Question Number: 17005

Law 14 - Penalty kick 10/1/2007

RE: Adult

Tony of Sydney, Australia asks...

I have two questions regarding the taking of a penalty kick during normal playing time.

A defender encroaches during the taking of a penalty kick. The Keeper saves the shot but it rebounds into play. When should the ref blow the whistle for a retake? I assume this should happen as soon as it becomes clear that the attackers are not going to score off the re-bound. However this could take quite a few seconds if there is a goal mouth scramble and the defenders eventually clear the ball away. I would suggest the longer it goes on the harder it is to "sell" a re-take. What is the correct mechanic in such a situation?

My second question is: In the 2007/2008 laws of the game; Law 14 penalty kick (page 46) a player taking a penalty kick infringes the laws of the game the kick is retaken if it enters the goal. Under procedure it states that the ball must be kicked forward. Does this mean that we do not award an Indirect free kick if the penalty taker kicks it backwards as per the 2006/2007 FIFA Q&A? It should now be a "more normal" re-take?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

The laws says the defender does that we are supposed to do this. Defender encroachs shot misses retake!
In reality soccer the intrusions are often considered trifling or they are not seen at all according to the elite matches I watch. ;o)
In my opinion only if the intrusion is so flagrant that the defender is practically on top of the pk kicker I hit the whistle as soon as the shot has no opportunity to enter the goal. I think if the keeper saved and say it became a race with the intruding defender and the pk kicker to get to the rebound I would *delay the whistle *and await an outcome per say rather than yell advantage and signal with an arm sweep. You are likely correct if you allow the ball to ping pong around and finally cleared the retake will be questioned accordingly. Mind you if everyone saw the defender was competing with the PK kicker for the ball as painfully obvious then the retake is easier to sell one would think!? However it is painfully obvious that watching the game world wide the intrusions or encroachment are tolerated to a greater degree than sanctioned! I liken PK encroachment to corner kicks where so much grabbing holding and pushing goes on the referee could in theory blow every time for something! We use the phrase your match, your decision, your reputation! That certainly applies here!

I am a bit confused by the goal and kick forward yet you speak of an indfk for kicking it backwards so how would it enter the goal for a retake? Unless he turned his back onthe ball and hit it with his heel towards goal trying to catchthe keeper unaware? To be honest when I first read the Q&A I thought it was this deciet they were refering too. I still am amazed that any PK kicker would even consider to do what the Q&A has said is an indfk and loss of possesion
That INDFK is for the opposition not the PK kicker. The point about the ball must go forward on a PK and thus this is not a legal restart was argued a great deal and no one here on the panel thinks it has any reason to be as it is but FIFA says indfk if the PK kicker back heels the ball AFTER a signal to begin. Go figure?
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Tony, I'm sure you know Law 14 says that if a goalkeeper or the keeper's teammate infringes, "if the ball does not enter the goal, the kick is retaken." And that Law 5 says, "allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time."

The first question is whether advantage applies to penalty kick violations. There are already "advantage-like" elements written into Law 14 - wait to see whether the ball goes in the net, and then retake or IFK accordingly. For many years USSF has maintained that advantage can only be applied to Law 12 violations. In recent years FIFA has specifically indicated that advantage can be applied to at least some other parts of the Laws; certainly for some violations of Law 3. I'm not sure what the Australian Federation would have to say on whether advantage could be applied.

Then we have to decide whether applying advantage would be a wise thing to do or not. Since the restart for stopping play would be a retake of the penalty kick, allowing play to continue would have to give at least that good of an advantage. (We make a similar evaluation at the time of the foul that resulted in the PK - play advantage or not?) For example if the keeper just barely managed to save the ball and now is lying outstretched on the ground, and the ball rebounds right back to the PK taker, he may have an advantage greater than that of a standing keeper waiting for the PK shot. If the advantage exists, it would have to be seen and realized almost immediately. The longer you wait, the more players there are going to be coming into the PA and the lesser any advantage becomes. I certainly wouldn't allow the ball to pinball around amongst several players. As Ref Dawson says, hold off on the whistle for a second or two, and if the ball isn't in the net by that time, stop play for the retake.

Regarding a PK kicked backwards, FIFA and IFAB surprised many of us when the Q&A came out and said that was an IFK for the opponents. How could the restart be changed, as the ball had never been properly put into play? This is just another part of the weirdness of the penalty kick. There had already been provision for many years that if the ball was touched by an outside agent between the time it was kicked and the time it reached the goal or goalkeeper, the PK was to be retaken. On any other free kick, that would be a dropped ball. But the PK is special, and this is just another one of its specialnesses.