Question Number: 34731

Law 14 - The Penalty kick 10/9/2022

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

This question is a follow up to question 34729

Two additional situations, please.

First (probably clear): A1 kicks the ball, A2 enters penalty area before kick, goalkeeper B1 deflects it back to the field, A2 scores.

I think, that it is IDFK for team B.

Second: A1 kicks the ball, defender B2 enters penalty area before kick, goalkeeper B1 deflects it back to the field, B2 scores own goal.

According to the rules, the kick should be repeated. But, I think, that it is goal for team A. :-)

Thank you very much!

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Petr,

Correct on both counts. Attacking infringement before the kick and the ball doesn't enter the goal is an IFK.

As for the second - yes, the letter of the law states retake. I think in this instance we can consider the spirit of the law - I don't think the intent was ever to take away a goal if it's scored immediately. This sort of incident is a good time to play dumb - what encroachment?

Not a single person at the field will even mention the encroachment, so no need to even draw attention to it - though you'll want to emphasise the point of 'wait until the kick' if there's another PK that match.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr,
your first assumption is spot on mate, the restart for the active involvement in an unfair outcome via encroachment, Goal disallowed and the INDFK out is correct.

Second scenario, again you are correct a retake is prescribed in the LOTG when a PK shot is missed or saved & the defender's encroachment prior to the kick being taken is listed as a reason to retake.

The interesting point you raise is how we might mend the spirit of the LOTG with outcome and fairness? We use the terms doubtful and trifling , so when a PK miss or save occurs after a defender has encroached too early but only slightly or way off to the side nowhere near and casually, no real effect on the outcome of play we can essentially tune it out and allow play to continue or restart with the goal or corner kick or designated throw in . In that same vein if the attackers have done nothing wrong might we ignore the defender's encroachment given an own goal occurred? Perhaps thinking advantage for the attacking team, we could ignore the defender's illegal actions since they were beneficial to the opponent's outcome!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
Thanks for the follow up

In the first situation the correct decision is an IDFK from where A2 entered the penalty area. A2 has clearly impacted on play by scoring so the goal is disallowed and the restart is an IDFK. Now that is fairly easy on paper yet in a match situation it is fairly likely that A2 may be followed in by a defender. If you watch most penalty kicks without VAR there can be multiple encroachment by both attackers and defenders.

On the 2nd one the letter of the Law is a retake yet with a wait and see most referees will go with awarding the goal. Certainly the attacking team will not be bothered that the defender had encroached when a goal has been scored. By awarding the goal an advantage of sorts can be allowed and as the attacking team has not infringed then the goal is good. In fact a retake would benefit the defending team as there is a chance that the 2nd kick could be missed.