Open Age Penalty encroachment, caution?

[RobOda]

Out watching the Saturday football today, on a rare day off.

So, penalty incident. Penalty was taken, hit the post, taker got a second bite at the cherry, skied it. Heard the whistle go and to my surprise (due to how late the whistle went) it was a re-take. From what I could see, the referee indicated encroachment and then cautioned the player involved.

I may be overlooking it, but is it generally a caution for encroachment during a penalty for the first time offence? I'm leaning towards a no personally, but wanted to see what you guys thought?

And that raises another issue, do you penalise encroachment for when the penalty taker hits the post and then hit the ball a second time? Like, the defending player can't affect play once that second touch happens no?

 

[es1]

Yeah encroachment ain't a cautionable offence

And no way I'm giving it in the situation you describe

 

[JamesL]

Also, post and then striker 2nd bite of cherry? Idfk for 2nd touch, no?

 

[Justylove]

Err no.

If it hit the post, and the taker got a second bite, why no IFK for a double touch (unless keeper got a touch on it)?

 

[Trip]

Presumably the encroachment occurred before the second touch?

 

[Big Cat]

Out watching the Saturday football today, on a rare day off.

So, penalty incident. Penalty was taken, hit the post, taker got a second bite at the cherry, skied it. Heard the whistle go and to my surprise (due to how late the whistle went) it was a re-take. From what I could see, the referee indicated encroachment and then cautioned the player involved.

I may be overlooking it, but is it generally a caution for encroachment during a penalty for the first time offence? I'm leaning towards a no personally, but wanted to see what you guys thought?

And that raises another issue, do you penalise encroachment for when the penalty taker hits the post and then hit the ball a second time? Like, the defending player can't affect play once that second touch happens no?

Was it Keith Stroud by any chance?

 

[socal lurker]

Unless the encroachment affected the kicker on his kick or the rebound, I think that's just flat out a bad call and should have been an IFK. And it is not a cautionable event unless it somehow was for PO. (Of course, we are all assuming it wasn't for dissent for what he said when the R said it was a retake . . . .)

 

[Anubis]

from what you describe am giving the idfk for second touch

sidenote, officiating alone, near if not impossible to watch encroachment, kicker plus gk, and then obv the ball to the perfection that we would penalise something
something has to give.....sounds like this ref was handed a golden ticket to an idfk and lost it

 

[one]

Clearly we are talking outfield player encroachments here. Keeper encroachments are handled differently. Though I'd just mention it.

Presumably the encroachment occurred before the second touch?

Ahhhm. Well yes. If it was after it won't be an encroachment offence. Even if it was before the second touch but after the first touch, it won't be an offence.

As describe in OP and assuming no other event was missed by OP, there are two error there. Retake was an error in game management and caution was an error in law.

 

[RobOda]

Also, post and then striker 2nd bite of cherry?

Yes, um might be using the wrong terminology there, but he took a second shot (I know it's IDFK, two touches, that was what I originally thought the whistle went for)

If it was after it won't be an encroachment offence. Even if it was before the second touch but after the first touch, it won't be an offence.

You seem to get what I'm thinking, I was under impression encroachment was penalised when the defending player in question gets to the ball/interferes etc, so in the scenario of where the kicker gets a second touch offence, there's no way the defender can encroach?

(Of course, we are all assuming it wasn't for dissent for what he said when the R said it was a retake . . . .)

From what we saw, there was no indication of dissent being the reason, the body language to me, suggested caution for encroachment. I could be wide of the mark though, but the spectators along the sideline I was at were none the wiser!

sidenote, officiating alone, near if not impossible to watch encroachment, kicker plus gk, and then obv the ball to the perfection that we would penalise something

Yes, I don't really prioritise encroachment if I'm on my own. I'm too busy watching keeper/kicker and ball in/out (goal/no goal), so I'm only penalising encroachment if it is so obvious it's slapping me in the face.

 

[Kes]

Unless the encroachment affected the kicker on his kick or the rebound, I think that's just flat out a bad call and should have been an IFK.

This ^ ^ ^

Forget the encroachment, just award the IDFK for the taker having a second touch and get on with the game ...

 

[Jorik0907]

Yes, um might be using the wrong terminology there, but he took a second shot (I know it's IDFK, two touches, that was what I originally thought the whistle went for)



You seem to get what I'm thinking, I was under impression encroachment was penalised when the defending player in question gets to the ball/interferes etc, so in the scenario of where the kicker gets a second touch offence, there's no way the defender can encroach?



From what we saw, there was no indication of dissent being the reason, the body language to me, suggested caution for encroachment. I could be wide of the mark though, but the spectators along the sideline I was at were none the wiser!


Yes, I don't really prioritise encroachment if I'm on my own. I'm too busy watching keeper/kicker and ball in/out (goal/no goal), so I'm only penalising encroachment if it is so obvious it's slapping me in the face.

Once had a guy encroach so obviously I couldn't see the kicker take the penalty. Was luckily immaterial as the ball went in and he was a defender but it was quite funny to me at the time.

But agreed, encroachment is not really a big deal at lower levels as everyone does it, really

 

[socal lurker]

Once had a guy encroach so obviously I couldn't see the kicker take the penalty. Was luckily immaterial as the ball went in and he was a defender but it was quite funny to me at the time.

But agreed, encroachment is not really a big deal at any level as everyone does it, really

Fixed it for you . . . the only time encroachment should be called at any level is if it matters. That really means a defender getting far enough in to distract the kicker, an attacker getting far enough in to distract the GK, or a rebound where the player who encroached affects the subsequent play.