Category: Advice to Referees

Advice to Referees

Advice to Referees

OFFSIDE: AR POSITIONING AND SIGNALS

Posted on by

Question:
I n response to a question of October 23, with regards to a missed signal for a goal and subsequent confusion, you wrote that “there is no way that dropping the flag and moving up field should be interpreted as an offside decision.”

I’d like some clarification of this opinion with a view to your answer of August 18, when you wrote that in order to properly implement the “wait and see” principle without disadvantaging the defending team on their restart or pulling the AR out of position, the AR should follow play until the offside player is actively involved, then “when the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact with the referee and points the flag to the far, middle or near side, whichever is correct. The AR then moves back down the touch line to a point in line with the correct spot for the restart.”

However, in the conclusion of your Aug 18 ruling, you note “there is no specific advice on the matter because it is left to the discretion of the referee to cover the issue in the pregame. The issue, simply put, is that the AR must continue to maintain proper position during the period of time between when an offside position is noted and when the offside violation is clear enough to be flagged. The AR’s position must be maintained in this scenario because of the possibility that an offside violation may not occur. The issue outcome hinges on identifying the correct location of the restart.”

The obvious difference between the signal for a missed goal vs offside is the AR giving the far/middle/near signal prior to running upfield. The latter procedure is covered in neither the Guide to Procedures, ATR, LOTG, or Q&A (please correct me if I am wrong).

Considering this, it is easy to envision miscommunication resulting from this procedure if the center has exercised his “discretion” in neglecting to cover the issue in pregame, done all too frequently, through levels of play such as PDL where waiting for a touch or impending collision to signal offside is imperative. This site is the only place where I have seen this specific procedure laid out; many referees would contend that the proper procedure is for the AR to hold position until the advantage is clear, then signal or recover.

While not the most frequently used AR routine, the “wait and see” offside is common, and miscommunication could easily have negative effects on man management. If this procedure is recognized as “proper,” should it be included in Guide to Procedures and adopted as a recognized signal? At the very least, it seems that it should be reviewed by instructors sufficiently that confusion does not result.

USSF answer (November 5, 2008):
Although we applaud your faithful attention to the various Q&As published here, the issue you are raising below is based on a false premise — namely, that these two scenarios are connected in any way.  The potential confusion you point to could arise only if the officials involved acted in the way which we clearly stated was incorrect in each case.

In the October 23 scenario, the issue was the referee misunderstanding the AR’s correct procedure for indicating that a goal was scored despite the fact that the ball appeared to have stayed on the field.  We said then, and confirm again, that the referee simply was wrong in believing that the AR had indicated an offside violation and, in that context, said that the AR dropping the flag and running quickly up the touch line could not under any circumstances be considered proper mechanics for indicating an offside violation.  All aspects of this situation are clearly covered in the Guide to Procedures and Advice to Referees.

In the August 18 scenario, we were asked about the proper mechanics for the AR when two attackers are making a play for the ball, one coming from an onside position and the other coming from an offside position.  This is fairly clearly covered in the Guide to Procedures and the Advice to Referees, but we also acknowledged that the subsidiary issue of properly locating the restart (if an offside infringement occurs) does not have a definitive answer in these publications because it is left to the discretion of the referee, who should include the matter in the pregame.  

We said then, and confirm again, that the AR should be maintaining proper positioning for offside even though, if the offense does occur, this might place the AR some distance away from the restart location. If the referee wants assistance from the AR in locating the restart, the AR should move up the field but only after giving the complete signal for the offside offense.  In other words, although it might seem that the AR is merely dropping the flag and moving upfield, this is not what has signaled the offside offense. The offense was signaled in the correct way when the offense occurred (all in accordance with the Guide to Procedures and Advice to Referees) and then, only if this is requested by the referee, the AR could drop the flag and move up field in order to assist in locating the restart.  In the alternative, the referee may decide that he or she needs no help advising players as to the restart location and would prefer that the AR stay back where the offense was signaled since, in all likelihood, this puts the AR closer to where the second last defender is at the time of the restart.…

Advice to Referees

OUTSIDE AGENT INTERFERES WITH POSSIBLE GOAL

Posted on by

Question:
What do you do when team A is ahead 1-0 and team B is about to score when all of a sudden a team A official comes out and interferes with play to stop the goal? Does team B get the ball for a DFK or PK or do you have to do a DB. From what I have read team officials can be sent off but they are considered outside interference and play restarted with a DB. Also, what about parents or spectators in this same situation? Common sense says do what is right, what do the rules say?

