Question Number: 35041

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 7/24/2023

RE: Adult

Tony of Sydney, Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 35034

Thanks for your answer and you have answered my third point. But point 2, which was about extending time to take a penalty kick the law says on page 69 " If a defending player (including the goalkeeper) commits an offence
and the penalty is missed/saved, the penalty is retaken." My question is regarding the goalkeeper moving forward off his line before the kick is taken in this situation. This is an offence and regardless if the ball is going over the bar the law is telling us to retake as it clearly says "Missed" with no qualification. This does not seem consistent with the other two situations?

So do I retake in this situation or ignore it as you have mentioned during general play and KFTPM?

Thanks for your advice

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Tony,
it is always good to hear from you my friend
my advice ignore,
I feel you are overthinking it! "Missed" being qualified as different because you feel it is stated otherwise? ( unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game apply!) You are taking the position the word missed without the extra relevancy underpinning of reasoning? A different application of missed? I would apply the golden rule of law 18 which is the evolution of the other two answers with the cause and effect aspect still part of the equation.

Common sense dictates the adaptation of blatant failure versus overlooking the much less obvious one. You apply the SAME conditions for retake as during the match. It says to in law. In no way do the laws want a different version just because its during play, after time has run out, via play extended or KFTPM to decide an outcome.

Extended kicks are a one shot deal with no time on the clock. No one else is supposed to even be a participant except the two (kicker/keeper). The fact participants could still do something silly to affect the opportunity the laws are simply reminding you the actions of those still matter if it affects outcome even there is in theory no time for them to do so,

Think of this, if VAR was recording the proceedings. 15 minutes in a PK ball is skied a mile over the goal, goes super wide or hits the crossbar or post and rebounds far away back towards center and the review showed the keeper foot was off the line by an inch? No goal. That same distinction should apply on the extended PK taken just before the half at 45 minutes. Or that 5th and deciding kick on KFTPM where a winner is declared after the miss. If not, then there is no basic fairness.

Unlike offside which is where they do go marginal in, he was or was not via position, no one would use that distance as a legitimate reason for why the kicker MISSED by a keeper illegally cutting down the angle and moving off his line unless he actually saved the shot and prevented the goal as in a save ,THAT is clear impact. A kicker shoots 3 feet wide and that step off by the keeper created that? No! It had no impact.

I would say the qualifications for missed reflect the reason and inclusion of LAW 14 applies to all circumstances.    If there is NO goal due to the KICKER kicking it wide , the ball was NOT saved. The penalty is not retaken because it was the kicker's fault. The action by the keeper did not affect the kicker's actions. The kicker did not come to a stop or try to redirect his effort! The kicker plainly, clearly blasted the ball over or wide of the goal through his own efforts, not by trying to avoid hitting it where the keeper was or could get to.

I firmly believe there was no intent to confuse but sometimes we interpret structure from meaning in odd ways! No official could possibly satisfy the teams if in one Pk we retake and in another we did not because it was a different time in the match?

I do know that IF the keeper is feet or yards off the line before that ball is on its way over the crossbar or wide of either post you might retake even if the the miss was a miss because the kicker simply made a bad effort. His escape clause? The keeper was not where he was required to be! Whether or not it had impact some will say his early movement caused the kicker to miss

The kicker missed and the the keeper was not on the line as required.
Given everyone could see his angle towards the kicker increases the likely hood of contact the aesthetics will look bad and the laws could allow the reasoning you suggested as written the goalkeeper committed an offence and the penalty which was missed requires the penalty be retaken.

Yet if you recall in our earlier explanation I mentioned for awhile that PK retakes abounded in an effort to stop encroachment, creating massive issues with consistency in obvious misses were being given chances to redeem themselves where non was EARNED except a trifling bit of early movement, It is why such changes as the keeper having one foot on the line, no caution for 1st time and no retake unless it impacts were entered into the LOTG as conditions for the referee to evaluate . It is difficult to engineer attitude and attribute fairness to an exacting standard of semantics! I n the end my friend

As referee, Your match! Your decision! Your reputation!

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Tony
Thanks for the follow up.
Extending time when it has fully expired only applies to a penalty kick or a retaken penalty kick and it is an extremely rare situation. I always made a point of restarting the game with a kick off so as to give time for ARs to intervene if required plus it is always a good idea to get player moved away from a large group into their respective positions so that any tensions can be reduced. Players may be agitated about the penalty award, about time etc so allowing a bit of time with a kick off for matters to calm down is always wise.

So the principle on a retake is just the same in extended time as in the game in that if the encroachment has had an impact on the kick it is a retake and if there is no impact it is miss.

I would also say that if you think about these situations I can guarantee you that the kicker who blazes the ball wide or over the bar there will be ZERO attention on minor goalkeeper encroachment that has had NO impact on the kick. That impact is a judgement call yet in many situations minor encroachment will be seen as having no impact and likely to be unnoticed.

You might recall Nigeria v France in the 2019 FIFA Womens World Cup and the missed Renard penalty kick which was retaken. See 1.09 on the linked video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mhSbih-N_AI&pp=ygUVUmVuYXJkIG1pc3NlZCBwZW5hbHR5

Clearly IFAB saw the need to change Law 14 including the caution for the goalkeeper as this retake and caution decision caused a furore at the time. Without VAR this would have been deemed a miss and no complaints from France. Imagine if the GK has been sent off for a second caution and it has happened.
It came as no surprise to me that Law 14 was amended in 2020 to where we are now with no retake for a no impact miss and no caution just a warning on a first infringement on a retake. Clearly it was seen as the correct decision in Law at the time back in 2019 yet totally against what the game expected hence the law change.

I would finish by saying that the Laws of Game book is not a legal book in that if it where all these potential inconsistencies and potential wrinkles would be spelt out clearly and no doubt it would run to thousands of pages.
In the video example it was just a poorly taken penalty and while technically the goalkeeper had come a fraction off her line it was seen as having no impact on the kick. The law at the time set out the interpretation as it was encroachment but that was not what the game wanted/ intended hence the change. As the law is now written it is recorded as a miss in all situations including extended time. Had the goalkeeper got to the ball and saved the kick it would have been a clear infringement and a retake which is still the law assuming of course the encroachment was clearly seen as without VAR that one would be a tough call.