Question Number: 33617

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 9/2/2019

RE: Competitive Adult

Refjak of Malindi, Kenya Kenya asks...

Hi!
At a penalty kick, when both the kicker and goal keeper offend and; a) a goal is scored, the kicker is cautioned and an IDFK is given to the opponents.
b) a goal is not scored, both kicker and keeper are cautioned and the kick is retaken.

Can I can get more light on this idea, is there fairness for the kicker really? For me, I don't see fairness in (a) but in (b); fine. Why is the law so lenient to the keeper in (a)? Or is feigning at the end of the run up more serious compared to the keeper coming forward before the ball is kicked?

Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Refjak,
Like ref McHugh, I have never seen a case where both the kicker and the keeper offend simultaneously - and like him, I feel I'm not likely to in future either.

Anyway, as to the apparent disparity between the two scenarios, the IFAB has given what I think is an fairly cogent explanation, which was contained in the 2017/18 Laws edition when this change was introduced and goes as follows:

''Explanation
Clarifies the outcome when both the goalkeeper and kicker offend at the same time, which is a rare situation as usually one will have offended first. There are different outcomes because:

- if the kick is missed/saved (because of the goalkeeper's offence) both players have committed a cautionable (YC) offence so both are cautioned (YC) and the kick is retaken

- if the goal is scored, the goalkeeper has not committed a cautionable (YC) offence but as the kicker's offence is cautionable (YC) it is 'more serious' (see Law 5) and is penalised.''

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Refjak
The thinking on this is that the actions of the kicker in A has been successful unlike that of the goalkeeper. Law 14 also makes a distinction on the more *serious* offence of illegal feinting, wrong kicker and the backwards kick. So when two offences happen together the Law wants to distinguish between the situations where a goal is scored, where it is not and *serious* offences. Personally I think it is likely that the *serious* offences as listed are the only offences likely to be committed by the kicker and I struggle to find other likely offences. Possibly verbal distraction!
Where a goal is scored it is obvious that the goalkeepers encroachment has not been successful unlike the kickers actions in which case the kick is retaken unless of course the kickers action was one of the more *serious* offences . The sanction for illegal feinting, backward kick, wrong kicker is a caution and an IDFK restart always. As you know there is no caution for a GK when a goal has been scored at a PK for encroachment.
On the second one B it is assumed that the goalkeeper has been successful in his illegal action so it is a caution for both and a retake unless it is one of the three listed *serious* offences.
I believe in reality the GK encroachment part will probably be ignored in the goal scored penalty kick scenario with the focus on the illegal feinting by the kicker. I personally have never seen a double caution and an IDFK which probably would cause some head scratching as to what went on there! I suppose even trying to discern if the GK offended in an illegal feint situation would be difficult. Unlikely to test a referee and I believe IFAB is just covering it off to deal with the paper scenarios and the wordsmiths who need an answer to these outlier scenarios.
In summary IFAB has thought this through and it is fair if the unique circumstances present themselves in a game. It is unlikely to happen.