USSF answer (November 5, 2008):
The rules, as explained in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” tell us:
“3.18 ACTION IF PLAY STOPPED FOR PERSON ILLEGALLY ON THE FIELD
“(a) If the extra person is neither a player nor a substitute (as determined usually by the team’s roster), that person is considered an “outside agent” and must be removed. That person, as an outside agent, has not committed misconduct and so no card may be displayed. In the special case of a player who has already been sent off and shown the red card but who returns to the field, no further action can be taken following removal other than to include full details in the match report. Play is restarted with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped*.”

Note: The asterisk means to see Law 8 for dropped ball restarts within the goal area.

If it is a team official, that person is expelled for behaving irresponsibly and must leave the vicinity of the field. If it is a spectator, that person must also leave the vicinity of the field. As noted in Advice 3.18(a), all details must be included in the match report.…

Advice to Referees

TEMPORARY EXPULSION; COACHES WHO INTIMIDATE

Posted on by

Question:
After some research today, I found out that the rule of having to sub out a player that received a yellow card until the next dead ball is no longer in effect as of 2004. Recently I was watching a U12 girls select game as a spectator and a player was shown a yellow card and the young, but experienced ref proceeded to send her off when the coach from her team came onto the field and stopped her and told her to remain on the field. Which she did. After the game I talked with the ref and he told me that before the game he was told that the coach was the president of the league and he felt intimidated to make the wrong calls. My thought was at that moment the ref thought the rule was still to sub them out and he should of made the girl sub out and cautioned the coach for entering the field without permission. I’m I wrong for thinking that.

As far as the yellow card and temp send off, that I have resolved with the young referee.

1. The question is: does this the statement about being President of the league constitute referee intimidation, if so what advice would you give this young referee.

After the game I talked with the ref and he told me that before the game he was told that the coach was the president of the league and he felt intimidated to make the wrong calls. My thought was at that moment .

USSF answer (October 23, 2008):
1. Regarding temporary expulsion
No longer in effect as of 2004? Such forced substitution or temporary expulsion from the game has NEVER been permitted under the Laws of the Game. This is/was a rule for particular competitions, but it has never been authorized by the International F. A. Board (the folks who write the Laws of the Game) or FIFA (the folks who administer the game for the world).

In point of fact, we answered part of your question only a month ago:

USSF answer (September 19, 2008):
We are less concerned about your question than about the reasons that occasion it. Before answering your question directly, please allow us to state that the league in which you referee may be operating in contravention of a FIFA directive forbidding such “temporary expulsion.” This may also put the league in contravention of the stated policies of the U. S. Soccer Federation. As we mention often, if the referee accepts an assignment in a competition that uses rules that contravene the Laws of the Game, he or she must follow those rules; however, we recommend against taking such assignments.

In 2002, a directive from the International F. A. Board stated:

TEMPORARY EXPULSIONS
The Board strongly supports FIFA’s concern that some national associations continue to use temporary expulsions in lower leagues. The Board confirmed in the strongest terms that this procedure must cease immediately, otherwise disciplinary sanctions will be applied against the offending federation.

In 2002 we informed all USSF referees: The referee must be aware that leagues or other competitions which use the “hothead” rule, temporarily expelling players for whatever reason, are not operating with the authorization of the United States Soccer Federation. The U. S. Soccer Federation has no power to authorize modifications to the Laws that are not permitted by FIFA. This is a FIFA directive that must be followed by members of FIFA. There is less concern over this issue in recreational-level youth and amateur leagues, but it can certainly not be permitted in competitive-level youth and amateur competition. A referee who takes assignments in higher-level competitions that require temporary expulsions does so knowing that he will not be following the guidance of the Federation and may jeopardize his standing within the Federation.

