If you really are applying the letter of the law in this petty way that you want, then the FIRST offence is by Rice, who, according to Rule 13 should be at least 9.15m(10yards) from the ball..
=========
Alas, the rule states:
but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue.

firstly, Rice didnt intercept it.

Ask yourself this. Do you think Rice, an Arsenal player, thought the FK had been taken. When that ball rolled passed his foot, did he act like a player who thought the FK was taken and the ball was in play? Do you think his defence to the ref was "he had taken the FK"

Anyone non-gooooner can see that the FK was given. The BHA player tapped the ball forward as he got up to steal a couple yards (and may be even deliberately trying to get Rice in trouble for interfering), went to kick the ball and Rice kicked it away.

Its harsh on Rice to get a 2nd for this but he deliberately kicked it away, when in his mind the ball wasnt active/in play, and its harsh because it seems slightly engineered by the BHA player, but Rice was a fool to get suckered in, do what he did and give the ref an option to strictly apply the time wasting rule.

Rice acted like he was surprised the ball hit him and flicked at it after it had hit him. He didn't know if the free kick had been taken as he had his back to it.

But that is all irrelevant as by the letter of the law the game had restarted.

By the way - may be even deliberately trying to get Rice in trouble for interfering - is an offence in Law 12. Another mitigating factor that should have resulted in the ref taking a different action.

You cannot go "letter of the law" and then add in your own bits about stealing yards when that goes against the letter of the law.

So you are doubling down on the BHA has taken that freekick, it hits Rice who then kicks it out for a throwing and is then caught late by the BHA player.

Good to know you have such a logical and in-depth understanding of the game

The law literally states that the free-kick was taken.
You want to keep adding caveats to the laws

Yellow card for Rice for obstructing and not being the requisite distance from the ball.

Fair enough. Laws of the game applied with the same degree of pettiness.

Law 13:
if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue.

He didn't intercept it

???????

You know the difference between an interception and block, right? Do you need to consult the laws of the game for that too, or do you understand football?

You are literally saying he was booked for purposely kicking the ball away, that isn't a block.

No, I am not. I am saying Rice didnt intercept the ball, it hit him, thus the "play on" bit of the rules you quoted does not apply.

The ball hit Rice, it's not an interception, thus it is failing to retreat etc and an offence...if you are applying the rules in your petty way.

IFAB even go on to say "the player took a risk (to gain an advantage) by taking the free kick when an opponent was still within 9.15 m".

Rice was retreating, and was already a good few yards from where the foul took place.

You really think the rules say a player can deliberately intercept a pass from less than 10 yards, but if they are retreating and the ball hits (thus intercepting it) then it is a yellow?

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
You really think the rules say a player can deliberately intercept a pass from less than 10 yards, but if they are retreating and the ball hits (thus intercepting it) then it is a yellow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

DO you really think the rules mean that where a player moves the ball with his feet to place it for a freekick, then he is deemed to have taken the free kick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Both require a degree of common sense and judgement and the vast majority of people watching that incident would not have judged the BHA player to have taken the free kick, and nor would they have judged Rice, a couple meters away, to have deliberately blocked it. The BHA player is trying to knick a few yards, it hits Rice and falls at his feet, he reacts not by taking control of the ball as he believes its in play, but by poking it away.

"an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play."

Booking Rice wasnt applying the letter of the law, it was applying the law. Its B&W, he kicked the ball away to stop the FK and you'd expect anyone to be treated the same (consistency being a different issue)

To claim that the BHA had technically taken the FK would be applying the letter of the law in an extremely finicky way, and in a way that if repeated with every throwing FK, GK decision etc would aggravate viewers/fans.

Everyone can see what happened here and most would agree the ref should have dealt with it differently as there was a bit of kidology going on but his judgement was that the FK hadnt been taken, Rice hadnt deliberately blocked it but he had deliberately poked it away. Not sure how anyone can disagree with it really. How he then deals with it is more debateable. You don't want to see reds for such petty things.

Wow! the mental gymnastics of Devonshirespur is amazing

comment by Passion Power - Make 1984 fiction again (U8398)
posted 6 minutes ago
Wow! the mental gymnastics of Devonshirespur is amazing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

say the fans who thinks the the BHA had taken the freekick

The ball:

must be stationary and the kicker must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player

is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves

The laws are "finicky" when it suits though

"The law has to be applied, he has no choice".
"The law is finicky, he can pick and choose when to apply it".

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
The laws are "finicky" when it suits though
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So many small incidents are ignored in favour of letting games flow. You sound like you expect every FK retaken if it wasnt on the precise spot the foul took place or a throwing exactly where it went out, not an inch either way.

If these moments were enforced in this way, we'd all be balling out the ref for being petty.

SO yes, not being overly finicky in the way a game is reffed may not be "to the absolute letter of the law" but to most fans & players it's accepted and welcomed practice, so long as it isn't abused.

To suggest the BHA player took the freekick is like saying a player who underarms a throwing to another player to take has committed a foul throw. Technically he has, but everyone can see he's not attempting to take the throw just giving it to someone else.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 20 minutes ago
"The law has to be applied, he has no choice".
"The law is finicky, he can pick and choose when to apply it".
----------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, These are know as quotation marks "".

They are punctuation marks used to identify direct speech and quotations. So not used appropriately by you here

What an uppity little caaant.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago


What an uppity little caaant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well don't try and make out I said things i didn't, you bullshiitter

Fancy being so finicky about punctuation on an internet forum


BTW, it is throw-in not "throwing".