New style penalty taking, is it fair?

[Brin]

It's an infringement therefore a foul.

It would be retaken (? Brin you were a Ref).
However should be an indirect free kick to the defending team imo

Brammers, as I saw it, to me it was an infringement and therefore a foul. The result should have been the penalty being cancelled and the player (Fernandes) booked with a yellow card. Call it what you like, it was back in the day, called ungentlemanly conduct but seeing how the female game has picked up, that has now been dropped for s.exual wording. It would and should have been classed as bringing the game in to disrepute. The result being an indirect free kick being awarded to the opposition.

Basically his ridiculous antics of jumping up and down clearly made the keeper move so as to distract him and it made him leave the line area of his goal. If they want to allow these stupid and unfair antics by making the keeper move, then they should suffer the consequences if their shot is saved.

[BramleyMiller58]

Brammers, as I saw it, to me it was an infringement and therefore a foul. The result should have been the penalty being cancelled and the player (Fernandes) booked with a yellow card. Call it what you like, it was back in the day, called ungentlemanly conduct but seeing how the female game has picked up, that has now been dropped for s.exual wording. It would and should have been classed as bringing the game in to disrepute. The result being an indirect free kick being awarded to the opposition.

Basically his ridiculous antics of jumping up and down clearly made the keeper move so as to distract him and it made him leave the line area of his goal. If they want to allow these stupid and unfair antics by making the keeper move, then they should suffer the consequences if their shot is saved.

Yup should be back to one "smooth unbroken run up" and agree that if they falter in the run up and keeper saves then tough

[CAMiller]

Brammers, as I saw it, to me it was an infringement and therefore a foul. The result should have been the penalty being cancelled and the player (Fernandes) booked with a yellow card. Call it what you like, it was back in the day, called ungentlemanly conduct but seeing how the female game has picked up, that has now been dropped for s.exual wording. It would and should have been classed as bringing the game in to disrepute. The result being an indirect free kick being awarded to the opposition.

Basically his ridiculous antics of jumping up and down clearly made the keeper move so as to distract him and it made him leave the line area of his goal. If they want to allow these stupid and unfair antics by making the keeper move, then they should suffer the consequences if their shot is saved.

He's been doing it for the past 6 months though so I would have thought it would have come up before now if anyone objected?

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

He's been doing it for the past 6 months though so I would have thought it would have come up before now if anyone objected?

There’s been a few doing stutter starts.

Maybe it needs a rule as in rugby where they can’t rush the kicker until he’s started his run up.

[Brin]

He's been doing it for the past 6 months though so I would have thought it would have come up before now if anyone objected?

CAM, got to say it’s the first one I’ve seen him do as I’m not a Man Utd fan. My take on it was, he feigned the run up so it should have been cancelled and the free kick awarded to West Brom.