Category: Law 14 – Penalty Kick

Law 14 – Penalty Kick

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

PENALTY KICK PROBLEM

Posted on by

Question:
In the context of a protest which R&D will have to decide, we have a Law 14 question to resolve. The ref called a PK. The kicker was identified, etc. He blew the whistle for the kick to be taken. Before the ball was struck, a teammate of the kicker ran into the box. The kicker struck the ball. Seeing the teammate streaming in, the ref blew the whistle. The keeper hearing the whistle made no play on the ball and it went into the net, having only been kicked by the kicker. The ref awarded an IFK to the defending team.

Law 14 doesn’t exactly cover a dead ball that goes into the net from a PK. Had the ref not blown the whistle, it would be either a retake if it went in the net , etc. One school of thought that has emerged is under advice to referees it tells us the ref determines when the PK is complete, and having done so by his whistle, the restart is governed by the team that committed the violation, thus the IFK was correct. The other is the kick was not complete at the time of the whistle, so retake. While not stated, some refs have earlier whistles in youth games if for no other reason to reduce likelihood of injury. With the infringing player coming on strong, a decision to shut it down sometimes occurs.

Thoughts? Thanks.

USSF answer (October 19, 2010):
The whistle was blown but the ball was not yet in play when the teammate of the kicker entered the penalty area. No goal was scored because of the infringement by the teammate of the kicker. Warn the teammate (if it was his first infringement of Law 14, or caution if it was a second offense) and retake the penalty kick.…

Advice to Referees

BALL IN PLAY WHEN IT IS KICKED AND MOVES FORWARD

Posted on by

Question:
I am having trouble reconciling a seemingly contradictory interpretation of the laws of the game. Law 8 states that on a kick off, the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward.

Therefore, if the ball is kicked backward, the ball has not been put into play, and therefore the kick is retaken. Law 14 contains the same verbiage, “the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward.” Law 14 also states that if the kicker infringes on the laws of the game and the ball does not enter the goal, then award an indirect free kick for the opposing team. Obviously, if the ball is kicked backwards, it would not enter the goal. I noticed in “Advice to Referees” (2009/2010) version, section 14.12, it states that kicking the ball backward would result in an indirect free kick for the defending team at the penalty mark. If the wording, “The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward” were removed from the law, then this seeming contradiction would appear to go away. Any insight would be appreciated.

USSF answer (August 10, 2010):
You would seem to be arguing apples and applesauce. We see no dichotomy or contradiction here, as the kick-off and the penalty kick are two separate and discrete types of restarting the game.

Law 8:

Procedure
//deleted//
• the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward
//deleted//
In the event of any other infringement of the kick-off procedure:
• the kick-off is retaken

Law 14:

Procedure
• After the players have taken positions in accordance with this Law, the referee signals for the penalty kick to be taken
• The player taking the penalty kick must kick the ball forward
• He must not play the ball again until it has touched another player
• The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward
//deleted//
the player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
• the referee allows the kick to be taken
• if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
• if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred

Advice 14.12 (2010/2011 edition):

14.12 KICKER BACK HEELS THE BALL
If, after the referee has whistled for the penalty kick to be taken, the identified kicker back heels or kicks the ball backwards to a teammate who kicks it into the goal, the International Board has determined that this particular violation of Law 14 is to be regarded as failure to follow the procedures outlined in Law 14.  In this situation (whether the ball is subsequently kicked into the goal or not), the restart is an indirect free kick for the opponents at the penalty mark.

In other words, the IFAB has declared that, kicking the ball backward shall be considered a violation of Law 14 and treated as simply one among all other violations of Law 14. In short, logic in this case cannot provide the correct answer, only a rote knowledge of the Laws of the Game as propounded and explained by the International Board.…

Kicks from the Mark

MANAGING FEINTS (POSITION PAPER)

Posted on by

Question:
The [recent] memo [on managing feinting by the kicker at a penalty kick or kick from the penalty mark] says that, if a kick from the penalty mark needs to be retaken, a teammate of the original kicker may take the kick if he/she is eligible. The memo goes on to say, ‘The kicker is, however, credited with having taken the kick….’ Does the blue wording refer to the original kicker? If so, this is a new interpretation, right? (I say that because our kicks-from-the-penalty-mark checklist says that the original kicker whose kick is retaken by a different eligible player is not counted as having taken a kick.)