The International F. A. Board reaffirmed in 2003 its instructions that no rules permitting temporary expulsion (being forced to play short for an infringement of the Laws) may be used. Here is an excerpt from USSF Memorandum 2003:

TEMPORARY EXPULSIONS
The Board re-affirmed the decision taken at its last meeting that the temporary expulsion of players is not permitted at any level of football.
USSF Advice to Referees: This instruction, which was first discussed in Memorandum 2002, is not subject to implementation by the referee: it is a matter for the competition authority. “Temporary expulsion” in this context refers to a rule purporting to require that a player leave the field temporarily under certain conditions (e.g., having received a caution – a so-called “cooling off” period) and does not include situations in which a player must correct illegal equipment or bleeding.

The USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” tells referees (in Advice 5.17):

//deleted//
There can be no “temporary expulsion” of players who have been cautioned, nor may teams be forced to substitute for a player who has been cautioned.
//deleted//

2. Regarding the “intimidation” by the coach:
While we deplore the fact that the coach/league president did not politely approach the referee and point out that there is no rule either allowing or requiring temporary expulsion/substitution, the scenario does not suggest that the coach actually told the referee that he was a high muckety-muck and must be obeyed. Instead, the referee seems to have invented the intimidation out of thin air, which does not relieve the coach of the responsibility to go through channels, rather than imperiously ordering his player to remain on the field. In addition, we must also express concern that the referee was prepared to do something totally counter to the Laws.…

Advantage

EARLY WHISTLE?

Posted on by

Question:
The recent events in the NFL made me think of writing in to discuss a call from several years ago:

In a recreation level tournament, I was involved in the following call and while I think I blew the call, I want to get your opinion. In a well played but very aggressive match at the U-17 level(several yellows had already been issued to both teams), with less than 5 minutes left in the second period, player A1 was fouled while on the attack just outside the penalty box. Player B1 was called for the foul (not serious enough to warrant a card) and Team B proceed to set up a wall in preparation for the direct free kick. Player A1 asked for his 10 yards, so when I walked it off, it put the wall of Team B inside the penalty box. As player A1 took the shot, one of the players from Team B within the wall stepped forward toward player A1. I was the ref watching for any offside and as soon as the player from Team B stepped forward, I blew the whistle. The unfortunate thing is, the ball went into the net for what Team A thought was a score. In that split second, I realized that I blew the whistle too early and had to proceed forward from there. I waved off the goal, carded the player from Team B for the “failure to retire” and since the foul occurred within the penalty box, awarded Team A the penalty kick. Unfortunately, the shot off the penalty kick did not go in the net. One of  my question is this, while I know there is no such things as a delayed foul, could I have applied “advantage”, waited to see what happen to the shot, and then carded the player on Team B for “failure to retire” and re-awarded the direct free kick which as a result of the foul would have made it a penalty kick? Am I correct that while the ball is in actively in play, any whistle basically immediately make the ball “DEAD”?  Team A did not need the goal that I waved off to win the match, but I went up to the Coach of Team A and explained myself as best as possible with regards to the fact that I felt like I blew the call.

USSF answer (October 3, 2008):
You are correct that the whistle stops play and we were with you until you awarded the penalty kick. Whatever for?? The correct restart was a retake of the original direct free kick. As we state in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” Advice 13.3: “If one or more opponents fail to respect the required distance before the ball is properly put into play, the referee should stop the restart to deal with this infringement as required by the Law. The free kick must be retaken even if the momentum of play causes the ball to be kicked before the referee signals.”

And the entire problem would have never come up if you hadn’t whistled too soon. Consider holding off a moment unless there is some mischief that MUST be dealt with NOW.…

"Inventive" Refs

BALL IN PLAY FROM AN INDIRECT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
I noticed in one of the current issue responses “Putting the ball into play from a kick restart” that the situation is very similar to an indirect free kick restart. While the response was clear that it must be the decision of the referee as to what is a “kick” and what is not, ATR 13.5 makes it clear that “Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient”. It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion. My question is this…should the correct call be to (a) stop play for an improper restart, warn the players about the proper restart procedure (and subsequent caution for delay or persistent infringement if continued) or (b) allow play to continue, ignoring the tap, treating the subsequent kick as the “first touch” and maintain the indirect signal until a true second touch happens, thereby calling back any goal that might be scored directly from the improperly taken restart and continuing play with a goal kick restart?

