Question Number: 33259

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 4/19/2019

RE: Competitive Adult

peter Khozoei of Melbourne , Australia asks...

Law 14.
On offences and sanctions during the penalty kick.
' If both the goalkeeper and kicker commit an offence at the same time: ¢ if the kick is missed or saved, the kick is retaken (both players cautioned)
¢ if the kick is scored, the goal is disallowed ( the kicker is cautioned).'
I have difficulty to understand the wisdom of this law:
If I miss it I have another chance, if I score the goal is disallowed and I will be cautioned.
What is the logic behind this?
Thank you for your attention and reply.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
The most likely offences here to be committed by the kicker and the goalkeeper at the same time are illegal feinting by the kicker and encroachment by the goalkeeper. The illegal feinting demands a caution and an IDFK every time whereas encroachment by the GK is required when it is successful only. The Law spells out three circumstances where a caution and an IDFK must be awarded which are the illegal feinting, playing the ball backwards and the *wrong* kicker taking the PK.
Now when two offences happen together the Law wants to distinguish between the situations where a goal is scored, where it is not and serious offences.
Where a goal is scored it is obvious that the goalkeepers encroachment has not been successful unlike the kickers actions in which case the kick is retaken unless the kickers action was one of the more *serious offences* . The sanction for illegal feinting is a caution and an IDFK restart always. As you know there is no caution for a GK when a goal has been scored at a PK for encroachment.
In the case where the goal is not scored it is deemed that the action of the goalkeeper has been successful so in that case the kick is retaken unless there is the more serious offence after which both players are cautioned. The kicker in the illegal feinting has still committed what is seen as a *serious* offence even though he did not benefit hence the caution.
It has a logic to it although it is not immediately obvious which is why it has been asked a number of times on the site.
I believe in reality the encroachment part might probably be ignored in the goal scored penalty kick scenario with the focus on the illegal feinting by the kicker. I personally have never seen a double caution and an IDFK which probably would cause some head scratching as to what went on there! I suppose even trying to discern if the GK offended in an illegal feint situation would be difficult. Unlikely to test a referee and I believe IFAB is just covering it off to deal with the paper scenarios and the wordsmiths who need an answer to these outlier scenarios.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Peter,
When this change was brought in (as part of the 2017-18 laws) the IFAB gave their reasoning for it in the 'Details of all Law changes' section as follows:

''Clarifies the outcome when both the goalkeeper and kicker offend at the same time, which is rare as usually one will have clearly been the first to offend.
There are different outcomes because:
- if the kick is missed/saved (because of the goalkeeper's offence) both players have committed a cautionable (YC) offence
- if a goal is scored the goalkeeper has not committed a cautionable (YC) offence but as the kicker's offence is cautionable (YC) it is 'more serious' (see Law 5) and is therefore penalised.''

So what they are saying is that in the case of simultaneous offences, if the kick is missed/saved, both players have committed a cautionable offence but when a goal is scored in these circumstances, only the forward has committed a cautionable offence, hence the difference in how it is treated.