USSF answer (July 13, 2010):
We regret any possible confusion. The source for the information is the checklist for kicks from the penalty mark:

“The original kicker whose kick is retaken by a different eligible player is not counted as having taken a kick.”

The language in question is in footnote 2 of the position paper and refers to a situation in which there is no retake. Therefore, “the kicker” in this case means the player who actually performed the kick, not the player who originally took the kick that had to be retaken. …

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

LAX ENFORCEMENT OF GOALKEEPER MOVEMENT AT PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
I know this has been asked before, but having just watched Japan and Parguay go to PKs to determine a winner I need some input.

On almost every kick the keeper from Japan came off the line prior to the ball being kicked which is against the rules. The keeper can move side to side, but can not move forward until the ball has been struck.

With one ref and two linesmen positioned specifically to observe the action I don’t see how this could be missed. Is it just ignored at this level of play? Perhaps the most well documented example of this was Brianna Scurry coming off the line way early against China to make a dramatic save. I believe Scurry later acknowledge bending the rules to the press after the match.

Given the game deciding weight these plays carry, why is this common rule violation tolerated? It seems crazy to play 90 minutes, plus 30 minutes to let it all rest on these kicks when rules are ignored. It brings in to question the intergrity of the game.

If we had all week I move on from this topic to the blatant diving, shin clutching and face holding that seems to accompany any hard contact these days. Here is how it works: Get hit, go down hard, fake a mortal injury, get on the stretcher and then get right up and jog around once they are brought off the field. Really classy.

USSF answer (July 2, 2010):
Yes, the ‘keeper is required to remain on the line until the ball has been kicked. If he (or she) moves forward before the ball is kicked and moved forward (and thus in play), the kick should be retaken. However, if the kicker scores anyway, then the referee disregards the infringement — but should warn the goalkeeper against further violations.

As to why the officials do not act on these infringements and the others you suggest, we cannot comment and must leave the solution to the officials and their assessors.…

"Inventive Coaches"

RETAKES OF PENALTY KICKS

Posted on by

Question:
We were in a PK situation to decide a match. One of the kickers placed the ball correctly then kicked it prior to the referee’s whistle. The referee warned the kicker to wait for his signal and allowed another attempt. The kicker replaced the ball correctly and proceeded to kick the ball again prior to his whistle.

Once again the warning and a third kick was allowed which eventually decided the game. Is this the correct ruling? I can see possibly allowing one restart but when the player repeats the offending action shouldn’t the kick be nullified?

USSF answer (July 2, 2010):
The referee has no choice but to allow the kicker to continue taking the kick. See below, taken from the Laws of the Game 2010/2011, Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees:

LAW 14- THE PENALTY KICK
//deleted//
Preparing for the penalty kick
The referee must confirm the following requirements before the penalty
kick is taken:
* The kicker is identified
* The ball is properly placed on the penalty mark
* The goalkeeper is on the goal line between the goal posts and facing the kicker
* The team-mates of the kicker and the goalkeeper are
– outside the penalty area
– outside the penalty arc
– behind the ball

Infringements – After the whistle and before ball in play
Outcome of the kick
Infringement
for encroachment Goal No Goal
Attacking Player Penalty is retaken Indirect free kick
Defending Player Goal Penalty is retaken
Both Penalty is retaken Penalty is retaken

However, if the kicker repeats this after being warned, the referee has the option of cautioning ( yellow card) and, upon further repetition of the act, of sending the player off and showing the red card. Even though the kicker may be warned, cautioned or sent off for repeating his offending action, the penalty kick will still be retaken (by any player on the kicking team).…

Interpretations/IFAB

FEINTING AT PENALTY KICKS

Posted on by

Question:
I am reading many of your archives with much delight; I came across one in particular (Infringement by Kicker at Penalty Kick – Feb. 2010). You indicated that feinting of penalty kicks was going to be a topic of discussion at the IFAB meeting in March, 2010. I am curious, was there any further clarification or changes that came out of this meeting?

USSF answer (June 10, 2010):
Yes, there was further clarification, with good news for referees and bad news for crafty players. Here’s a quote from the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees (in the back of the Law book):

LAW 14- THE PENALTY KICK
Procedure
Feinting at the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, feinting to kick the ball once the player has completed his run-up is considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behavior for which the player must be cautioned.