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
The Law is clear: “The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves.” We have stated clearly in Advice 13.5 that there must be some “kicking motion” to put a kicked restart into play. The referee is the sole judge of what constitutes a kick.

Another point in your question needs to be cleared up: We would dispute that “It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion.” Some players may do it and some teams may use that as a tactic, but this does not mean that the definition in the Laws of how an indirect free kick (or any other kick restart) should be taken has changed. It is only referees who are reluctant to enforce the Law who have allowed this tactic to become “commonly accepted.” If the kicker fails to follow the Law and it makes a difference, then the referee must uphold the Law. If it didn’t really matter, then let it go (or perhaps give a warning). This is only common sense.…

Advice to Referees

IMPEDING THE OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
Apologies if this has been asked and answered on the site already, but I could not find an answer to this question on impeding or interference.

An attacking player is chasing a “through ball” that has been kicked past the last defender, and towards the goal. That last defender is also chasing the ball, and is actually closer to it than the attacker, but not close enough to it to be considered “playing the ball” at the time that I suspect a foul was committed.

With the ball still 7 or 8 yards from the defender, with the attacker following right behind, the defender sees that her goalie is coming out of the box to make a play with their feet to clear the ball. To ensure the attacker has less of a chance to get to the ball first, she slows and appears to deliberately block the attacker from getting a clear run at the lose ball, giving the goalie more time to get to the ball first.

Lots of spectators commented on what a heads up play it was, but I was of the opinion that since the defender was not playing the ball at the point she made contact with the attacker deny her a run at the ball that a foul had been committed.

What do the laws say about this please?

USSF answer (August 27, 2008):
It would appear from your description that the defending player impeded her opponent. The correct restart for this would be an indirect free kick from the place of the infringement. However, please read these excerpts from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.14 IMPEDING AN OPPONENT
“Impeding the progress of an opponent” means moving on the field so as to obstruct, interfere with, or block the path of an opponent. Impeding can include crossing directly in front of the opponent or running between the opponent and the ball so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying progress. There will be many occasions during a game when a player will come between an opponent and the ball, but in the majority of such instances, this is quite natural and fair. It is often possible for a player not playing the ball to be in the path of an opponent and still not be guilty of impeding.

The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).

12.15 PLAYING DISTANCE
The referee’s judgment of “playing distance” should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard.

…
Advice to Referees

OFFSIDE: INTERFERING WITH PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
My question relates to the AR’s mechanics of signaling for an offside offense.

Attacker #1 is in an offside position when the ball is played (for this instance he is very close to the 2nd to last defender so the AR is also at the same relative location on the touch line).
Attacker #2 is in an onside position when the ball is played.

Both attackers are making an effort to play the ball along with a defender, but it is not yet clear which attacker (if any) will play the ball first. Also, attacker #1 is not interfering with (impeding) the defender’s ability to play the ball. Obviously, if either the defender, or attacker #2 play the ball first, there is no offside to call. However, if attacker #1 plays the ball first, then it is an offside offense.

The question is on mechanics. Which of the following would be correct?

#1 – The AR stays in position when the ball was played and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact w/ the referee and points to the correct far side, middle, or near side. The position of the restart is where the AR is standing.

#2 – The AR runs down the touch line maintaining proper position with either the ball or 2nd to last defender, and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact w/ the referee and points the flag to the correct far side, middle, or near side. The position of the restart is where the AR is standing.

#3 – The AR runs down the touch line maintaining proper position with either the ball or 2nd to last defender, and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact with the referee, lowers the flag and runs up the touch line (maintaining eye contact with the referee) to the initial position attacker #1 was at when the ball was played (the time he was determined to be offside) and points the flag to the correct far side, middle, or near side. The position of the restart is where the AR is standing.

#4 – Do you have another option ?

The problem with #1 is that the AR will be out of position should either attacker #2 or the defender have the first touch. The AR would be out of position to possibly actually see who had the first touch. The AR would be out of position to possibly see a subsequent offside offense or any other fouls or misconduct in his/her end of the field.

