Question Number: 30663

Kicks From The Penalty mark 8/11/2016

RE: Competitive Under 15

John of Seattle, WA USA asks...

Penalty kick shootouts.
The ball was kicked off the bottom of the crossbar, bounced outside the goal line, hit the back of the goalie and bounced into the net. Goal or no goal??

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi John,
The kick is over once the ball has lost all the momentum from the kick. This does mean that the ball may bounce out of the goal then in and it's still a goal - it's still carrying the momentum from the kick, after all. So in your scenario a goal must be awarded.

There have even been a number of scenarios where the ball has bounced some distance out of goal but with backspin. The keeper has walked off celebrating and the ball has rolled or bounced back into the goal and a goal is awarded.

Previous wording in the laws offered a bit of confusion and as a result, there is a myth going around that the moment the ball stops moving forwards, the kick is over. This is incorrect.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi John
There is no debate that this is a certain goal. There is no mention of direction of the ball in a Law 14 and a myth has developed in the game that in some way that a ball bouncing back or hitting the goalkeeper is not a goal. Regular visitor to the site will note that this has been asked regularly.
Law 14 is quite specific on this and it states
**The penalty kick is completed when the ball stops moving, goes out of play or the referee stops play for any infringement of the Laws.**
Nowhere is forward motion mentioned here.
The Laws also state and I quote * Kicks from the penalty mark are taken after the match has ended and unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game apply. *. So the same principles apply as in a regular kick except with the obvious exception that a follow up kick is not allowed.
To avoid any confusion, and for those who are looking for a simple solution, the momentum of the kick is the crucial point in deciding when a penalty kick has been completed. So no matter how many combinations of goalpost, crossbar, goalkeeper's body parts, ground etc. are involved, if the ball ends up in the goal because of the energy imparted onto it by the kick, a goal must be allowed. To confirm that a former FIFA Q&A had a detailed section on Law 14 scenarios. To quote the relevant one
** When is a penalty-kick considered completed in the event of a match being extended at half-time or full-time to allow it to be taken, or in the event of kicks being taken from the penalty-mark to determine the winner of a match?
Here one must refer to Law 14 - Penalty-kick, Decision No 6 of the International F.A. Board.
The player taking the penalty-kicks the ball which, having rebounded from either goal-post or the cross-bar, rebounds back into play, hits the goalkeeper and passes entirely over the goal-line, between the goal-posts and beneath the cross-bar.
Decision: Goal, the penalty-kick (or kicks from the penalty-mark) is over and therefore the extended time also, if applicable. **
Now the reason we had this clarification goes back to the World Cup of 1986 in a game between Brazil and France that went to KFTPM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEYJMq-6iS4&t=5m36s
At 5.36 in the video #16 France - Bruno Bellone takes the penalty and it hits the post and rebounds off the goalkeeper. The referee correctly awards the goal. This did cause a fuss at the time and afterwards by a miffed Brazil as you can see players questioning the referee yet IFAB ruled that the referee was 100% correct and improved the Law 14 wording so that there could be no ambiguity. A British commentary team at the time of John Motson and the late Jimmy Hill did not help the viewing public. The commentator John Motson got it correct saying it was a goal while Jimmy Hill, highly respected in the game and having a good knowledge of the Laws, was less convincing talking about a miss and having to go into the goal directly. Such comments start myths as no one bothers to follow up when the decision is actually confirmed.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 30669