Question Number: 30537

Law 14 - Penalty kick 6/24/2016

RE: Intermediate Under 13

Phil of Tarzana, CA United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30533

I have some follow-up questions to Q# 30533:
Referee Joe McHugh says it will be more difficult to deal with encroachment.
1) Is this because you believe that fewer referees will be willing to caution (& especially dismiss) a GK? i.e. in the past, it merely meant that the PK was retaken & now the remedy is more severe.
2) Why did the IFAB require a mandatory caution for encroachment by the GK?
3) I recall a question on this site, from a long time ago, where every member of a team except the best penalty kicker, came up to the referee & spit at him (so they would be dismissed), just prior to starting KFPM. The advice here was to abandon the game & report the incident.

What remedy would a referee have if a player (e.g. the worst penalty kicker on a team) were to fake an injury?

Thanks again for all the wonderful advice!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
1. Yes I doubt that referees will be keen to caution here. So in law if it is a retake it MUST be a caution. In my instances of two retakes I could not have seen myself sending off the GK for over eagerness on his movement on the two PKs. Have a look at this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Ftr8V_Zcc
With the exception of 9 and 7 all others are illegal with movement off the line.
2. IFAB has stated that as the Law has been changed to deal more strongly with a penalty kicker who ‘illegally feints’, it is consistent that a goalkeeper who infringes the Law causing a retake is also cautioned. This it believes should encourage goalkeepers not to infringe this Law. Personally I am not so sure about that and the illegal feint is very unsporting whereas an over eager GK stepping forward is somewhat expected almost trained by repetition. It also questions the amount of latitude given to GKs in movement.
3. Injury determination is of no concern to the referee. If a player is deemed injured then so be it. The opponents are required to now reduce to equate. In the past that process only happened before KFTPM. It now must happen during the kicks as well.
I recall England U21 v Netherlands a few years ago. Taylor of England got injured near the end and as all subs were used he stayed on the FOP yet was hobbling. When it came to KFTPM he declined to the last kick of 11 and the Dutch protested. Anyway after debate he hobbled up and took the PK which he scored. Not sure he was that badly injured yet he certainly could not run during the game.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2bw7z_highlights-2-2-netherlands-vs-engla_sport
What should have happened was that Taylor should have left the FOP at the end of extra time injured and the Netherlands afforded the opportunity to equate at that time. Now if an injury happened during the kicks the only option previously was to continue without the player and to not equate. Now the opponents can reduce to equate so two players leave the centre circle. The tricky part in the England game was that Taylor was the last player to take a PK before the second series commenced. That would have been unfair as the Dutch had no opportunity to equate in the first 11 kicks.