"did he touch the ball before it went over"

[Subutai]

These are players who routinely miss 20m targets under no pressure. The idea that they can snap the ball out of a congested situation on their wrong foot and bounce it deliberately over the boundary 50m away is frankly ludicrous.

exactly

 

[Zgope1]

i feel that the fact he clearly mishit the ball off the instep and it was a very non deliberate connection he made with the ball is being understated in this thread

 

[MrKK]

You can't just 'do what you like' when you have possession of the football. You can't throw it, for example. You can do what you like with the football within the laws of the game.

If you kick it out with the explicit intention of buying more time to set up your defensive zone, you're acting outside the rules and, dare I say it, the spirit of the game.

From the Laws of the Game


Time wasting itself is defined as when the umpire is of the opinion the player is unnecessarily causing a delay in play. So that's a subjective call - but you would be penalised a free kick for the initial offence (out of bounds on the full) and then a fifty on top of it because of the egregious time wasting (hoofing it into the second tier).

The tense of 'engages' is important as it refers to actions after the free kick has been awarded. Adding a 50m in the case in question would be punishing twice for a single action.

 

[d33my]

The tense of 'engages' is important as it refers to actions after the free kick has been awarded. Adding a 50m in the case in question would be punishing twice for a single action.

I see where you're coming from.

But being penalised twice for one action isn't without precedent, especially if it has the potential to become a loophole for a 'professional' foul.

One that gets paid more regularly is if a defending player arrives late to a marking contest and strikes the marking player in the arms (causing the ball to be dropped) and head (causing the player to go down). The umpire will award the free kick (for chopping the arms, or high contact - whichever, really) and a fifty - punishing for 'one' act but essentially imposing a double penalty to stop teams from employing it as a tactic.

I don't think any umpire would hesitate to call time wasting and impose a fifty if the offense was as blatant as kicking the ball into the second tier. And rightly so.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

I see where you're coming from.

But being penalised twice for one action isn't without precedent, especially if it has the potential to become a loophole for a 'professional' foul.

One that gets paid more regularly is if a defending player arrives late to a marking contest and strikes the marking player in the arms (causing the ball to be dropped) and head (causing the player to go down). The umpire will award the free kick (for chopping the arms, or high contact - whichever, really) and a fifty - punishing for 'one' act but essentially imposing a double penalty to stop teams from employing it as a tactic.

I don't think any umpire would hesitate to call time wasting and impose a fifty if the offense was as blatant as kicking the ball into the second tier. And rightly so.

The comparison is void - in that you make one action - the kick - when the ball is in play, and you are technically then penalised twice.

I cannot think of any rule/instance where the player in possession of the ball is penalised for his actions with a 50 metre penalty.

 

[Subutai]

people (radio) complaining McIntosh slowed down, and choose to let the ball go over the line ...

there is no rule saying he has to pick up the ball, is there?

once again, he only did this, cause he could tell the umpire was paying 'last touch, the other side gets the free kick' all game.

kreuzer has 4 blokes hanging off him, he kicked if in a pack 60 meters off the side of his foot, the ball is oval shaped and can bounce anywhere. ridiculous.