You Call It Our Questions YOUR Answers AskTheRef.com

Soccer Referee Questions on Soccer Rules

You-Call-It 27

Question...

Exciting match goes to extra time then requires Kicks from the Mark to decide the outcome! We stand tied after the first 5 pks and now its sudden death! The excitement is intense, the red team taking its sixth shot scores and now the other blue team must score or it is all over! The blue Pk shooter runs up and hammers a high hard one but the red keeper guesses correctly and dives the right way, the ball hits him and rebounds way up in the air. Jubilant the keeper is running out fist pumping shouting with joy! The Pk shooter crestfallen stands dismally as the spinning ball returns to the ground and begins spinning its way back into the goal. A spectator runs onto the pitch and scoops the ball up just before it clearly would have crossed the goal line under the crossbar and between the posts. The referee blows the whistle! Your Match Your Decision Your Reputation

Our Hint

law 14 KFTM law 8 law 5

Our Answer...

It was very interesting that a retake was the most supported position by almost everyone be they referee, fan, parent or coach who responded to this particular YOU CALL IT scenario because they felt it was the fair thing and justified as the ball was still moving forward when the OI (outside interference) occurred. Its ok to disagree just remember, its your match, your decision, your reputation! I was trying to think of the advice one might try to pass on to a referee about to retake in this situation? The words, pray a lot and hope, spring to mind!

THIS IS STATED

Kicks from the penalty mark
• The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match

KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK
• Unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game and International F.A. Board Decisions apply when kicks from the penalty mark are being taken

Law 14 The Penalty Kick

When a penalty kick is taken during the normal course of play, or time has been extended at half-time or full time to allow a penalty kick to be taken or retaken, a goal is awarded if, before passing between the goalposts and under the crossbar:
• the ball touches either or both of the goalposts and/or the crossbar and/or the goalkeeper
• the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward

If, after the penalty kick has been taken:
the ball is touched by an outside agent as it moves forward:
• the kick is retaken

if the ball rebounds into the ﬁeld of play from the goalkeeper, the crossbar or the goalposts and is then touched by an outside agent:
• the referee stops play
• play is restarted with a dropped ball at the place where it touched the outside agent, unless it touched the outside agent inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped

LAW 5 The referee
• stops, suspends or abandons the match because of outside interference of any kind
An abandoned match is replayed unless the competition rules provide otherwise
• provides the appropriate authorities with a match report, which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players and/or team ofﬁcials and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after the match
• the referee decides when a penalty kick has been completed.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are ﬁnal

Interestingly in 1972 this is what the Law book said
"" If, when a match is extended to allow a penalty-kick to be taken or retaken, and before the kick has been completed, the ball is stopped by an outside agent, the game shall be further extended to allow the penalty kick to be taken properly.""
That was replaced in 1973 by
"" (a) If, after the kick has been taken, the ball is stopped in its course towards goal, by an outside agent, the kick shall be retaken.
(b) If, after the kick has been taken, the ball rebounds into play, from the goalkeeper, the cross-bar or a goal-post, and is then stopped in its course by an outside agent, the referee shall stop play and restart it by dropping the ball at the place where it came into contact with the outside agent.""
which is what we have today with different wording without the wording ""in its course"
No explanation was given for the wording change at the AGM in 1973 other than a tidy up of wording and reducing 10 decisions to 5
We also know that following the big talking point in a WC game between France and Brazil in 1986 when the referee correctly awarded one of the PKs in KFTPM that hit the post, then the GK that Law 14 was amended in 1987 to clear that up to the present wording. Now this is where it gets interesting. In recent times we have had two highly speculative spin PKs awarded based on the 1986 decision of momentum carrying the ball over the line.

The motto "prevention rather than cure" comes into play here. Points to the fact that KFTPM and indeed any penalty need to managed extremely carefully.
There are many things referees do that are “not specifically authorised” and fall under the words used in the magic book, “If, in the opinion of the referee.” Referees are expected to do what is needed to meet the demands of the Spirit of the Game, to give the players a fair game. This You Call It gets referees to look for a clear answer but is it instead, a menu of possibilities based on what the Laws say?

