Question Number: 33795

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 12/6/2019

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

Hello,

I have problem with two parts of the Law 14 - The Penalty kick.

Part 1) Player of both teams offends the Laws of the Game, the kick is retaken
unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. illegal feinting)

Part 2) If both the goalkeeper and kicker commit an offence at the same time:
¢ if the kick is missed or saved, the kick is retaken and both players cautioned
¢ if the kick is scored, the goal is disallowed, the kicker is cautioned and play restarts with an indirect free kick to the defending team

At first glance it seems to me that these parts describe the same thing. However, the referee's decision is different:-) Does the term 'at the same time' play a role here? Please explain it on some scenarios please.

Thank you very much!

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
As far as I am aware, the two parts you refer to were meant to deal primarily with different scenarios.

Part 1 was intended originally for situations where players other than the kicker and the goalie encroach into the penalty area (or the 'D') and part two is specifically restricted to the highly unlikely (and to my knowledge, never yet seen) situation where the kicker and goalkeeper offend simultaneously.

The slight overlap occurs because the lawmakers decided to add the bit about illegal feinting (which can only apply to the kicker) into the part that used to apply primarily to encroachment into the area by the 'other players.'

This has muddied the waters somewhat, as you point out but I think the main distinction behind the two sections now is that one refers to any situation where two or more players from the opposing sides commit offences, even if those offences are not simultaneous and the other refers to a highly specific scenario where a specific two players offend at the same time.

The reasoning behind the difference in the outcomes in your Part 2 was given by the IFAB as follows:

''Explanation
Clarifies the outcome when both the goalkeeper and kicker offend at the same time, which is rare as usually one will have clearly been the first to offend.
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
- if a 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 therefore penalised.''

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
This has been raised previously
The reason for the difference is that when a goal has been scored it is opined that the kickers offence has more significance, is deemed more serious with the benefit of scoring than the goalkeepers encroachment. Hence the decision to caution the kicker and restart with an IDFK
When the goal is missed there is more of a chance that the goalkeepers action was of equal significance say with a save in which case both are cautioned and a retake.
In my opinion these will be extremely rare, probably illegal feinting by the kicker and therefore unlikely to test many referees.
In the illegal feinting plus goalkeeper encroachment I would say most referees if not all will go with a caution for the kicker only and an IDFK as it will probably look like the encroachment was a result of the illegal feinting. Most illegal feinting I have seen always resulted in a goal.
In the unlikely event of a miss say with a save it is two cautions and a retake.
Have a look at this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zEhW4avlJGY
That is now a caution to the kicker and an IDFK
In these next videos I could not see encroachment by the goalkeeper that was not caused by the illegal feinting
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vaa9a94VYhE
There is encroachment by players before the kick yet the Law is saying that encroachment is a lesser offence than illegal feinting hence the difference.
My advice is to keep it simple.
Deal with the illegal feinting with a caution and an IDFK unless the other offence is so blatant that it cannot be ignored which is extremely rare.