According to the IFAB Laws of the Game (Law 14: The Penalty Kick):
• If the ball enters the goal and an attacking player (a teammate of the kicker) has infringed (entered the penalty area or arc early), the goal does not count.
• The correct restart is an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place where the infringement occurred.

Where is VAR when you need it??!!

Other-way about and that would be ruled out. I thought VAR checked all goals??

https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4079735

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

So which of the two of you is correct??

Think it was another law they decided to change in recent times.

If they are also thinking of banning goals scored by rebounds on penalties, then maybe line the two teams up on the half way line and have the two cameramen follow the penalty taker down the pitch as he makes the long walk (well as long as that player is Mo Salah).

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:02 pm

https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4079735

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

Another daft rule change.
How about "stay the FFFF out!?

The law has changed in that of the penalty is saved or hits the woodwork and rebounded to Frimpong then he ‘impacts’ on the game and an indirect free kick is given. Thats what interpret from this:

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:18 pm

Another daft rule change.
How about "stay the FFFF out!?

It would have given us a second chance today but I think generally nobody wants to sit around after every penalty waiting for the bloke in the VAR box to spend 2 minutes looking for a toe over the line

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:02 pm

https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4079735

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

If that's the case, what's the point of ALL players being behind the white lines when the penalty kick is taken?

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:25 pm

It would have given us a second chance today but I think generally nobody wants to sit around after every penalty waiting for the bloke in the VAR box to spend 2 minutes looking for a toe over the line

Yes, absolutely. But i can't help but think that so many of the rule changes I've seen over the years are only there because the refs aren't really able to stop players from cheating; this, I believe, is largely down to TV and the PL.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:25 pm

It would have given us a second chance today but I think generally nobody wants to sit around after every penalty waiting for the bloke in the VAR box to spend 2 minutes looking for a toe over the line

No we don’t, but we do it anyway.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:30 pm

Yes, absolutely. But i can't help but think that so many of the rule changes I've seen over the years are only there because the refs aren't really able to stop players from cheating; this, I believe, is largely down to TV and the PL.

Slightly off topic but relating to your point about players 'cheating'. If you want to stop diving/simulation.

Post game

First offence is a warning
Second offence is a one game ban
Third offence is a two game ban

Kerkez should now be on an official warning and any subsequent misdemeanors should see him missing games, just maybe when we see managers telling players to go down, they'll be less likely to encourage them to do it if they aren't available for selection.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:30 pm

Yes, absolutely. But i can't help but think that so many of the rule changes I've seen over the years are only there because the refs aren't really able to stop players from cheating; this, I believe, is largely down to TV and the PL.

I think in reality that most of the rule changes are because the people whose job it is to review the rules know they would be out of a job if they said the rules are fine. As long as they insist they need to spend each season rewriting the offside and handball rules, they can keep pocketing their "hard-earned" brass.

G0foste wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:54 pm

According to the IFAB Laws of the Game (Law 14: The Penalty Kick):
• If the ball enters the goal and an attacking player (a teammate of the kicker) has infringed (entered the penalty area or arc early), the goal does not count.
• The correct restart is an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place where the infringement occurred.

He’s halfway to the Royal Dyche!

The freeze frame is misleading anyway. If you watch the footage the Liverpool player jumps in the air when he gets to the line to try and avoid encroaching, the freeze frame shows him in mid air and it’s impossible to tell whether he’s over the line or not. But the guidance is clear on the encroachment needing to have a material impact anyway.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:02 pm

https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4079735

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

That encroaching player is in the peripheral vision of the keeper.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:10 am

That encroaching player is in the peripheral vision of the keeper.

20 players and the referee are in the peripheral vision of the keeper.

I think this one has been cleared up in this thread. There was no offence and the goal rightly stood.

criminalclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 15, 2025 11:14 am

20 players and the referee are in the peripheral vision of the keeper.

No moving inside to the keepers left though.

Speaking of freeze frames

Ric_C wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 12:25 am

Screenshot 2025-09-16 at 00.19.20.png

Speaking of freeze frames

Must admit my first thought from the Longside upper was that it was outside the area! But my eyesight isn’t that good!