If we replay the scene, the keeper stopped the original shot! The ball did indeed rebound into the ﬁeld of play off the goalkeeper, the crossbar or the goalposts and was then touched by the outside agent, just not as it was up and out but after it hit ground and backs up!
If the referee watching felt that a goal was definitely or possibly going to be scored in its own right without another touch only to see this outside agent come charging in, to change this potential outcome, one can only imagine the reaction.

In this case we made the ball momentum sufficient to say it would for certain roll into the goal but imagine if the momentum was slower and it might or might not completely cross the goal line or a water puddle or divot could alter the path or the keeper being screamed at to get to the ball and could recover in time? Is this really ITOOTR that a goal WOULD have been scored or COULD have? Also imagine no one but the referee was aware that the ball was LIVE and it COULD still score? Imagine telling the keeper and his team, "Oh by the way, in my opinion the PK was NOT OVER ! I felt you did not stop the ball and neutralize its motion, after it came down back into the field it had sufficient backspin to head back towards the goal, it was still moving towards the goal and DEFINATELY would have scored, as your spectator friend picked it up! Then find the spectator was actually from the other team supporters who only wanted to yell at the pk taker for missing the shot. Would you STILL retake?

While one can certainly justify a retake,

citing law 5 The Referee

"• the referee decides when a penalty kick has been completed."

and pointing to law 14 The Penalty Kick

"If, after the penalty kick has been taken: the ball is touched by an outside agent as it moves forward: • the kick is retaken"

speaking as a coach and manager of teams that have been forced to replay 2 matches for ridiculous reasons when taking kicks from the mark , this certainly seems like it could be one of them . We have every reason to believe that if the PK was retaken, scored, then they went on to win, the match could be successfully protested and a replay of the match ordered!

We can end the match citing OI incursion on the rebound renders play dead

citing law 5 The Referee
"• the referee decides when a penalty kick has been completed."

and pointing to law 14 Penalty kick

"if the ball rebounds into the ﬁeld of play from the goalkeeper, the crossbar or the goalposts and is then touched by an outside agent:
• the referee stops play
• play is restarted with a dropped ball at the place where it touched the outside agent, unless it touched the outside agent inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped.

We do not believe this decision could be successfully protested as it is clear this is exactly what occurred! WHY? because there is NO distinction in the direction of ball movement after it rebounds away from goal.

Or we can toss it to the winds by abandoning the match due to OI and let the league decide

citing LAW 5 The referee
• stops, suspends or abandons the match because of outside interference of any kind
An abandoned match is replayed unless the competition rules provide otherwise
• provides the appropriate authorities with a match report, which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players and/or team ofﬁcials and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after the match

This is likely more to do with the riot about to take place as you are thinking about retaking! lol Somebody just passed the buck and who knows if a lets finish the KFTM or a replay might be the only solutions those in charge in the review committee can think of and just go with the pk was over, end of story.

Lastly, we provide a ruling through the NFHS which bears out the possibilities we have put forth in a similar fashion

(NFHS Rule 9 -3 indicates that if there is not clear possession at the time play is suspended due to any unusual situation, there will be a drop ball at the spot where the ball was declared dead. Since the game can only be decided by kicks from the penalty mark, the game will thus be over. If the spectator interference had occurred before the goal keeper touched the ball, the kick would be retaken (Rule 14-1-7). Although no protests of high school games, Rule 5-1-2 does allow State Associations to intercede in the event of unusual incidences occurring – thus, the State Association could intercede and require the kick to be retaken. Also, this happening in high school games is very unlikely - Spectators must be at least 10 feet from the touchline and goal line and no one is permitted behind the goals unless seated in bleachers Rule, 1-6)

That was our Question YOUR Answer is...