The problem with #2, which I believe is the most common performed (and I am also guilty of performing), is that the restart is not in the correct location. Depending on the initial location of attacker #1, the size of the field, and the ages of players, this could actually result in an advantage for the attacking team. For example, the initial position of attacker #1 was only 3 yards into the attacking half, and the next touch of the ball is just at the top of the penalty area, and the players are 12 years old (or even adults for that matter).

The problem with #3, which I believe is the right thing to do, is that it would most likely create much discussion (and yelling from sidelines).

There is no advice on this topic that I can locate.
Thank you for your opinions / advice.

USSF answer (August 18, 2008):
The correct option is none of the above, although #2 is the closest of the bunch.

The AR runs down the touch line, maintaining proper position with either the ball or second-last defender, and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball or it is clear that attacker #2 cannot get to the ball ahead of attacker #1. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact with the referee and points the flag to the far, middle or near side, whichever is correct. The AR then moves back down the touch line to a point in line with the correct spot for the restart.

A quote from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” may be helpful:

“Interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate. A player can be considered playing the ball even without touching it if, in the opinion of the referee or assistant referee, that player is making an active play for the ball and is likely to touch it. If contact is likely, the offense (offside) can be called when the official makes that determination, even if there is no contact with the ball.

An attacker in an offside position is not considered to be interfering with play (and, therefore, is not judged offside) if, in the opinion of the referee, another attacker starting from an onside position will clearly make first contact with the ball. In this situation, officials must refrain from calling an offside offense until they make this determination.

Note: There is no specific advice on the matter because it is left to the discretion of the referee to cover the issue in the pregame.  The issue, simply put, is that the AR must continue to maintain proper position during the period of time between when an offside position is noted and when the offside violation is clear enough to be flagged.  The AR’s position must be maintained in this scenario because of the possibility that an offside violation may not occur.  The issue outcome hinges on identifying the correct location of the restart.…

Advice to Referees

TACKLING FOR THE BALL IN THE ‘KEEPER’S HANDS

Posted on by

Question:
if an attacker slides feet first at a keeper (not trying to injure, but trying to get a piece of the ball) keeper is on the ground making an attack and the play is boom boom yet keeper has connection with the ball and attackers feet(cleats) hit keeper, what is the appropriate call if any??????????
Thanks for your help
Mike Hall

USSF answer (July 24, 2008):
If we understand your question correctly, the player attempts to slide tackle the ball away from the goalkeeper who is holding the ball with his hands. If that is the case, the player has committed a direct free kick foul. The following excerpts from the 2008 edition of the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” may be helpful in determining the correct punishment, if any is necessary.

12.7 TACKLING
The referee must judge whether the tackle of an opponent is fair or whether it is careless, reckless, or involves the use of excessive force. Making contact with the opponent before the ball when making a tackle is unfair and should be penalized. However, the fact that contact with the ball was made first does not automatically mean that the tackle is fair.  The declaration by a player that he or she has “got the ball first” is irrelevant if, while tackling for the ball, the player carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force commits any of the prohibited actions.

A foul committed while tackling an opponent with little or no concern for the safety of the opponent shall be cause for the player to be sent from the field and shown the red card for serious foul play.

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

…
Advice to Referees

TREE OVERHANGING THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
I was officiating at a park which has trees which over hang the pitch, my question is, if the ball hits an over hanging branch and falls into the field of play (the ball was has not crossed the line), is it out or play on?

At my association (Sydney, Australia) the rule is play on as this is a fixed natural feature of the field.

In this instance everyone stopped and I called “play on”, at half time I had to explain my ruling and the general consensus was… “are you kidding, ref???”.

Cant find anything relating to this in the LOTG.

USSF answer (July 2, 2008):
The answer is the same here as in Sydney — play continues. Consider this excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” 2008 edition:

1.8 DEALING WITH APPURTENANCES TO THE FIELD AND OUTSIDE AGENTS
//snipped//
(c) Pre-existing conditions
These are things on or above the field which are not described in Law 1 but are deemed safe and not generally subject to movement. These include trees overhanging the field, wires running above the field, and covers on sprinkling or draining systems. They do not affect one team more adversely than the other and are considered to be a part of the field. If the ball leaves the field after contact with any item considered under the local ground rules of the field to be a pre-existing condition, the restart is in accordance with the Law, based on which team last played the ball. (Check with the competition for any local ground rules.)

