For those who can’t see the double touch..

BoroBen92 said:
No.
I think almost every single professional footballer will be fully aware of the backpass rule, but I've seen with my own eyes players baffled when punished for it.
You might argue that they were baffled because they didn't think it was a backpass, but there's still confusion.

I am arguing that some players might be unaware that a penalty penalised for an immediate double touch from a slip on the spot results in a free-kick to the other team though, rather than a retake, as it's such a rare occurrence.
Click to expand...
If you have seen players sometimes looked baffled when pulled up for the backpass law can I suggest it’s a case of a footballer “who me syndrome” This syndrome also seems to appear when they clearly kick the ball out of play but appeal for the throw in anyway.
 
Tav’s should have just ran away and celebrated the goal. If he had, the referee would have probably given it. The fact he didn’t celebrate then looked sheepishly at the referee, in my opinion, made it easy for the referee to disallow the goal.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
If you have seen players sometimes looked baffled when pulled up for the backpass law can I suggest it’s a case of a footballer “who me syndrome” This syndrome also seems to appear when they clearly kick the ball out of play but appeal for the throw in anyway.
Click to expand...
Exactly players looking baffled at the ref is part of their weekly training plan
 
How many times? - I haven’t been keeping a tally.

By the sounds of it, maybe it happens approximately every 700 games.

The reason it didn’t get flagged up 16 years ago, was because the ref didn’t pick up on it. But if it was I don’t know what else you’d expect to happen, why would it be re-taken because the attacking player messed it up, when else is something re-taken because the player with the advantage messed it up. The only other times a free kick / penalty is re-taken is when the penalised team gains an unfair adavantage, I.e player closes free kick taker down before penalty was taken or keeper comes off his line etc,

I don’t read the match reports for youth games, maybe they wouldn’t mention it, maybe it hadn’t happened.
 
BoroBen92 said:
In fact, before today, the only incident I can remember where the goal has been disallowed was Mahrez for Leicester.

A quick Google and the majority of results are goals give that should have been disallowed.
Click to expand...

Yeah because the ref doesn’t usually spot them. There is usually a conversation with the commentators or post match pundits saying how the goal shouldn’t have been allowed.
 
sambaDTR said:
Tav’s should have just ran away and celebrated the goal. If he had, the referee would have probably given it. The fact he didn’t celebrate then looked sheepishly at the referee, in my opinion, made it easy for the referee to disallow the goal.
Click to expand...
I thought from the pictures the ref blew straight away so he didn’t have time to celebrate or indeed as you suggest try to influence the decision.
 
Heam44 said:
How many times? - I haven’t been keeping a tally.

By the sounds of it, maybe it happens approximately every 700 games.

The reason it didn’t get flagged up 16 years ago, was because the ref didn’t pick up on it. But if it was I don’t know what else you’d expect to happen, why would it be re-taken because the attacking player messed it up, when else is something re-taken because the player with the advantage messed it up. The only other times a free kick / penalty is re-taken is when the penalised team gains an unfair adavantage, I.e player closes free kick taker down before penalty was taken or keeper comes off his line etc,

I don’t read the match reports for youth games, maybe they wouldn’t mention it, maybe it hadn’t happened.
Click to expand...

I think they did a TV spot about Zenden's and said it should (at worst) have been retaken due to the fact the then rule (law?) was that the ball had to travel it's own circumference to be in play.

There was an argument that there was no specific rule about hitting it with both feet before it was in play so a retake wasn't necessary but had it been disallowed it would have been retaken.

They've changed that rule to 'obviously moving' which is probably easier for the ref (but less black and white in the age of VAR).


EDIT: Just looked at the laws through history and the circumference thing changed in 1997. It was changed again in 2016 to "clearly moving" from just "moving".

Zenden got lucky; Tav didn't. These things even out (50/50 so far) and I know which one I'd prefer to have gone our way.
 
Last edited:
Scrote said:
I think they did a TV spot about Zenden's and said it should (at worst) have been retaken due to the fact the then rule (law?) was that the ball had to travel it's own circumference to be in play.

There was an argument that there was no specific rule about hitting it with both feet before it was in play so a retake wasn't necessary but had it been disallowed it would have been retaken.

They've changed that rule to 'obviously moving' which is probably easier for the ref (but less black and white in the age of VAR).


EDIT: Just looked at the laws through history and the circumference thing changed in 1997. It was changed again in 2016 to "clearly moving" from just "moving".

Zenden got lucky; Tav didn't. These things even out (50/50 so far) and I know which one I'd prefer to have gone our way.
Click to expand...

Interesting, never knew about the circumference thing.

Agree regarding the “one which one I’d prefer”!!!
 
rob_fmttm said:
As I said earlier the next morning ref Mike Riley was quoting the law as to why Zenden's was a good goal when queried by my dad and Boro fans at his hotel.
Regardless of the law yesterday looked like a one touch penalty to me.
Click to expand...
Scrote posted yesterday that the circumference rule changed in 1997.

Definitely, 100% was a two touch penalty. I genuinely can’t believe people are still doubting it despite numerous other Boro fans stating that they can see it. Why would they make it up?
 
Heam44 said:
Someone posted yesterday that the circumference rule changed in 1997.

