Kenny M just sent me this lovely video re deception in soccer.  Enjoy.



    1. mm, yes, it would be *exactly* like that, wouldn’t it – which is why nobody in Britain ever, ever, ever calls it “football”. Well said.

    2. We were calling it soccer at school, in the UK, back when I was young, and that’s a few years, believe me. The claim that the term is an American invention is utter nonsense.

    3. The OED has ‘soccer’ as Oxford slang from ‘aSOCCiation Football”. The first known use of the word ‘football’ was in 1424.

    4. I’ve always called it football but known out to be called soccer as well. Please advise why teams compete for the FA Cup in Britain and not the SA Cup.

    5. In the eighties I used to buy Soccer magazine. Football is a term which covered numerous sports (indeed Rugby football was the first one to be organised) and soccer is fine.

      I am not saying that you should not call it football, merely that you should not shout at anyone for saying ‘soccer’ either, both are fine. Neither is American.

  1. Not familiar with the nuances of the rules but didn’t the fourth guy touch the ball slightly as he passed? Wouldn’t that negate the kick?

    1. No, it wouldn’t negate the kick IMHO. Often in similar circumstances a ball may be passed sideways to be kicked so the striker has a different angle and can bypass the wall (and you can’t score from an indirect free-kick without someone else touching the ball). As soon as the ball is touched the opposition can move closer than the 10 yards (Q. 10 yards – is it metres on the continent?) hence why one chap runs out.
      Although someone can perhaps confirm how much the ball has to move to be deemed ‘in play’ – in this case it moved slightly.

    2. In fact the fourth guy touching the ball is actually essential. That’s because this is what is called an indirect free kick, and you can’t score directly from it without touching another person. Indeed, if it was a direct kick in the penalty area, then there would have been no “wall” of defenders as only the penalty taker and the goal keeper would have been allowed within the area. Normally indirect kicks close to the goal like this involve the taker gently nudging the ball sideways to another player running in to try and score.

      However, I thought there were guideline rules about excessive dummies like this, with people running over the ball, but I may be wrong and implementations may vary.

  2. Previous commentators have made heavy weather of describing what is happening here. It is quite simple, Please allow me to finish.

    The game is a game called Football played popularly all over the world. It is also sometimes called a Football Match. It can also be called Soccer which is short for Soccer Match.

    The players of the team facing the left (our left) have been awarded a Penalty. Confusingly perhaps that does not mean they are the team that has been penalised, Instead they are the team that has been compensated for a Penalty scored by another team, usually the opponents.

    A Penalty is a special type of Goal Kick that (like the usual Goal Kick which is awarded only to the Goal Keeper) must be kicked away from the nearest goal. (The third type of Penalty called a Free Kick or sometimes a Kick Off may be kicked towards either goal).

    Now because they are not allowed to kick towards the goal this Penalty free kick would seem to be a waste – like being awarded community service because your car was stolen. The point of the game is to kick the ball towards the goal until it (the ball) goes in.

    So therefore the players jumping over the ball play a little tactic. One of them kicks the free ball (which confusingly unlike in the similarly named snooker must be the one ball in play) so that a following player can actually kick the ball towards the goal.

    I think some commentators have been confused because there actually is another goal (often called a Goal Mouth) at the other end of the playing field but it is not visible in the video clip.

    1. @Phil. Your example is from a different game altogether. It is a game often called American Football.

      That game is like Rugby except the players wear lots of padding and stop to watch advertisements every 45 seconds.

      In your example the player is pretending to carry the ball out of play when in fact it is in play. This is the opposite of a ploy sometimes used in another game (Golf) where the player (or “Golfer”) carries a hidden spare ball in a pocket and discovers it later. It is hard to spot this type of play at the professional level of Golf as they have survelliance cameras filming everything for the TV.

  3. Nice goal but is actually unlawful.
    The third man touch is deliberate in order to allow the fourth man to score (or take consecutive touches, ie to allow the ball to be in play from an indirect free-kick) but his touch was insufficient. The reason is, contrary to popular wisdom, it is not just a touch that is required, but actually the touch must be significant enough to make the ball roll the distance of one circumference, only then is the ball in play! So an adequate referee would have disallowed this goal!
    Apropos the discussion on American views of soccer/ football, I once saw a free-kick awarded in the box, which meant it could only be indirect (ie requires to be put into play before a goal can be scored), but the girl ran up and whacked it into the top corner! The ref gave the goal! But if it had been a direct free kick then it would have been a penalty, as that is what a penalty is defined by – as a direct free kick in the box, with added restrictions on placement of other players. Note direct free-kicks don’t have to be shot at goal, even if a penalty, as famously shown by Cruyff once who passed his penalty to a teammate who rushed into the box.

    1. sorry, but contrary to popular wisdom (sic) the ball just has to move – it doesn’t have to move the distance of a circumference “The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves”

      Remember the Pires / Henry penalty fiasco?

      but note also …”Feinting to take a free kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of
      football. However, if in the opinion of the referee, the feinting is considered an
      act of unsporting behaviour, the player must be cautioned.”

    2. In reply to CHRISR on May 16, 2014 at 8:53

      Aha, ok interesting! And I stand corrected! Thanks for the proof.
      I guess they don’t define ‘moves’ then. Maybe they used to. There was a goal in Scotland when I was growing up between rangers and hearts I think and the ref disallowed the free-kick for this reason, or the pundits at least said he should have.
      Re the unsporting behaviour, I like that in football the ref has that discretion. In a professional six a side tournament once (again in Scotland) the ref penalised Celtic for unsporting play because they were bit a cricket trying to score! The opponents (Motherwell I think) took the free kick and scored!

    1. 😀
      I do think penalty takers who stop in their run up to see which way the goalkeeper is going should be penalised for unfair play!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s