Hence my signature !

[Stevo Da Gull]

I would have thought that you are allowed to stop as long as you don't move backwards again, basically you can only move forward once you start your run-up but then again I have no idea about the actual rule.

[monutdfc]

I'll PM Réiteoir and point him in the direction of this thread!

[Réiteoir]

If during the run-up, the penalty taker deliberately stops his run (no matter for how long) and then continues on to kick the ball, this should be seen as unsporting behaviour. The kicker is allowed to feint and conceal his intention from the goalkeeper but he must approach the ball in a single continuous movement. It is not allowed, for example, to fake a kick and then shoot in one direction after the keeper has jumped in another.

If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team.

It is legal, if during the run-up, the penalty taker deliberately shimmies whilst continuously running forwards to kick the ball. A goal should be allowed if the ball enters the goal. The greatest asset a penalty takers has, is the ability to trick the goalkeeper into diving the wrong way. The penalty kicker should not therefore be penalised for trying to achieve this, so long as this in not done in an unsporting manner. The 'shimmy' whilst running forward, is no more illegal than the kicker looking to the left of the goal, and then shooting to the right !! The bottom line is that the momentum of the run up to the ball should be continuous. A "shimmy" is an American dance with much shaking of the hips and shoulders and perfectly describes the movement of some players as they approached the ball.

Players will always try and deceive the goalkeeper during their run up to the ball, as to the direction of the kicker's shot. This is quite normal, and is different to when a player deliberately stops his run in order for the goalkeeper to move one direction, before the kicker shoots in the opposite corner of the net - this again is contrary to the spirit of the game.

[see's it]

im still none the wiser

[HarpoJoyce]

im still none the wiser

Unsuprisely with the world Cup their is an unresolved issue with a French forward player, in this instance Yannick Stopyra colides with the 'keeper Carlos.
Have a look at the below clip. Please note Socrates (Brasil) and the short step-up and staggered movement (1:40). John Giles may wish to comment.

B. Bellone penalty kick which the Brasil Captain Edinho had an issue with.
(5:23)

French birthday boy trying his luck. (7:32)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOKPsc6D7js

A little washed -out touchlin film. Probaly Official Version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiMxjPutGjE

[shedite]

There's a few funny penalties on YouTube actually. This one probably the best...
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=mLrxVPlZLMg

Although I doubt he would ever try it in a match, especially after this...
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=J6LqnUlYgmw&NR=1

[oldyouth]

If during the run-up, the penalty taker deliberately stops his run (no matter for how long) and then continues on to kick the ball, this should be seen as unsporting behaviour. The kicker is allowed to feint and conceal his intention from the goalkeeper but he must approach the ball in a single continuous movement. It is not allowed, for example, to fake a kick and then shoot in one direction after the keeper has jumped in another.

If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team.

It is legal, if during the run-up, the penalty taker deliberately shimmies whilst continuously running forwards to kick the ball. A goal should be allowed if the ball enters the goal. The greatest asset a penalty takers has, is the ability to trick the goalkeeper into diving the wrong way. The penalty kicker should not therefore be penalised for trying to achieve this, so long as this in not done in an unsporting manner. The 'shimmy' whilst running forward, is no more illegal than the kicker looking to the left of the goal, and then shooting to the right !! The bottom line is that the momentum of the run up to the ball should be continuous. A "shimmy" is an American dance with much shaking of the hips and shoulders and perfectly describes the movement of some players as they approached the ball.

Players will always try and deceive the goalkeeper during their run up to the ball, as to the direction of the kicker's shot. This is quite normal, and is different to when a player deliberately stops his run in order for the goalkeeper to move one direction, before the kicker shoots in the opposite corner of the net - this again is contrary to the spirit of the game.

Thank you Reiteoir,
I've being trying to explain that to every Man United 'customer' all season. Ronaldo STOPS his run, whereas Aldridge used to speed up, slow down, buckle the legs etc.

[Colbert Report]

Didn't Arsenal try something funny once that actually was a goal? Something like a backheel if I remember.

[holidaysong]

Although I doubt he would ever try it in a match, especially after this...
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=J6LqnUlYgmw&NR=1

That's funny!

[Stevo Da Gull]

Didn't Arsenal try something funny once that actually was a goal? Something like a backheel if I remember.

Is it this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah9hVXmjG6A&NR=1

If I've got this right then what they tried (Pires passing to Henry) would have been legal had he of passed the ball forward to Henry, however Pires seemed to back out of the pass but his stud still brushed the ball meaning that he had played the ball = peno taken.

What confuses me is that there was a free-kick given to Man City when, unless the ref could be 100% that the ball didn't move forward at all or that Pires touched the ball more than once, then surely the game should have continued with City on the attack

The only thing that is certain - Danny Mills is a ********

[osarusan]

What confuses me is that there was a free-kick given to Man City when, unless the ref could be 100% that the ball didn't move forward at all or that Pires touched the ball more than once, then surely the game should have continued with City on the attack

If I remember correctly (and I may not be), the ball failed to roll more than one full revolution after Pires' touch, which is a free-kick.

Or something like that.

[Stevo Da Gull]

If I remember correctly (and I may not be), the ball failed to roll more than one full revolution after Pires' touch, which is a free-kick.

Or something like that.

Ah, I see. Thanks