Stuart Attwell

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Hang on - maybe Chelsea did win the Champions League. John Terry did not deliberately kick the ball with his left foot just as he was trying to kick it with his right. It was clearly a mis-kick and therefore should have been retaken.

Nobody at all is saying it shouldn't have counted because it was a mis-kick, mainly because there's only only person here who seems to believe it was a mis-kick.

An equivalent would be a player repositioning the ball with his foot on the spot, and the referee deeming that was his penalty kick.

[Royal Rother]

Whether it was a mis-kick or repositioning by Turner, he still fcuked up and the ref did nothing wrong.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

His apparent nonchalance as Torres sprinted past him was not a natural instinctive reaction in that situation (you would at least twitch your head in a tiny moment of panic) it was born of a guilty conscience that he had fcuked up.

OK, maybe I've only been watching football 30 years or so, but in all that time I've never seen a player who's miskicked a pass pretend not to notice, allowing someone to score. It's a completely illogical reaction to the situation.

If, on the other hand, you didn't think there was any danger because the ball wasn't in play, that's exactly how you'd react.

I've also never seen a player try to play a 30 yard free kick with a casual flick off his heel.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Whether it was a mis-kick or repositioning by Turner, he still fcuked up and the ref did nothing wrong.

The ref's mistake was to not be watching.

It was the linesman who made the mistake in thinking the kick had been taken when it hadn't. The odds are he wasn't watching either.

[Royal Rother]

His apparent nonchalance as Torres sprinted past him was not a natural instinctive reaction in that situation (you would at least twitch your head in a tiny moment of panic) it was born of a guilty conscience that he had fcuked up.

OK, maybe I've only been watching football 30 years or so, but in all that time I've never seen a player who's miskicked a pass pretend not to notice, allowing someone to score. It's a completely illogical reaction to the situation.

If, on the other hand, you didn't think there was any danger because the ball wasn't in play, that's exactly how you'd react.

I've also never seen a player try to play a 30 yard free kick with a casual flick off his heel.

I understand most people don't get it. Reinforcing that isn't going to change my view.

I think one needs to have a slightly deeper understanding of human nature to be able to get to grips properly with what I am saying.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Whether it was a mis-kick or repositioning by Turner, he still fcuked up and the ref did nothing wrong.

The ref's mistake was to not be watching.

It was the linesman who made the mistake in thinking the kick had been taken when it hadn't. The odds are he wasn't watching either.

How was the kick not taken? The ball was in the right place, the ref had indicated that the kick should be taken, and the ball was kicked by the team awarded the kick.

What other criteria do you need?

[Hoop Blah]

If a ref has repositioned the ball where he wants the free kick taken you wouldn't then reposition it again - that's risking a yellow card at a dead ball and in a moment of relative calm in the match.

I don't necessarily disagree with you overall theory, but this bit is totally flawed. Players reposition the ball and try to gain 5-10 yards for a throw on almost every occassion.

[Royal Rother]

Yes, but that's when there is a perceived advantage to be gained.

[handbags_harris]

I think one needs to have a slightly deeper understanding of human nature to be able to get to grips properly with what I am saying.

What a ridiculously arrogant thing to say, insinuating that you know better than anyone else what an individual is thinking, emphasis on the word individual. How the hell do you know what Michael Turner was thinking at the moment his foot struck the ball?! People react differently to different circumstances, and if Turner felt that the kick wasn't taken then he had no reason to react, or indeed worry! And how do you explain the rest of the Sunderland team's reaction which was also to stand completely stock still???

[Royal Rother]

I am Michael Turner.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I think one needs to have a slightly deeper understanding of human nature to be able to get to grips properly with what I am saying.

What a ridiculously arrogant thing to say, insinuating that you know better than anyone else what an individual is thinking, emphasis on the word individual. How the hell do you know what Michael Turner was thinking at the moment his foot struck the ball?! People react differently to different circumstances, and if Turner felt that the kick wasn't taken then he had no reason to react, or indeed worry! And how do you explain the rest of the Sunderland team's reaction which was also to stand completely stock still???

It's precisely because of the difficulty in judging intentions for things like this that we have a law book.

Ball in right place + ref indicated to player to take kick + ball kicked by player from the correct team = kick taken. End of, as far as the laws of the game are concerned.

Once you allow the precedent of letting a team say "we hadn't really taken the kick" where does it end?