And see this text in the Memorandum on Law Changes 2010 published by USSF:

USSF Advice to Referees: Players may feint during the run to the ball (so long as this does not involve, in the opinion of the referee, excessive changes in direction or similar delays in the taking of the kick) but feinting actions once the run to the ball is complete are now to be considered a violation of Law 14 by the kicker. This would include clearly stopping and waiting for a reaction by the goalkeeper before taking the kick or any similar clear hesitation after the run to the ball is complete and before kicking the ball into play. In other words, once the kicker has reached the ball, the kick must be taken without hesitation or delay. In most cases, the referee should allow the kick to proceed and then decide on the appropriate action to take based on the outcome of the kick: if the ball went into the net, the goal is canceled and the kick retaken; if the ball did not go into the net, an indirect free kick is given to the opposing team where the violation occurred. In either case, before play is restarted, the kicker must be cautioned for unsporting behavior.

…
Guide to Procedures

AR SIGNAL FOR GOOD GOAL AT PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
The Guide to Procedures tells us if a goal is scored during the taking of a penalty kick that the lead assistant referee “follows the normal goal procedure”. Since the assistant referee would not be in a position to “run a short distance along the touch line”, what, if any indication does the assistant referee give to the referee to confirm that a goal has been scored?

USSF answer (June 8, 2010):
In the case of a penalty kick, the lead assistant referee indicates that the goal is good by moving back to the touchline (to take up a position for the next phase of play — i. e., the kick-off) and, if it was not good, by staying where he was with the flag held at waist level parallel to the ground.…

Advice to Referees

INFRINGEMENT BY KICKER AT PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
At a major state recertification seminar today, we discussed deception on the taking of a PK – more specifically, the case when a player goes beyond legal deception and on to infringement.

The case in question is a player who approaches the ball, overruns it, then backs up.

My position was simple: LotG state that if the kicker infringes, the ref allows the kick to be taken, and either orders a rekick or orders an IFK out, depending on if the ball entered the goal or not.

Our instructor stated that the correct procedure is to blow the whistle at the point when the kicker backs up, without allowing the kick to be taken, and award the IFK immediately. He stated this was direction from FIFA.

At a break, I asked our guest speaker, a former FIFA ref, and that ref did not know. It was suggested that I contact you.

If our instructor was correct, please direct me to the appropriate FIFA publication. I pride myself on knowing the laws and would like to understand this better.

USSF answer (February 8, 2010):
We are not aware of any changes in Law 14 as published for 2009-2010:

Infringements and Sanctions
If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

the player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
* the referee allows the kick to be taken
* if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
* if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred

See also this excerpt from Advice to Referees 14.9 INFRINGEMENTS OF LAW 14:

Infringements after the referee’s whistle but before the ball is in play may be committed by the kicker, the goalkeeper, or by any of their teammates.  Violations of Law 14 by the kicker in particular include back heeling the ball (14.12), running past the ball and then backing up to take the kick, excessively changing directions in the run to the ball or taking an excessively long run to the ball (which, in the opinion of the referee, results in an unnecessary delay in taking the kick), or making any motion of the hand or arm which (in the opinion of the referee) is clearly intended to confuse or misdirect the attention of the ‘keeper.  In almost all such cases, the referee should let the kick proceed and deal with the violation in accordance with the chart [given in the excerpt from the Law, above], which outlines the proper restarts for clear infringements of Law 14.  However, in the case of a kicker creating an unnecessary delay in taking the kick, the referee should intervene, if possible, warn the kicker to proceed properly, and signal (whistle) again for the restart.

So, only in the case of the kicker taking an excessively long run to the ball should the referee intervene (“if possible”) before the kick is taken — the implication being that, if intervention even in this case is not possible, the referee follows the general advice on Law 14 violations. The Federation has dealt with one or more aspects of this situation in Memos in 2005, 2007, and as recently as August 2009 (a “stutter step kick” with a clip).

NOTE: Feinting at penalty kicks is going to be a topic of discussion at the IFAB meeting of March 6, 2010. it is possible that this answer might change based on the outcome of the discussion.…

Ball in Play

CORNER KICK PLAYS, LEGAL AND ILLEGAL

Posted on by

Question:
For clarification purpose, I would like for you to honestly assist with normal procedure and correct interpretation of the law and in accordance to; and in US Soccer and FIFA opinion the correct procedure and your recommendation to the following.

