Question Number: 32571

Other 7/5/2018

RE: Rec Adult

Russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32558

In relation to Douglas of Liverpool and his point of keepers moving off the line during a penalty kick " gutless referring if you ask me.

Nobody wants to see freeze frame ruling, 'gotcha' referring or blade of grass decisions in these instances, however, you only have to look at Schmozzle's (Schmeichel) movement and you can see how blatant a keeper will disregard the rules.

Why have them.

A penalty is meant to be a reinstatement to the attacking team of a denied opportunity to score a goal, yet, we seem prepared to allow the defending team often an amazing amount of latitude with the keepers movement.

Agree that it can often be line ball if a keeper has moved off the line - but so often, even blind Freddie can see the keeper is a metre in front of the line before the ball is kicked.

Either gutless referring, or, likewise directive from above.

And how hypocritical is it for a keeper to appeal that the kicker paused or stalled in their run up to the ball - when they jump off the line.

We keep complaining things happen, yet, we keep turning a blind eye.

If FIFA are scared there will be nobody left on the field to allow a match to continue if we pull up all the infringements, then change the rules.

If VAR is meant to rule on goals, then why do regulation time penalties not get get reviewed for kicker or keeper infringement. Too scared again I'd say.

Just get rid of the rules around penalties and let the kicker and keeper do whatever. Keepers will soon realise to dive early would be an issue if the kicker can pause. And if that is too one sided to the attacking team - we must remember it is penalty for denying a scoring opportunity, or infringement in the PA.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
I have a mate who texts me every time there is a saved penalty! Keeps telling me that it is a stupid rule
Anyway I doubt very much we can have a free for all as it would develop into anarchy with wholesale breaches on both sides.
I think that we should allow referees the discretion to decide if there has been an unfair advantage gained by the kicker or the goalkeeper. That is what currently happens yet the purists would like the Law implemented exactly as written. I can assure you that is every one of the 17 Laws was implemented as written we would not get the game finished.
Until we get wholesale blatant encroachment that is not being punished I do not see any real change or need for it. Really good penalties are rarely saved even with encroachment.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Russell,
I would enjoy seeing ANYONE approach a world cup refereed look them in the eye to say he or she is gutless! Best be wearing glasses to not get a smack on the snoot.
That is simply NOT TRUE, what is true is the way the LOTG are written and how they are implemented is at times at odds. The single BIGGEST problem in PKS is the auto caution to a keeper for a first time offence off the line early. It is the dumbest of laws currently in place bar none!.

The MAIN reason you DO NOT See massive objections is both teams are aware that IF That IS the intent of the referee to OBEY that section of law to the absolute letter it WILL Be to BOTH keepers. And if there is no difference to 6 inches to 16 inches to 36 inches which personally is nothing given most free kicks are only ten yards and a PK is 12 yards.

We are in 100% agreement that FIFA should change this section of the LAWS to allow for a true sporting contest between the kicker & keeper because if we WANTED an auto goal we could just award them.

I hold with the idea that the keeper be allowed to move on the whistle and the PK kicker can kick it quickly or perhaps be permitted to dribble and shoot or possibly move the PK spot back 2 more yards? No long twisting goofy run ups or hop scotching along trying to MAKE the keeper move early. A simple test of nerves slot the ball where the keeper is not!
Cheers

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

See Question: 32573