John Master a Referee from Irvine CA USA

Relying on the ATR's explication of the unenumerated "Law" 18, which requires the referee to exercise common sense in all matters, and analogizing from Law 14's assertion that the referee determines when the [kick from the spot]"is complete," I would most likely require the kick retaken in this circumstance. That entails a different result than would occur if dealing with a standard penalty kick, a close cousin to the kick from the spot. My answer's validity therefore depends on finding principled grounds for distinguishing the application of law in this circumstance from an ordinary penalty kick.

First, we should ascknowledge that Law 14 does not govern the taking of kicks from the spot. Not only are they described following Law 17, rather than as a subset of Law 14, the assigned nomenclature differs markedly and should not be used interchangeably. Neverthless, many portions of Law 14 are consistent with the taking of kicks from the spot, so which segments the referee decides to apply becomes paramount.

Second, let us examine the proper response if this event occurred as a penalty kick during regulation time. Law 14 specifies that when an outside agent interferes following a rebound, the game continues with a dropped ball. Since there is no follow-on play following a kick from the spot, some referees would determine that the match ended when the interference occurred--and it would be difficult to argue that such a result is wrong.

It is, however, almost certainly the least fair response to a situation inherently unfair to one team or the other. On what grounds then, should a rekick be deemed preferable?

For starters, let us examine why each mechanism exists. Penalties rectify fouls committed in open play. They can change games, but they do not, as one part of a whole, decide games in and of themselves. By contrast, kicks from the spot serve only to determine the winner of a match. Furthermore, the mechanism is usually associated with an elimination match, and therefore the procedure's outcome carries greater significance to the participants than most regular season matches. Lastly, this tie-breaking device is employed, by definition, only when two teams have failed to win by conventional means. In short, fairness is paramount in managing unusual circumstances when victory is at stake.

Additonally, the two devices differ drastically in the circumstance of a rebound. On a penalty, the ball is live as soon as it is kicked and moves forward. In the event of a rebound off of the keeper, 21/22 players are permitted the next touch. By contrast, the kick from the spot precludes any possibility of follow-on dynamic play. On any individual kick, play ceases when the ball stops moving (or crosses a line). The goalkeeper may chase it as long as it is moving, but the kicker gets no second chance.

The connection between the purpose of each mechanism (rectifying fouls versus deciding games) and the post-rebound action (ball to who gets there first versus no additional touch) requires different solutions.

Proceeding with the dropped ball following outside interference in a penalty does not undermine the purpose of the penalty because the kicker has already missed the chance. What was interfered with was the opportunity to corral the rebound. By contrast, during the kick taken from the spot, the force generated by the strike on the ball represents the attacking team's only opportunity to influence the play. What the outside agent interfered with was the original momentum from the strike of the ball. Thus, the outside interference utterly undermines the purpose for which kicks from the spot exists.

Therefore, I regard the circumstances of this scenario as being most consistent with interference that occurs when a penalty is taken and "the ball is touched by an outside agent as it moves forward" (Law 14). In such circumstances, the kick is retaken. That rekick occurs because the team kicking the penalty has not received its allotted chance at goal. In a kick from the spot, the kick is alive so long as the ball is moving, even though the keeper made the initial save. An outside agent that interferes with the ball's movement means that the attacking team has not received its allotted chance at goal.

In conclusion, Law 14 also grants authority to the referee to determine when the kick is over, and I believe I would rule that the kick had not ended when the interference occurred. A rekick is therefore justified.

(The scenario does not specify for which side the outside agent is a partisan, but the foregoing analysis assumes it is either undetermined or an individual associated with the goalkeeper's side. If, for the attacking team, then the fairest result is that the match concludes, on the same principle that unsportsmanlike conduct (kicking penalty backward, a player other than the specified player taking the kick) causes the team to forfeit its penalty opportunity).

AskTheref.com Educating and Amusing The Soccer Referee Since October 11, 1999

<-->

Soccer Referee Extras: Sunday, November 24, 2024
Offside Question?
Offside Explained by Chuck Fleischer & Richard Dawson, Former & Current Editor of AskTheRef

<>
Did you Ask the Ref? Find your answer here.

Enter Question Number

If you received a response regarding a submitted question enter your question number above to find the answer

Recent Questions

Click Go to view all recently posted questions