The Ref Stop

defenders in the area at penalties - new laws

K

Kent Ref

RefChat Addict
Attacker has a penalty.

Before the ball is kicked multiple defenders only in the PA.

Ball goes 2 foot over the bar.

Re-take or goal kick?
 
The Ref Stop
From this season it can only be a goal kick due to the law change (unless they have somehow encroached so far they have somehow impacted the taker), although I don't know many referees that would have had a retake when the taker has skied it over the bar.

1723574324074.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
So if there the encroaching defender impacts the kicker in the eyes of the referee, the penalty kick is retaken. What is the restart if the encroaching defender plays the ball or challenges for the ball and this prevents the opponents from scoring? The table in Law 14 only discusses if there is an impact on the kicker or goalkeeper. Thanks
 
Kent Ref said:
i was wondering if it was possible to have an impact on the kicker?
Click to expand...
It’s completely up to you. You decide whether or not there has been an impact on the kicker. I would suggest that if there isn’t any appeals or the game doesn’t expect it, it’s not a decision I would be enforcing. Especially in this case, for example, attacker has flung it over the bar, you have to ask whether encroachment from defenders behind him has really been a cause to that effect.

NOVARef said:
So if there the encroaching defender impacts the kicker in the eyes of the referee, the penalty kick is retaken. What is the restart if the encroaching defender plays the ball or challenges for the ball and this prevents the opponents from scoring? The table in Law 14 only discusses if there is an impact on the kicker or goalkeeper. Thanks
Click to expand...
I don’t quite understand what you mean here? If you’ve decided that the encroaching defender has impacted the kicker and the PK is to be retaken then that is your outcome. If he has encroached and following encroachment, has played or challenged for the ball, but you believe the encroachment has affected the kicker, it is the same outcome-retake the PK.
 
WalterPinkman said:
It’s completely up to you. You decide whether or not there has been an impact on the kicker. I would suggest that if there isn’t any appeals or the game doesn’t expect it, it’s not a decision I would be enforcing. Especially in this case, for example, attacker has flung it over the bar, you have to ask whether encroachment from defenders behind him has really been a cause to that effect.


I don’t quite understand what you mean here? If you’ve decided that the encroaching defender has impacted the kicker and the PK is to be retaken then that is your outcome. If he has encroached and following encroachment, has played or challenged for the ball, but you believe the encroachment has affected the kicker, it is the same outcome-retake the PK.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that if the kicker is impacted then the PK is retaken. That's clear. But if the encroachment does NOT impact the kicker, then 2nd bullet point of the law states ...."A teammate of the goal keeper is penalized for encroachment only if...the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and this prevents the opponent from scoring, attempting to score, etc. So imagine the encroaching teammate of the goal keeper does NOT impact the kicker but the goal keeper blocks the PK and the teammate gets to the rebound first and clears it. Does this fall under bullet point 2 and the teammate should be penalized? If so, what is the restart?
 
NOVARef said:
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that if the kicker is impacted then the PK is retaken. That's clear. But if the encroachment does NOT impact the kicker, then 2nd bullet point of the law states ...."A teammate of the goal keeper is penalized for encroachment only if...the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and this prevents the opponent from scoring, attempting to score, etc. So imagine the encroaching teammate of the goal keeper does NOT impact the kicker but the goal keeper blocks the PK and the teammate gets to the rebound first and clears it. Does this fall under bullet point 2 and the teammate should be penalized? If so, what is the restart?
Click to expand...

Note that the defender is still penalized and the offence is for encroachment (not for interfering).
Screenshot_20240814-084919.jpg
 
I think it does. No goal doesn't necessarily mean a miss. It could also mean a save.

Screenshot_20240814-090126.jpg
 
The only thing I don't like now is the inconsistency in when to caution. For me it should be consistent, any player offence causing the kick to be retaken should be cautioned.
 
In principle I think the law change re Attacker / Defender is eminently sensible and simply gives referees formal permission to now do what accepted practice / informal guidance has always suggested.
However, I can foresee upcoming issues at some point in cases where attacking encroachment impacts the actions of a defender but does not meet the specific criteria for impact now laid out in law.
  • a team-mate of the player taking the penalty kick is penalised for encroachment only if:
    • the encroachment clearly impacted on the goalkeeper; or
    • the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and then scores, attempts to score or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
Based on the above, if an encroaching attacker closes down a defender who, as a result, puts the ball out for a corner or throw in, should we give the encroachment???
 
Kent Ref said:
i was wondering if it was possible to have an impact on the kicker?
Click to expand...
If the encroachment is so bad that the player is somehow in the eye line of the kicker by the time he takes it then I suppose that could be justified as impacting the kicker. I think the main point of the law is to add common sense in that if a defender encroaches a small amount and the striker skies the ball over the bar or the keeper saves and holds it, why do we need to penalise?
 
one said:
The only thing I don't like now is the inconsistency in when to caution. For me it should be consistent, any player offence causing the kick to be retaken should be cautioned.
Click to expand...
Why? Losing the goal or giving the other team a PK seems more than adequate punishment.

The cautions to GK for coming off the line is the dumbest thing IFAB has ever done. (Well, a candidate, anyway.) somehow they thought adding a caution would change the fact refs just didn’t call it. Of course it didn’t, if anything it made them less likely to call it. So then they had VAR micro analyze it, but kept the pointless caution. And instead of removing the caution, they do back flips to make it not an issue—moving to a warning first and then wiping cautions before KFTM. No keeper is thinking a whit about cautions in coming off the line—the keeper is only thinking that he loses the save if he comes off the line, as that is what matters. All law 14 cautions should be dropped as just plain silly.
 
socal lurker said:
Why? Losing the goal or giving the other team a PK seems more than adequate punishment.

The cautions to GK for coming off the line is the dumbest thing IFAB has ever done. (Well, a candidate, anyway.) somehow they thought adding a caution would change the fact refs just didn’t call it. Of course it didn’t, if anything it made them less likely to call it. So then they had VAR micro analyze it, but kept the pointless caution. And instead of removing the caution, they do back flips to make it not an issue—moving to a warning first and then wiping cautions before KFTM. No keeper is thinking a whit about cautions in coming off the line—the keeper is only thinking that he loses the save if he comes off the line, as that is what matters. All law 14 cautions should be dropped as just plain silly.
Click to expand...
Don't mind either way as long as it's consistent. Right now, when to caution and when not to is all over the place.
 
What if the encroaching defender is a former team-mate of the kicker and points to tell the GK which way to dive, and the GK saves it? Without encroachment there's not much to be done about that. But if encroaching, could it count as clearly impacting on the kicker?
 
bloovee said:
What if the encroaching defender is a former team-mate of the kicker and points to tell the GK which way to dive, and the GK saves it? Without encroachment there's not much to be done about that. But if encroaching, could it count as clearly impacting on the kicker?
Click to expand...
Don't follow. Are you mixing things up here?
There is no such thing as "former team-mate of the kicker" in the laws. It's either those on the team sheet such as players, subs etc, or an outside agent. Encroachment only applies to players. Anyone else can either interfere or not interfere. Either case is clear in law how to deal with.
 
bloovee said:
What if the encroaching defender is a former team-mate of the kicker and points to tell the GK which way to dive, and the GK saves it? Without encroachment there's not much to be done about that. But if encroaching, could it count as clearly impacting on the kicker?
Click to expand...
I get that you're probably trying to play devils advocate, but no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top