Germany vs Saudi Arabia

[santa sangria]

I hope not because it's not allowed. Once the ref signals for the PK it must be taken. Law 14 then sets out the procedures on how to handle encroachment.

Perhaps that does not help us. At a ceremonial DFK we can pause the game to sanction and affect match control. Why not at PKs?

 

[Peter Grove]

On your subject of encroachment if VAR is pulling back pens for re takes or IDFK’s then it will turn into a circus as we have covered on numerous occasions encroachment occurs on nearly every pen taken, surely VAR won’t be pulling back a pen everytime a foot is in the box.

No, they won't. As the protocol quoted by @one earlier says:

Encroachment can only be reviewed: if an attacker who encroached scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored. [...] Other encroachment offences [...] which do not directly affect whether a goal is scored cannot be reviewed.

 

[GraemeS]

I hope not because it's not allowed. Once the ref signals for the PK it must be taken. Law 14 then sets out the procedures on how to handle encroachment.

I genuinely didn't realise that was the case. So are we suggesting that once the ref blows his whistle, the taker could turn round and punch an opponent, and the referee must then let him continue to take the kick before blowing up, sending him off and ordering a retake?

 

[Deleted member 3014]

I genuinely didn't realise that was the case. So are we suggesting that once the ref blows his whistle, the taker could turn round and punch an opponent, and the referee must then let him continue to take the kick before blowing up, sending him off and ordering a retake?

Surprising how often that happens, had it 3 games in a row last season

 

[JH]

I genuinely didn't realise that was the case. So are we suggesting that once the ref blows his whistle, the taker could turn round and punch an opponent, and the referee must then let him continue to take the kick before blowing up, sending him off and ordering a retake?

This is where common sense comes in to play.

 

[Deleted member 3014]

This is where common sense comes in to play.

I thought common sense was banned on this board, I thought everything had to be by the book.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I thought common sense was banned on this board, I thought everything had to be by the book.

It’s a North South thing I think?

 

[Peter Grove]

I genuinely didn't realise that was the case. So are we suggesting that once the ref blows his whistle, the taker could turn round and punch an opponent, and the referee must then let him continue to take the kick before blowing up, sending him off and ordering a retake?

No, nobody - absolutely nobody, is suggesting that.

 

[santa sangria]

No, nobody - absolutely nobody, is suggesting that.

Wouldn't also be "common sense" to get in early with encroachment?

 

[Deleted member 3014]

It’s a North South thing I think?

You still got wells in the bottom of the gardens up there Sheff & outdoor toilets?

 

[one]

Wouldn't also be "common sense" to get in early with encroachment?

Its common sense to get in with early encroachment. Its not common sense to get in early with encroachment (I liked that one )

The vast majority of encroachments happen less than a second before the ball is kicked. Lets say you try and get in early and immediately before you blow the whistle the ball is kicked and missed (you blow when the ball it travelling towards goal), the encroachment is by a defender, how do you manage that? What if its scored?

But before the kicker start his run up you see an encroachment or someone punching another person then yes get in and manage it.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

This. The LOTG aren't written to cover every scenario. Let's say players encroach, the kicker starts his run up, slips, stops and turns to you while have a dozen players are 6 yards in the box. Everything has stopped - are you going to make him kick it, or reboot the whole process?
Don't forget, 'spirit of the game' is now written into the laws as well.

 

[GraemeS]

I'm not trying to be overly awkward and I'm certainly not saying I would let that happen in real life. But the use of the term "must be taken" seems really unnecessary and could easily be interpreted to allow that. Encroachment is the act of being in the PA when the ball is kicked, so by definition there is no offence until the ball is kicked. So why put that clause there?

 

[one]

I'm not trying to be overly awkward and I'm certainly not saying I would let that happen in real life. But the use of the term "must be taken" seems really unnecessary and could easily be interpreted to allow that. Encroachment is the act of being in the PA when the ball is kicked, so by definition there is no offence until the ball is kicked. So why put that clause there?

Without it there will be too many referees blowing the whistle as the ball is being kicked. I'd say having the term is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[JamesL]

Without it there will be too many referees blowing the white as the ball is being kicked. I,d say having the term is the lesser of the two evils.

Thats an interesting typo you've produced there @one.

 

[one]

Thats an interesting typo you've produced there @one.

Damn auto correct can kiss my ask . I'm hopeless at spelling or grammer at the best of times. Fixed it (I hope).