Question Number: 32562

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 7/2/2018

RE: Adult

Douglas Wix of Liverpool, Merseyside United Kingdom asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32588

Hello. I appreciate your comments,especially the evening match. All saves were BLATANTLY UNLAWFUL but guess you will always support the referee! Also why wasnt the Danish defender sent off for stopping the Croatian player tap the ball in, he should be sent home. Also Schmeichal has the audacity to complain about the kicker during his run up. Tbh I think we will just continue to disagree with all of this but in my lifetime would love to see a retake & a yellow card as per the law. Thank you for your response. Dougie. YNWA.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Douglas
Many referees do walk alone and I can assure you we do not always support the referee. I have been critical many times of referees who have got decisions wrong. I know that in the heat of a game that what looks easy removed from the action can be much more difficult in reality.
On the Danish defender yellow card decision it was the correct decision in Law once it was determined that there was an attempt to play the ball.
Over the past 10 years or so there had been calls by many in the game for the triple punishment of a penalty kick, a red card and a one game suspension to be changed.
That change eventually took place after much consultation in 2016 with a significant change to Law 12 where in the case of a award of a penalty kick in a clear goal scoring opportunity the referee should issue a caution if the player makes a genuine attempt to play the ball. It is still a red card if it is a pull back, holding, a deliberate handball or no genuine attempt to play the ball. Also any DOGSO foul outside the penalty area is still a red card.
In the Denmark game it was deemed that the player made a genuine attempt to play the ball, in fact he came very close to playing the ball away so the referee as per the law gave a yellow card.
So in many ways referees are simply responding to the game and what is expected.
Do we really want multiple retakes on penalty kicks with multiple cards? I am still of the view that a well taken penalty will give the goalkeeper little or no chance. the good penalties made the goalkeepers look very ordinary. If one looks closely at the reaction of the players that miss they do not see an infringement as to the reason they missed just poor execution.
I can assure you it significantly better than it was and I agree with Referee Grove that the law change to Law 14 is more onerous as the referee has to be certain that there was a clear breach of the Law.
I think in the WC that referees have tightened up on encroachment both players running in and goalkeeper coming blatantly off the line. It can still be improved yet if the current Law was in force and implemented strictly in 2005 one Jerzy Dudek would have been sent off for very obvious encroachment on two important penalty kicks!!

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Douglas,
As my colleague ref McHugh says, we do not always support the referee. There have been numerous occasions when we have stated quite unequivocally that a referee has got a decision wrong.

We also do not universally support the IFAB or their thinking on the Laws of the Game and as I have said in previous responses on this topic, I think the current law on goalkeepers coming off the line at penalties is counter productive.

Imagine if the law had been applied exactly as it is written. We could have had both goalkeepers (and potentially their outfield replacements, assuming they did the same thing) sent off. Having four players sent off during one set of KFTPM would be absolutely ridiculous and I think, shows the defects in the current law. I believe that if we went back to the old version of the law where the penalty could be retaken but the keeper not cautioned, we would see more retakes.

As to the DOGSO/yellow card decision, as mentioned in two previous answers - assuming this qualifies as an attempt to play the ball it was a correct decision according to the law as currently written.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Doug,
Of course we support the referee but support is not the same as admitting an error or mistake nor will it protect referee who makes a major mistake for all to see, nor is effective criticism a reason not to support a referee. We all know in real time things are much different then in armchair views. We simply explain the possible thinking that goes along with a dynamic match. If you were a traffic cop I have to believe you would write no end of tickets with little appreciation for those who are 1 mile over the speed limit or fail to stop a full 3 seconds at a stop sign. My colleagues and I are not in agreement with all the LOTG as they are written , however we also know it is difficult to cover every eventuality . The fact the keeper is restricted (in my opinion unfairly) by having to stay still while his attacker can still legal feint to send him one way then have time to send the ball the other. I believe we could alter the PKs to effectively eliminate this concept of off the goal line to inside the goal area if we changed the keeper restriction to NOT off the goal line until the whistle but to encourage the PK kicker to get on with it instead of delay or try to feint. I am in complete agreement with you the wording of this current LOTG regarding PKS does not adequately address the issues. I believe the yellow card is such a harsh punishment for a retake it causes referees to cringe when a keeper takes that step out! Yet I also grasp that when I use the terms Your reputation your match and your decision it is in fact an acceptance of the tolerance and acceptability of those playing that makes this possible. I saw no crying over the keeper leaving early only crying they missed. Its ok to agree to disagree it does not mean we do not support one another to find what is best for the game. The unfortunate thing is our thoughts are not the thoughts those that make decisions decided to pay attention to. lol
Cheers

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

See Question: 32563