Question Number: 33311

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 5/5/2019

RE: Select Under 19

Bill Sherma of Merrimack, Nh Usa asks...

Question about Rule 14. If on a pk, the player approaches the ball to kick, but on the approach, the ball moves and so the player stops, looks at the ref, expecting the ref to blow the whistle so the ball can be reset. Instead, the ref blows the whistle and awards an indirect kick to the defending team because the kicker stopped his approach. Was the official correct in his interpretation?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Bill,
common sense is either present or not. It would be unfair to award a caution show a player a yellow card and take away the pk turning it into a INDFK in a case such as you describe. A referee makes a decision, as a fact of play, its not able to be disputed even if there is video evidence it might be an iffy decision We must believe if the referee is observant and sees the movement, recognizes the run up is halted because of it, no doubt he resets and we begin again. Be a pretty strong wind and the referee would be cognizant of such. To do otherwise is likely to invite massive dissent and controversy.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Bill
Not an easy one. The fact that the ball moved was in my opinion sufficient reason to stop the penalty kick.
Having said that was the movement of the ball sufficient to in the first place to be seen by the referee and secondly to require a retake?
I really would have to see the kick to make a judgement that it was movement of the ball that caused the kick not to be taken rather than the offence of illegal feinting. I suspect though that the fact that the kick was not taken at all suggests to me an unusual situation rather than illegal feinting.
The referee if he was certain it was illegal feinting had to caution the kicker and an IDFK restart.
The law is there to prevent a player stopping after he has reached the ball so that he kicks the ball into the open goal with the goalkeeper committed to diving in a particular direction.
It is not there to be a gotcha for a kick that is not taken at all due to outside circumstances such as a moving ball, outside agent distraction etc.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Bill,
Unless the referee truly believes that this was done in order to fool the goalkeeper into diving early (and I would say, this pretty much requires that the goalkeeper does so and that the player kicks the ball into the empty net) then I would say this is not the right interpretation.

The reason this amendment was brought in, was to stop what was known as the 'paradinha' which was becoming common, especially in South America. The paradinha was where the player would stop and/or feint to kick the ball after completing the run up, wait for the keeper to dive and then roll the ball into the now-unguarded net. It was not intended to penalise a player who stops because the ball has moved, and who in fact does not kick the ball at all, nor cause the keeper to dive.