In the first half of a competitive match, a corner kick was being taken from the leading AR side. Properly, the Assistant referee applied the distance of encroachment and the team taking the corner kick tricked the defense as the kicker walked away and another player acted as if he was going to take the kick started dribbling the ball towards the goal when he got to the corner kick spot. I made eye contact with the leading AR who did nothing and I let the play go.

In the same half, a corner kick was awarded to the same offense, but now in my quadrant. The ball was set, and the kicker stood over the ball with his foot on the ball but made no movement because the defense this time were encroaching. When I realized the the attacker won’t play the ball, I instructed the defense to respect the distance of which they obliged. While we were waiting for the corner kick to be taken, number 7 of the team taking the corner kcik who was behind me in the goal area loudly yelled to his team mate on the the ball. “Leave it, let me take it.” He then ran past me and the defenders while his team mate walked away from the ball. When he got to the ball, he took position as if he was going to put the ball back in play, then he started dribbling the ball towards the goal. All these happened while I was still holding back the defense from encroaching. When I realized he was in active play, I blew the whistle walked to him and cautioned him for unsporting behavior. I then restart the play with an indirect kick to the defense for double touching a direct kick restart. 

As usual, the cautioned player pleaded his case and claimed that was their trick and my response was that you were deceptive. I told him it’s legal to apply trick fairly, and by audibly being deceptive, you gained unfair advantage.

USSF answer (February 6, 2010)
The kicking team is allowed to use a certain amount of trickery at any kick restart, including corner kicks. If the kicker actually kicks at the ball, then it is now in play. Observe these two video clips of corner kicks, one of which was not allowed by the referee. However, both were totally legal, as the ball was played in a kicking motion by the original player on the ball.

First clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nBoKNy7j0Y&feature=related

We responded to a question on this clip back on January 30, 2009:
It is perfectly legal to do this. How could anyone object to this tactic? The player has put the ball in play in accordance with the Laws of the Game. The kicking team is allowed to use such deceptive tactics and SHOULD NOT be punished for them. However, if the kicking player had merely stepped on top of the ball and then left it for the next player, who dribbles it away, that would not have been a legal restart. But even that is not punished with a caution, as it is not misconduct; in that case, the referee would call the second player for a double touch and award an indirect free kick to the opposing team.

Second clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWWm1H1DC-Q&feature=related

The assistant referee’s flag was incorrect and the referee should have waved it down; the resulting goal should have been allowed.

So, what is NOT allowed?
The ball must move a perceptible distance from “here” to “there” to be considered in play through a kick. If the “kicker” only steps on top of the ball and does not kick it, and therefore the ball has NOT moved from “here” to “there,” the kick was not properly taken and must be repeated. It is not a cautionable offense. …

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

ENCROACHMENT ON PENALTY KICKS 2

Posted on by

Question:
A video from Week 23 in review shows an attacker clearly entering the PA to soon during a PK, due to the feint. This was clearly a violation of Law 14, yet the goal stood. The violation and the non-call are both very common occurrences. My first question is: At the taking of a penalty kick would you ever bother to call a foul(on a defender or attacker)for entering the PA by a few feet to soon; if a goal was scored, of if the keeper obtained control, or if the shot went across the end line? In all instances this foul seems to be trifling to me, but without guidance from the Laws different referees will call this same type of play differently. My second question, assuming you agree it is acceptable for me to view this as a trifling offense, is why have the law if we are not going to enforce it consistently? Many coaches, players and parents/fans do read the Laws, and it is reasonable for them to expect the laws to be enforced.

When referees don’t enforce the Laws consistently it undermines our credibility, and in my opinion rightfully so. My humble suggestion would be to take the Law 14 sentences “… infringes the Laws of the game:”, and add the phrase “and interferes with the taking of the kick or the defending of the kick:”

USSF answer (December 21, 2009):
We beg to differ with your statement that no call was made. In point of fact, players from both teams enter the penalty area in both Clip 1 and Clip 2 from Week in Review 23. While the encroachment by these players is clearly against the procedure mandated in Law 14, the referee is allowed to exercise discretion and determine whether the encroachment has had an effect on the kick. In these two cases, the answer for the referees on those games was that the infringement was trifling and had no effect.

As to changes in the wording of the Law, those are not up to us but to the International Football Association Board, the body that makes the rules.…