Question Number: 33999

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 9/22/2020

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 33995

I also have one specific situation from last weekend.

Video (in time 4:55):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzYRXkquHGc

Both teams entered the penalty area before the kick. But the "Red 25" benefited from this situation.

The referee was silent. VAR was silent.

What would be your decision? Would you repeat the penalty kick? Or do you order IDFK?

Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Petr ,
I suppose the INDFK out could be justified because the encroached attacker benefited from his early movement, however, the only lawful decision via the LOTG would be a retake as both teams encroached. Allowing the goal to stand I suspect the encroachment (noticeable on slow motion or stop start video) was not apparent to the officials in real time!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
Thanks for the question
Having looked at the video and stopped it at the moment of the kick Red #25 is a metre inside the penalty area and so are a number of Yellow defenders. The correct technical decision is a retake as both teams have infringed Law14.
Why that did not happen I have no idea yet I could suggest a number of reasons. These can include the fact that encroachment is generally not VAR reviewed except in two situations as outlined by Referee Grove. Perhaps the VAR official did not know those two exceptions as certainly the first one applied.
Maybe the referee who is stood pointing at the players decided that he clearly saw the situation and in the VARs opinion it was not a clear and obvious error to not call the encroachment.
Finally I wonder if there were any protests from the defending team. From the video it looks lime they accepted the outcome?
I would say that without VAR this would not be called as the one metre encroachment and by both teams would rarely ever be called as a retake.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Petr,
This should have been a retake - as you said, the fact that Red 25 encroached then immediately became involved means the encroachment must be dealt with - but then you would have to consider that both teams encroached, therefore a retake.
I can't offer any suggestion as to why this wasn't retaken - in realtime perhaps the referee wasn't entirely certain, but the VAR has no such excuse.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
This definitely looks as if the VAR has fallen down on the job here. The VAR Protocol says that:

"Encroachment can only be reviewed if:
• an attacker who encroached scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored
• a defender who encroached prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball in a situation where a goal might be scored"

Based on this, the VAR should have intervened and informed the referee that red 25 encroached and then had a direct involvement in a goal being scored. As to the correct restart, I think that it should be a retake but on a recent similar question about a player who encroached and scores a goal themselves, I received a response from the IFAB that when the VAR reviews such an incident, only the player who became involved is considered, in which case the restart here should be an indirect free kick to the defending team.

I'm not sure I agree with this but that is the ruling I was given.