Same with a throw-in - as long as the right team takes it and the feet are in the right place it's taken if it slips out of the player,s hands into play. Saying "it slipped" isn't any defence.

[handbags_harris]

It's precisely because of the difficulty in judging intentions for things like this that we have a law book.

Ball in right place + ref indicated to player to take kick + ball kicked by player from the correct team = kick taken. End of, as far as the laws of the game are concerned.

Once you allow the precedent of letting a team say "we hadn't really taken the kick" where does it end?

Same with a throw-in - as long as the right team takes it and the feet are in the right place it's taken if it slips out of the player,s hands into play. Saying "it slipped" isn't any defence.

Svlad, we're always going on about referees interpreting the rules with both common sense and consistency. It is very very common, up until now, for a player to move the ball with his feet to either let another player take the kick, or to just adjust it's position, after the referee has signalled that play can resume.

And answer me this: in similar vein to the free kick, shouldn't Stuart Attwell have given foul throws for every time a player, retrieving a ball that had gone out of play, threw the ball to a team mate to take the throw who was approaching on the pitch? Common sense and consistency Svlad, common sense and consistency.

[cmonurz]

Not quite - whether the ball was in play would certainly be up for question if a player delivered the ball to another to take a throw-in using two hands, and thrown over his head. That was resemble an actual throw-in.

As it is, an under-arm chuck isn't a valid way to restart a match, so I don't think your comparison is relevant.

[Stranded]

It's precisely because of the difficulty in judging intentions for things like this that we have a law book.

Ball in right place + ref indicated to player to take kick + ball kicked by player from the correct team = kick taken. End of, as far as the laws of the game are concerned.

Once you allow the precedent of letting a team say "we hadn't really taken the kick" where does it end?

Same with a throw-in - as long as the right team takes it and the feet are in the right place it's taken if it slips out of the player,s hands into play. Saying "it slipped" isn't any defence.

Svlad, we're always going on about referees interpreting the rules with both common sense and consistency. It is very very common, up until now, for a player to move the ball with his feet to either let another player take the kick, or to just adjust it's position, after the referee has signalled that play can resume.

And answer me this: in similar vein to the free kick, shouldn't Stuart Attwell have given foul throws for every time a player, retrieving a ball that had gone out of play, threw the ball to a team mate to take the throw who was approaching on the pitch? Common sense and consistency Svlad, common sense and consistency.

You are right that it is very common for a player to move the ball with his feet but it is not common for a player to knock the ball back to a keeper who was still in his area from the spot where the kick should be taken - the kick was taken and I can completely see why there was also thought that the "intent" was there too as the ball had been kicked 10/15 yards back from the spot of the kick.

[Hoop Blah]

Yes, but that's when there is a perceived advantage to be gained.

Not sure I totally agree with that. Players are just a bit odd at times, and as much as anything it's just a show of defiance. Moreover, there's an advantage to having your keeper take a kick from 30 yards from goal as opposed to 50 yards from goal. At least a perceived one.

[Royal Rother]

Fair comment.

[Ian Royal]

Surely the only relevant things are:

Was the ball in the right place?
Had the Ref signalled play to continue?
Was the ball kicked?

The answer to all three certainly appears to be yes. If the ref had already called the free kick back for being taken too quickly / in the wrong place, what on earth was Turner doing kicking it from the correct place, back towards the keeper?

It's in the right place so leave it there for the keeper. If you're going to give it to the keeper, be a bit clever and pick it up, then get a yellow for trying to have it taken from the wrong place after you've been warned once already and pissing the ref off.

If you kick the ball when the ref has signalled play to restart and it's in the right place, then you have no one to blame but yourself if you get caught out, regardless of what your intention is. Such stupidity deserves punishment IMO.

[handbags_harris]

Not quite - whether the ball was in play would certainly be up for question if a player delivered the ball to another to take a throw-in using two hands, and thrown over his head. That was resemble an actual throw-in.

As it is, an under-arm chuck isn't a valid way to restart a match, so I don't think your comparison is relevant.

Whether or not the throwing of the ball to a team mate is a valid way to restart a match isn't my point at all. My point is that if the ball is thrown to a team mate who is within the pitch confines, in whatever manner, after the ball has exited the pitch, then that is play technically restarted whether the thrower meant to take the throw or not, in the same manner that Turner "took" the free kick. If the throw is illegal then throw direction reversed, if the throw is legal and is then handled then direct free kick. Exactly the same in my mind.