…
"Inventive" Refs

DON’T “THINK” TOO MUCH ABOUT POSSIBLE SITUATIONS

Posted on by

Question:
I know these hypothetical situations from a bunch of refs sitting around with nothing better to do aren’t your favorite things, but hopefully you’ll be willing to address this one. We do generally stick to issues that have actually happened to someone, but this one came up and none of us feels certain to have the correct answer.

A foul is committed by the defense in the PA in the closing seconds of a tie game. The referee points to the spot and announces that the PK is being taken in extended time. He also reminds both teams that after the kick is taken, the only player that may touch the ball is the keeper, and that after the kick is finished, the game is over.

The kicker takes the kick, which is deflected by the keeper up into the air. At the taking of the kick, the keeper was on his line, and all other players remained outside the PA/behind the ball until the ball was kicked – that is, all the requirements for a legal kick appear to have been satisfied, and the only question is whether or not the ball will enter the goal. However, the keeper loses the ball in the sun, and it bounces off his back towards the goal. By all appearances it will enter the goal, however, a defender who rushed in after the kick performs a goal-line clearance.

I have gone back and forth on this. Does the game end as a tie (or go to extra time) because the PK was properly taken and did not enter the goal? Or is there a retake? I suppose a third option might be a caution for the defender and IFK in from the 6, but that seems out due to the extended time issue. In going back to ATR 14.7, it seems appropriate to categorize the defender comparable to an outside agent as he could not legally play the ball, and order a retake as “Although the ball was put into play, the team given the PK is deemed not to have had a fair opportunity to score under these circumstances.” A caution for the defender for UB would likely be appropriate as well – I don’t think you can send him off for DOGSO because the offense is not punishable by a FK (no FK in extended time) or PK (the PK is for the previous foul).

OTOH, 14.7 also says that if the interference occurs after the keeper plays the ball, it’s a dropped ball (from the 6 presumably), which would lead one to believe that the kick is in fact over despite the defender’s illegal interference, and all that can be done is to caution the defender and end the game.

Would you be willing to address this scenario?

USSF answer (June 24, 2008):
First things first! Your scenario, while admittedly hypothetical, contains one element that should never come up in any soccer game in which time is extended for the taking of a penalty kick: No players other than the kicker and the goalkeeper should be anywhere near the penalty area in which the kick is taking place. Allowing that to happen is a major referee error and hard to forgive. In this case, the (hypothetical) referee has sown the seeds of his own destruction.

As to the answer to your scenario, you have not yet seen Advice 14.13, which will appear in the upcoming 2008 edition of the Advice to Referees. It should answer your question:

14.13 WHEN IS THE PENALTY KICK COMPLETED?
The penalty kick or kick from the penalty mark is completed only when the referee declares it so, and the referee should not declare the kick to be completed if there is any possibility that the ball is still in play. In other words: So long as the ball is in motion and contacting any combination of the ground, crossbar, goalposts, and goalkeeper, a goal can still be scored.

A penalty kick or kick from the penalty mark is not completed, and must therefore be retaken, if anything unfairly or illegally interferes with the movement of the ball from the moment of the kick to the arrival of the ball at the goal. Examples of such interference would include the ball bursting on its way to the net or the intervention of an outside agent (e. g., spectator) while the ball is still moving to the net. Any interference that occurs after the ball has reached the net (resulting in the ball entering the net, missing the net entirely, or being saved by the goalkeeper) is handled as if the same event had occurred during play. The basic principle underlying this guidance is that the team taking a penalty kick or a kick from the mark must be given a fair chance to score and any illegal obstacle hindering the movement of the ball to the net must result in a retake of the kick.

In this scenario, the Law regards the defender as an outside agent and thus the kick must be retaken. The defender — who should not have been anywhere near the field — must be cautioned for unsporting behavior.…