Question Number: 35618

Kicks From The Penalty mark 7/16/2024

RE: 6 Professional

Hussain Jan Gramkani of Muscat, Oman asks...

https://youtu.be/qeMGgAi4A-U?si=gw8uzQGJ1-jxL2GB

In the video in this link. This is a kick in a penalty shoot-out. What action should be taken by the referee. Any chance of retake?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Hussain
Thanks for the question.

The first point to note is that the kick has not happened so in my opinion play has not restarted.
We know that if the ball was kicked that the kicker would be cautioned and the kick deemed a miss. During the game the restart would be an indirect free kick from the penalty mark.

Now the question is whether the player in your example should be cautioned and a miss recorded?
The Law is some what mute on a no kick yet it does say and I quote
** feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted) the referee cautions the kicker**

The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, ‘what would football want/expect?’

I believe a caution could be appropriate and expected as the kicker intended to kick had the goalkeeper dived. It would have been an easier decision had the kick been taken as it is then a miss and a caution. As the kick has not been taken I am of the view that the kick should be allowed. Whether it is a caution I feel that a card would be merited simply on the basis that it was an unsporting action.
Thankfully it is not going to test very many referees and a referee can sell a card on the basis that illegal feinting is a caution.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Hussain,

This is an interesting one! Ref McHugh points out what makes this so tricky - how do we deal with there not actually being a kick? What is the intent of the LOTG here?

The LOTG aren't written with every possible scenario in mind. We basically have 3 options

- No caution, allow the retake (ref would hold up play, reset, then blow the whistle again for a new kick)

- Caution, allow the retake

- Caution, IFK out (this is what the restart would be if he feinted then kicked).

Given that it was a feint, even without the kick I think the LOTG and the game still expect a caution here. He has still done the action, even though he didn't follow through on it. And he still benefits from it - it's given him information on which way the GK is likely to dive.

If we retake, then what is the caution for? You could consider it delaying the restart.

I'm inclined to differ from my esteemed colleague and go with a retake. We can look at the wording 'before the ball is in play', but does that mean the ball has to go into play for this to occur? Or was it just a way of saying 'while the ball is still out of play'? I think it's the latter. Besides, if a feint warrants a caution, and it's a retake whether or not it scores, I don't see the logic in allowing a retake simply because he didn't kick it, when if he had kicked it it's a retake! And I don't believe that's what IFAB intended either.

Law 14 does say that if the kick is not taken the referee may take disciplinary action before signalling again for the kick to be taken. I think that would also include if we use an IFK restart instead.

But it is a tricky one!