Question Number: 32563

Kicks From The Penalty mark 7/2/2018

RE: Adult

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

This question is a follow up to question 32562

Thanks for informative reply. I guess I will never agree with your answers. I feel the Danish defender took the player out & in fact what would have been a goal could have ended up Denmark beating Croatia-pity there isnt a penalty goal award!
Re the pens can I suggest you run it back,there was a clear breach by the keeper on every pen! Wonder if in my lifetime will ever see a retake & yellow card. Re Dudek you are spot on. Thanks again. Appreciate it.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Douglas
We have agreed that there is a breach on every saved penalty based on video replay and freeze frame. The onfield decisions though are based on split second timings and at speed it can be a call that is seen as doubtful.
Now the game is full of opinions and it would pretty lame if there was agreement on everything. Probably one of the worst games to be involved in is where there is no passion, disagreement. I have a mate who texts me on every penalty save giving out about Law 14. There has to be acceptance that there must be *some* movement. The issue is about timing and the degree and in that regard the Law needs to reflect how the game is played.
I liked the way the Denmark game was refereed by Nestor Pitana of Argentina. At the end neither team had any complaints and certainly the KFTPM were not an issue. Schmeichel saved three penalties in the game and still lost. Both sides can look at the KFTPM and can they really say that there were truly infringed against? Schmeichel complained at one time that one kicker stopped on the run up which did not happen and the ball was slotted into the opposite side.
Both teams got a fair crack at winning and nothing that the referee did impacted on that or was contrary to the Laws as expressed by IFAB.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

We appreciate and understand your concern but in no way are we in complete disagreement. We both think the current application and understanding of the LOTG on PK keeper restrictions are wrong. The difference is we understand why they are, from your view, being ignored. You want that acceptance stricken, we want it included in the LOTG as a reasoned reaction not an unrealistic standard. I believe you will see a retaken PK more so if they remove the mandatory caution but also if we see the keeper too far out nearer the 6 yard goal line. I remain in the camp that the mandatory GK caution for a first offense is the dumbest rule in the Laws. (IT DOES act as an incentive for referees to not call the infraction.) The keeper IS currently permitted to move sideways along the line but as I said make the whistle the timing to step off and out INSTEAD of the ball movement. The 12 yard PK kick is two yards further than the TEN yds. on all other free kicks so a 2 yard step out should be no big deal anyway I noted many retaken PKS BEFORE This mandatory caution came into focus. It creates an unfair playing field, whether a referee should go strictly by the absolute letter of the LAW and punish any transgression no matter how tiny maybe your solution, but I doubt we will see it applied in that way.

You are not alone in your opinion the foul was red card not a caution. I assure you there is ample evidence for it to go either way However, you make one incorrect assumption when you combine all our replies . There is nothing to say we would do the same as we see those do. We generally explain why they CAN make that decision based on their training and how the LOTG are worded and how they are currently taught, not something everyone is the world is aware of upon reading the LOTG. For example it has been taught by FIFA to its instructors and referees that, broadly speaking, a single step early off the line is fine. No, that's not in line with the LOTG. But it's in line with the reality of what everyone in the game has come to expect. We have enough controversy when referees and ARs correctly call encroachment (when it's both blatant and clearly affects the result). We don't need to go searching for more by ordering retakes (and now giving yellow cards) on doubtful, negligible, or non-existent offences If we have any agreement it is they have indeed dropped the ball in this area in how they expect it to be governed and how they worded it to be governed! !
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Douglas,
If there is one thing I would change about my last response to the penalty/yellow card decision it would be the word 'correct' - I should have perhaps have said 'allowable'. As I mentioned in at least one earlier response, it was a somewhat debatable decision and indeed, giving a red card would also have been allowable. It all depends on what the referee's opinion is, on whether this was an attempt to play the ball, or not.

As to the penalties, I have already stated my opinion that the law as it stands is misguided and should be re-written.