Ric_C wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 12:25 am

Screenshot 2025-09-16 at 00.19.20.png

Speaking of freeze frames

Saw this and its certinly not conclusive - do they have VAR to check inside or outside the penalty area?

Given the new rule there is no point infringing as if the keeper saves or post is hit the ball is dead.

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 8:39 am

Saw this and its certinly not conclusive - do they have VAR to check inside or outside the penalty area?

Hannibal hand ball.png

The drawn line is no use. It would seem to suggest that the Liverpool man's foot is over the line, which it obviously was nowhere near.

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 8:39 am

Saw this and its certinly not conclusive - do they have VAR to check inside or outside the penalty area?

Hannibal hand ball.png

You’re right, it’s not conclusive, and on that basis not a clear error by the referee. It was a penalty, we were unlucky, let’s move on.

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 8:39 am

do they have VAR to check inside or outside the penalty area?

That check will have been done. From what I've seen of it from TV coverage since, it's close, but it does look inside the box.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 9:46 am

That check will have been done. From what I've seen of it from TV coverage since, it's close, but it does look inside the box.

in real time I thought it was clearly inside the box from my position in the CFS, but I saw the replays on Sky and then MotD and I wasn't so certain and then saw that image on social media.

My question wasn't really about whether it was a penalty or not because we cant change it, but whether VAR do actually do check for the ball crossing the line on the edge of the area or not. I know they have the check for players across the pitch but I wasn't sure if the tech can detect up and down the pitch as would be needed in this instance.

I do suspect as you allude to CT that the check will have been done but it was certainly a lot closer than I first thought.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 15, 2025 11:33 am

I think this one has been cleared up in this thread. There was no offence and the goal rightly stood.

What do the rules say about where a player can’t stand from a PK? Presumably they at least need to be behind the ball?

Appreciate there’s no major advantage if you can’t touch the ball from a saved PK, but could a player go and stand next to the penalty spot without the ref blowing?

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:15 am

What do the rules say about where a player can’t stand from a PK? Presumably they at least need to be behind the ball?

Appreciate there’s no major advantage if you can’t touch the ball from a saved PK, but could a player go and stand next to the penalty spot without the ref blowing?

I once saw a penalty at Colne (one of those will-he wont-he run-ups) where an attacker was so far into the penalty area that I thought he might be offside. That'd be a first! It wasn't disallowed, though it should have been under the old rules.

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:15 am

What do the rules say about where a player can’t stand from a PK? Presumably they at least need to be behind the ball?

Appreciate there’s no major advantage if you can’t touch the ball from a saved PK, but could a player go and stand next to the penalty spot without the ref blowing?

The laws say players have to be behind the penalty spot, outside the area and at least ten yards away before the kick is taken but that encroachment by an attacking player is only penalised if it clearly impacted the keeper or the player scores/sets up a goal from from the rebound. The only part of the rule that will change when they get rid of rebounds is that last bit, although there’ll be no point in encroaching anyway.

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:15 am

What do the rules say about where a player can’t stand from a PK? Presumably they at least need to be behind the ball?

Appreciate there’s no major advantage if you can’t touch the ball from a saved PK, but could a player go and stand next to the penalty spot without the ref blowing?

All players (other than the taker and goalkeeper) must be ten yards from the ball and behind it (i.e. outside the penalty box and D) before the referee signals for it to be taken.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:25 am

The laws say players have to be behind the penalty spot, outside the area and at least ten yards away before the kick is taken but that encroachment by an attacking player is only penalised if it clearly impacted the keeper or the player scores/sets up a goal from from the rebound. The only part of the rule that will change when they get rid of rebounds is that last bit, although there’ll be no point in encroaching anyway.

It will be interesting to see when the ball actually becomes 'dead' with this totally uneccessary rebound rule.
We've seen cases where the keeper's saved the initial shot, the balls gone up in the air, down, and bounced back over the line with the backspin.
Will the ref blow before it comes down, thus preventing the goal?
What if it comes down and hits the keeper before it goes in, will that also be chalked off?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 9:46 am

That check will have been done. From what I've seen of it from TV coverage since, it's close, but it does look inside the box.

I watched it on TV, and it looked a penalty immediately, and the replays shown from every angle seem to back it up. I've no complaints about it at all.

