Question Number: 16281

Law 14 - Penalty kick 8/12/2007

RE: comp High School

ralph shelley of huntington , ny usa asks...

What if after a missed pk that comes off the goalpost develops into the goalie becoming rattled when that kicker attempts to play the ball, which caused her {a u-12 female} to bobble it which releases kicker to kick it into the net. I ruled no goal because play action of that kicker caused the bobble and restart idk. Yes, you had to be there but some{fellow refs} felt its fair game after goalie handles. Kicker charges forward and I think that is an unfair play. Sticky issue?
Comments and thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Ralph,
it is a great question!
Fifa law states:
"He does not play the ball a second time until it has touched another player. "
An earlier series of questions dealt with a small trick pk kick passed off to the side where the PK kicker shielded the ball but never touched it to allow his team mate to arrive there first! It was at first thought to be ok but later reversed and thought to be impeding.
To some extent this is similar.

Here you have the pk kicker moving towards a ball he cannot touch but consider that there is no offside and how exactly did the pk kicker cause the keeper to misplay the ball? If the pk kicker was swinging a leg to kick the ball or imposed his body between to shield it and the keeper was diving to get that same ball in my opinion it is rather like playing in a dangerous manner or impeding. That said, a nervous keeper who drops a ball just because of the presence of an attacker is not a reason to make that long stretch to find fault in the attacker's action!

The law says *play* rather than touch although they are meant the same you seek to find them different here and to some exent I can not fault the concept of FAIRPLAY as to side with your call. If you felt it unfair likely it was. The case for usb and a caution indfk has merit as does impeding or PIADM. I will be interested to hear my colleagues thoughts!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

The kicker cannot touch the ball twice in a row. Here the keeper touched the ball after it was kicked so there was no second touch. Thus a goal is scored. If however the referee feels that the kicker committed misconduct by unfairly distracting the keeper, then the restart is an IFK for the opponents at spot of misconduct.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Interesting Ralph, the old prohibited from touching the ball by Law but still getting involved in things and being a nuisance ploy.

Your initial take on things was that it was, somehow, unfair. Because of that feeling you intervened on behalf of the put-off goalkeeper. You were there, I wasn't; you're match, you're decision, you're reputation.

I wonder whether or not your subsequent action[s] was/were correct. You don't mention the restart of play or if there were any disciplinary sanctions taken. These things are important and based on what you saw they can make or break a decision to intervene.

If what was seen was impeding or playing in a dangerous manner then indirect free kick is correct. If what you saw was unsporting behaviour then a caution for the attacker and indirect free kick is correct. The third thing is harder to sell, that is you stopped play to discipline but DIDN'T caution or dismiss the penalty taker.

One will note Law 12 is absolutely clear in that it states an indirect free kick is given when as a player, if in the opinion of the referee, commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player.

You'll note the stoppage in play to caution or dismiss must be present and if there is no discipline, other than a severe tongue lashing, a free kick is inappropriate. Dropped ball is the only possible restart. In most cases no one will notice why the indirect free kick was awarded but if you explain to someone assessing your performance as referee that you stopped to caution but thought it better to just chew a bit your restart is incorrect. That could be sufficient loss of points to bust an assessment.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Unless the kicker actually tried to kick a ball out of the hands of the goalkeeper who then bobbled it or who was bobbling it, or unless the kicker actually charged into her causing the bobble, I fail to see a reason to stop play or not award the goal. Either one of those occurrences merit a DFK restart (kicking or attempting to kick or charging). While the kicker can't touch the ball until it has been played by another player, there isn't anything in the Laws which says they can't pressure the keeper up until the time the keeper actually has the ball in their possession - the kicker is looking for a mistake which will allow them to play the ball again legally or for a teammate to capitalize. It is not the job of the referee to interfere unless what has occurred is a foul or misconduct. I suppose there is a weak argument for a dangerous play situation, which would be an IDFK restart, but nothing in your post leads me to that answer. However, as you note, you had to be there. Simply because something seems unfair isn't a reason to stop play or disallow the goal - you need to be able to put a name to the unfairness, whatever it is, so you can award the correct restart. Without that reason, I would side with your fellow referees.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 16321