Lying down behind the wall

[HalfCutNinja]

Should surely be outlawed?

An attacking player should simply go and stand right next to the player lying down's head. Then as soon as the ball is kicked and its in play that's an indirect free-kick to the attacking team for dangerous play. 

This fad is farcical and surely should be banned.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Should surely be outlawed?

An attacking player should simply go and stand right next to the player lying down's head. Then as soon as the ball is kicked and its in play that's an indirect free-kick to the attacking team for dangerous play. 

This fad is farcical and surely should be banned.

I agree it's daft and doesn't really achieve anything, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

Dangerous play is about endangering other people, there's nothing against endangering yourself. Attacking players aren't allowed with 1m of the wall,, so as soon as an attacking player stood next to his head that would be a foul by the attacker.

[BFTD]

It'll disappear after the first time the ball ricochets back into play off the frame/keeper, and the entire wall are unable to react because they've cack-handedly tripped over the draught excluder lying behind them. Fully expecting this to happen during the Euros at some point.

Speaking of set-piece gimmicks, the 1994 World Cup was particularly bad for direct free-kicks, with every team battering the ball straight into the wall or high and wide. Romania (I think) caused mass confusion by adopting the revolutionary tactic of passing the ball to an unmarked player to the side of the wall  

[Benjamin_Nevis]

3 minutes ago, BFTD said:

It'll disappear after the first time the ball ricochets back into play off the frame/keeper, and the entire wall are unable to react because they've cack-handedly tripped over the draught excluder lying behind them. Fully expecting this to happen during the Euros at some point.

Speaking of set-piece gimmicks, the 1994 World Cup was particularly bad for direct free-kicks, with every team battering the ball straight into the wall or high and wide. Romania (I think) caused mass confusion by adopting the revolutionary tactic of passing the ball to an unmarked player to the side of the wall  

I preferred their other tactic of all getting the exact same haircut and bleach it blond, thereby reducing any commentators from other countries to absolute wrecks. The only decent FK I remember from that WC was Branco's glorious 35 yard worm-burner against the Netherlands. 

[HalfCutNinja]

5 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I agree it's daft and doesn't really achieve anything, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

Dangerous play is about endangering other people, there's nothing against endangering yourself. Attacking players aren't allowed with 1m of the wall,, so as soon as an attacking player stood next to his head that would be a foul by the attacker.

No its not, if you dive so low someone can kick you in the head to win a header that's dangerous play and a foul against you.

Also that must be a new rule, for all of football history its been standard practice for an attacking team to often put someone on the end of the wall and they move when its struck. I've never heard of that rule before.

 

Dangerous play btw

“Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.” The Dutch FA (KNVB) gives even “low header” as example of endangering your own safety.

So lying on the ground is definitely dangerous play. I've remembered this rule my whole life as a friend got knocked out getting kicked in the head when we were kids and was booked for it, we were outraged until it was explained to us that's dangerous play. He dived for a head but his foot was about six inches off the ground when he got kicked, so its actually his fault and a foul against him.

 

Edited to add

Also even if the one metre rule is true, the guy lying on the ground isn't part of the wall, and is already almost half a metre behind it. So an attacker could be about 70cm from him, as soon as its kicked is entitled to move towards him. But may feel impeded from trying to take part in play incase he injures the guy on the ground.

Ergo that's dangerous play and shouldn't be allowed, and is an automatic indirect free kick to the attacking team. Its an oversight by officials to a new trend, and something they should correct immediately.

Edited April 10, 2021 by HalfCutNinja

[Deanburn Dave]

If there are three players or more in a defensive wall then an offensive player cannot stand within a meter of the wall. That fairly recent rule change stops all the argy bargy pushing and shoving. What's less clear to me is whether or not the person who is the draught excluder is classed as part of the wall.

[RandomGuy.]

6 hours ago, BFTD said:

It'll disappear after the first time the ball ricochets back into play off the frame/keeper, and the entire wall are unable to react because they've cack-handedly tripped over the draught excluder lying behind them. Fully expecting this to happen during the Euros at some point.

Speaking of set-piece gimmicks, the 1994 World Cup was particularly bad for direct free-kicks, with every team battering the ball straight into the wall or high and wide. Romania (I think) caused mass confusion by adopting the revolutionary tactic of passing the ball to an unmarked player to the side of the wall  

It'll end when one of them gets a ball skelped off the back of their head, I'd imagine.

[vikingTON]

I've got no problem with it but what boils my pish without fail is when teams at a crap level of football (see Championship, Scottish - though the Premiership qualifies for this as well) refuse to put a man on the post at a free-kick from 25 yards out or less and rely on their diddy goalkeeper to gormlessly try - and fail - to cover the entire length of his goal. 

The opposition is not 2010 Barcelona and is not going to play some intricate pass and move routine to take advantage of being onside. They're going to put a shot over or around your wall.

See also men not on posts at corners. An absolute piece of nonsense. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by vikingTON

[invergowrie arab]

22 minutes ago, virginton said:

I've got no problem with it but what boils my pish without fail is when teams at a crap level of football (see Championship, Scottish - though the Premiership qualifies for this as well) refuse to put a man on the post at a free-kick from 25 yards out or less and rely on their diddy goalkeeper to gormlessly try - and fail - to cover the entire length of his goal. 

The opposition is not 2010 Barcelona and is not going to play some intricate pass and move routine to take advantage of being onside. They're going to put a shot over or around your wall.

See also men not on posts at corners. An absolute piece of nonsense. 

I have seen Livi concede at least three times this season from a free kick a Sunday league player could execute. Raith in the cup being the most recent example.

[vikingTON]

32 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

I have seen Livi concede at least three times this season from a free kick a Sunday league player could execute. Raith in the cup being the most recent example.

And a coach should have been sacked on the spot for each one of them. 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

I've got no problem with it but what boils my pish without fail is when teams at a crap level of football (see Championship, Scottish - though the Premiership qualifies for this as well) refuse to put a man on the post at a free-kick from 25 yards out or less and rely on their diddy goalkeeper to gormlessly try - and fail - to cover the entire length of his goal. 

The opposition is not 2010 Barcelona and is not going to play some intricate pass and move routine to take advantage of being onside. They're going to put a shot over or around your wall.

See also men not on posts at corners. An absolute piece of nonsense. 

wait if I'm picturing this scenario right - is the problem not that they aren't going to need to do an intricate pass and move routine to score from the free kick, if you bring someone back onto the post and play everyone onside at the set piece the attacking team just have to either

i) shoot anyway but now anyone following in for a rebound is going to be doing so from far closer in/far less likely to be offside + the keepers vision is going to be poorer due to having multiple bodies right in front of them edit: also means favourable deflections into the net are more likely no?

or

ii) the opposition now also have the option to float the ball into the area pretty directly, so you're now relying on your diddy keeper convincingly dealing with a cross in a congested 6 yard box instead of fielding a long distance shot, which means a stramash is a far more likely outcome?

Edited April 10, 2021 by Thistle_do_nicely