OK
Would you say the ball is in play if the referee had not signalled for the PK to be taken (part of the procedure)? After all the ball is kicked and clearly moves.
Non sequitur. Play cannot be restarted without the permission of the R, so of course not. That's not even apples and oranges--it's apples and golf balls.
Any restart taken incorrectly (not following procedure) means the ball does not go in play. In fact an Incorrectly taken TI is another restart that changes when the ball is not in play, unless the law specifically says so.
I think you're wrong, and I think that is the concept that Elleray was getting at in why an improperly taken TI that enters the field can be a turnover, but not one that doesn't enter the field. One put the ball in play (improperly, resulting in the turnover) and the other did not.
A free kick taken from the wrong place does not put the ball in play despite the fact the law says the ball is in play when kicked and clearly moves (note it's a retake for this one).
Again, not similar, as the kick is not taken with the permission of the referee.
And since the ball was not in play, it still needs to be taken.
Similar with a rolling ball goal kick.
Agree that it isn't in play--
so the GK has to be taken.
Not too long ago we had the discussion about substitution which follows a similar logic. The law says the substitution is complete when a substitute enters the field of play. However if the procedure is not followed correctly (eg, the player has not left the FOP, or the sub entered from the goal line), then substitution is NOT complete.
I don't think the logic is similar.
I am fairly certain the reason "and moves forward" was moved from one part of LAW 14 to another was to make it consistent with other free kicks rather than not make it a requirement for ball in play.
An interesting theory, I suppose, but I don't buy it at all in the context of the history of the game and basic principles. (And, before the recent great rewrite, it was
both a mandate that it go forward
and a dictate that the ball was not in play until it went forward.) Historically, a PK kicked backwards was still taken--as the ball had not been put into play. Somewhere along the line (I haven't looked for when it first occurred--sometime between the early 80's and late 90's, I believe) IFAB decided that kicking the ball backwards was so outrageous a breach of protocol that it should be a lost PK, even though the ball wasn't put into play, and that was in the Q&A. Similarly, somewhere along the line (again, I believe it was in the 80s or 90s), IFAB breached the concept with the TI, making it so that an improperly taken TI was now turned over to the other team even if it did not enter the play. (Thus creating the answers to the referee trivia question about the only time a restart can change without the ball going into play.) The recent great rewrite brought both of those back to the basic premise about a a restart having to put the ball in play before the start can change. The PK was changed so that it was in play when kicked and clearly moves--making it an improper putting of the ball in play, like a TI, that causes the lost PK. And the TI was changed (with no announcement or fanfare) so that only if the ball enters the field (i.e. goes into play), the TI is turned over to the other team. (See the Elleray quote in post 8--the only reason to punish an improper TI that enters the field
more than a TI that is both improper and doesn't enter the field is this concept that the ball has not gone into play.) This is a great thing because it is taking us back to the concept that restarts don't change until the ball is put into play (though they can change if improperly put into play)--nice to see IFAB going back to concepts in this area, even if they are going to more rules and exceptions in other places.
If you prefer to think of it as not being in play, go wild--it really doesn't matter in the sense that it doesn't change the decisions, but just makes it harder to remember why a restart can or cannot change.