According to some scousers on social media, Frimpong's feet aren't actually touching the ground in the penalty area.
He's 'floating' therefore no encroachment.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:02 pm

https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4079735

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

Just suppose the penalty had been saved and the encroaching player player scored from say a rebound what then?

Juan Tanamera wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 2:26 pm

According to some scousers on social media, Frimpong's feet aren't actually touching the ground in the penalty area.
He's 'floating' therefore no encroachment.

The picture does actually show him in the air.

Stayingup wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 2:45 pm

Just suppose the penalty had been saved and the encroaching player player scored from say a rebound what then?

Then it's a free kick to the defending team

Using the Brian Clough comment if hes not interfering with play hes not getting paid.
For me if you are a goalkeeper facing a penalty and 2 people are running in at you that must interfere with your eye sight and you decision making. Whilst it makes no difference its been and gone I think if an attacking player other than the actual penalty taker enters the box it should be ruled no goal free kick to defending team. Its bad enough that our keeper had to put up with a Liverpool player leaping up and down waving his arms as Salah took the kick just to one side obviously done to put the keeper off

Talking about clutching at straws. It was a clear penalty and he was inside the box.

Dubravka was going to dive to his left but saw Frimpong charging at him and was worried about tripping him and conceding a penalty, so he changed course to his right which resulted in Salah's penalty nestling into an unguarded net.

Juan Tanamera wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 16, 2025 2:26 pm

According to some scousers on social media, Frimpong's feet aren't actually touching the ground in the penalty area.
He's 'floating' therefore no encroachment.

By that logic, it's not a handball, as he was floating and therefore wasn't actually in the box

pureclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:21 am

Using the Brian Clough comment if hes not interfering with play hes not getting paid.
For me if you are a goalkeeper facing a penalty and 2 people are running in at you that must interfere with your eye sight and you decision making. Whilst it makes no difference its been and gone I think if an attacking player other than the actual penalty taker enters the box it should be ruled no goal free kick to defending team. Its bad enough that our keeper had to put up with a Liverpool player leaping up and down waving his arms as Salah took the kick just to one side obviously done to put the keeper off

It was Bill Nicholson and it was a bilge argument. He can't have been literal unless he had given no thought at all to it.

deleted, duplicate post.

dsr wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:58 pm

It was Bill Nicholson and it was a bilge argument. He can't have been literal unless he had given no thought at all to it.

its down as a Brian Clough remark that I remember and when looked at on the internet says BC but not to say others may have said before or after but BC is the most famous one according to Wiki and google.

ChrisG wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 18, 2025 2:15 pm

By that logic, it's not a handball, as he was floating and therefore wasn't actually in the box

Probably the better logic is that handball in the penalty area is an offence, encroaching into the penalty area isn’t, so it really doesn’t matter where the Liverpool player was.

pureclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 19, 2025 7:10 am

its down as a Brian Clough remark that I remember and when looked at on the internet says BC but not to say others may have said before or after but BC is the most famous one according to Wiki and google.

https://www.scmp.com/sport/soccer/artic ... side-rules

I think it's attributed to Clough in the same way as so many cricket quotes are attributed to Fred Trueman. It sounds like the thing he might have said, so it adds to the character.

Goody1975 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:50 pm

Slightly off topic but relating to your point about players 'cheating'. If you want to stop diving/simulation.

Post game

First offence is a warning
Second offence is a one game ban
Third offence is a two game ban

Kerkez should now be on an official warning and any subsequent misdemeanors should see him missing games, just maybe when we see managers telling players to go down, they'll be less likely to encourage them to do it if they aren't available for selection.

I'd go further 2 game ban on the first offence and then the re start is a corner for the opposition. Players that dive do it in or around the penalty area. In the weekends game for example giving us a free kick in our own area allowed Liverpool to press us high up the pitch. Now imagine if not only is the player now facing a 2 match ban he has also turned defence into attack for the opposition. Players would soon self police it.

beddie wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:28 am

Talking about clutching at straws. It was a clear penalty and he was inside the box.

This is not about where Hannibal was at the time of the offence, but where Frimpong was when Salah took the penalty. Under the current laws, he hasn't committed an offence but would have potentially done had the penalty been saved or come back off the woodwork.