Definitely, 100% was a two touch penalty. I genuinely can’t believe people are still doubting it despite numerous other Boro fans stating that they can see it. Why would they make it up?
Click to expand...

Because the people doubting it can't see the second touch?
A touch that apparently is 100% clear but nobody seems to have any clear footage of it happening.

Touch or no touch, numerous Boro fans are wrong, so that's an argument that doesn't hold water.
 
BoroBen92 said:
Because the people doubting it can't see it?
None of the numerous clips people have posted seem to show the second touch.
The closest I've seen

Touch or no touch, numerous Boro fans are wrong, so that's an argument that doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

It’s not a rubbish argument at all. If you can’t see it you need to ask yourself, what is more likely?

Are numerous Boro fans lying to say that they can see something when they can’t.

Or is just that I can’t see it.
 
Heam44 said:
It’s not a rubbish argument at all. If you can’t see it you need to ask yourself, what is more likely?

Are numerous Boro fans lying to say that they can see something when they can’t.

Or is just that I can’t see it.
Click to expand...
It's not just me not seeing it.
Dozens of fans on this forum can't see it.

I'm more inclined to believe that numerous Boro fans think they can see something they can't, given how many times I've watched the clip in zoomed in slow motion and not seen it.
 
Heam44 said:
Have you seen this angle on the sky sports highlights?

www.skysports.com

Middlesbrough 0-1 Norwich City: Teemu Pukki hits winner as Boro pay the penalty

Teemu Pukki emerged from the bench to hit the winner to lift Norwich top of the Sky Bet Championship with a 1-0 win at Middlesbrough.
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
That video clearly shows there was no double kick. So the video supports your post title. For those who can't see a double touch, here is the video that confirms it. Thanks for the confirmation.
 
the law needs to be changed, and the correct outcome should have been a re-take, its patently absurd you can lose an advantge you have won because of a foul when all you have done is slip due to
Poor conditions, it's not as if Tav purposely slipped and deliberatley hit it twice to fool the keeper

Not that i think the referee had enough evidence to see clearly a double kick, people saying 'he was aiming for this and it went that way etc', yeah, cos he slipped , the act of slipping
Threw of his intended target area

Just another nonsense law, bit like half the handball penalties that seem to be given these days, penalized for something you have no control over
 
BoroBen92 said:
It's not just me not seeing it.
Dozens of fans on this forum can't see it.
Click to expand...

And dozens can see it.

Again ask yourself:

Is it more likely that dozens of people are lying that they can see it?

Or that dozens of people just can’t see it?

Bearing in mind that the average age of the the site is probably 50+ and therefore most of the users eyesight will have diminished over the years.
 
It’s clear there is a second touch. The ball spins in a way it only would if there was a second touch. Can’t believe people can’t see it. On the clips on quest last night was clear as day. Can’t stand Mr Harrington but he got it right.
 
bear66 said:
That video clearly shows there was no double kick. So the video supports your post title. For those who can't see a double touch, here is the video that confirms it. Thanks for the confirmation.
Click to expand...

I’ve posted this on another thread:

Genuinely can’t believe people still think he hasn’t touched it twice.

Despite numerous other Boro fans stating they can clearly see the 2nd touch.

Numerous people pointing out the changing trajectory of the ball.

Numerous people stating the ball was clearly heading towards the bottom right corner / or keepers left before the 2nd touch changes the trajectory towards the middle of the goal. (Even the way Tav ‘shapes’ his left foot as he kicks it shows he has aimed it bottom right).

The fact that Tav (and the rest of the Boro players) barely protest. If he hadn’t of kicked it twice the whole team would have been going crazy.

The fact that Warnock would definitely have said something about it (other than a joke, about a linesman)

There’s even people on this thread accusing others of trying to be clever and lying because others can see a 2nd touch and they can’t.

There’s even people asking why we couldn’t take it again!

If you can’t see it, ask yourself the below questions:

Do I wear glasses?

Have I been meaning to go to the opticians because I’m wondering why if my eyesight is getting worse?

Am I 50+ and therefore of the age whereby my eyesight is naturally getting worse?
Is it strange that multiple other fans have stated that they can clearly see the 2nd touch?

If I (and others can’t see it) but plenty of other people can, is it more likely that I just can’t see it (as opposed to multiple other Boro fans forming a conspiracy to state that they can see it for no reason at all)?

If you find yourself answering yes to the above, it’s time to accept that it happened and you just can’t see it.

Apologies for the rant but it’s doing my head in that people are still saying they can’t see it despite numerous others stating they can.
 
Block21 said:
It’s clear there is a second touch. The ball spins in a way it only would if there was a second touch. Can’t believe people can’t see it. On the clips on quest last night was clear as day. Can’t stand Mr Harrington but he got it right.
Click to expand...

I think that's because he's kicked his own foot as he's connecting with the ball and altered the angle, not because he's kicked the ball twice.

Is the clip on Quest that is clear as day available?
 
Block21 said:
It’s clear there is a second touch. The ball spins in a way it only would if there was a second touch. Can’t believe people can’t see it. On the clips on quest last night was clear as day. Can’t stand Mr Harrington but he got it right.
Click to expand...
I'll watch on Quest but the movement of the ball is because he hit it with the laces on the top of the boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top