Penalty Kick - Law 14 Offences

[Mr Dean]

Just been catching up on the new laws. Can someone help me with this?

From law 14:

"If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:
...

- the goalkeeper offends:
...
if the ball misses the goal or rebounds from the crossbar or goalpost(s), the kick is only retaken if the goalkeeper’s offence clearly impacted on the kicker
...

- a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence"

This sounds contradictory to me. What is the correct decision in this scenario?:

An attacker encroaches and the goalkeeper encroaches; the penalty kick is missed and the goalkeeper's actions did not affect the kicker.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm going with the IFK out.

I get there on one of two theories (1) since the GK "offense" is not supposed to have consequences unless it affected, it is not an offense within the meaning of both teams offend, or (2) since the GK offense would not be punished in the absence of encroachment.it must be less serious. The result can't be that the kicking team is better off if the teammate encroaches.)

And yes, once again, IFAB could have written this more clearly. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

 

[GraemeS]

Yeah, I think I agree. The implication of the first line is that GK encroachment is not actually considered an offence unless it impacts the taker. Unclear writing, but if you take that first clause and change it to the kick is only retaken if the goalkeeper’s encroachment clearly impacted on the kicker , I think it scans a lot better and is more consistent.

 

[one]

I agree that the law could be clearer but this one is clear enough for me. I disagree with outcome suggested above. The trick is to look at the main dot points and then sub-point. Anything in a sub-point applies only to its main point. This is pretty much standard practice. As far as the main points they each apply exclusively meaning you can't have overlap and you can't apply two of them at the same time (otherwise the last two points are the most obvious conflict).

"the goalkeeper offends" mean if only the goal keeper offends. In that case (and only in that case) you apply the sub-points for "the goalkeeper offends" and consider impact. There is a separate main point for "a player of both teams offends" in which case you don't apply the sub-points for keeper only offending. So what has been mentioned in the OP is not contradictory. They apply to two different circumstances and when a player of both teams offends, even when one is a keeper, regardless of the impact it is a retake.

EDIT: Another rationale will be the very likely possibility of a big imbalance by giving IFK. You are punishing the encroachment of a player even if it did not have impact but you are not punishing the same for keeper. Given the outcome will reverse a penalty (prob from a DOGSO) is a large imbalance.

(image fro IFAB online LOTG)

 

[GraemeS]

I agree that the law could be clearer but this one is clear enough for me. I disagree with outcome suggested above. The trick is to look at the main dot points and then sub-point. Anything in a sub-point applies only to its main point. This is pretty much standard practice. As far as the main points they each apply exclusively meaning you can't have overlap and you can't apply two of them at the same time (otherwise the last two points are the most obvious conflict).

"the goalkeeper offends" mean if only the goal keeper offends. In that case (and only in that case) you apply the sub-points for "the goalkeeper offends" and consider impact. There is a separate main point for "a player of both teams offends" in which case you don't apply the sub-points for keeper only offending. So what has been mentioned in the OP is not contradictory. They apply to two different circumstances and when a player of both teams offends, even when one is a keeper, regardless of the impact it is a retake.

EDIT: Another rationale will be the very likely possibility of a big imbalance by giving IFK. You are punishing the encroachment of a player even if it did not have impact but you are not punishing the same for keeper. Given the outcome will reverse a penalty (prob from a DOGSO) is a large imbalance.

(image fro IFAB online LOTG)

View attachment 4517

OK, I'm now rethinking everything. I agree with your structural point (main bullets vs sub-bullets), however what I'd missed from the initial quote is that there is a separate clause for when the GK and the kicker are specifically the ones that offend. The "LOTG" answer does seem to be retake, although as @socal lurker correctly points out, that means the outcome is worse for the GK because an opponent has encroached (no goal/play on has become a retake). That feels very wrong.

The other question is does this count as the GK causing the kick to be retaken, even though we're now applying the "both teams" logic rather than the "GK section" logic? ie. if this happens twice in a row, does he get a caution? If so, we're again punishing the GK unfairly - had an attacker not encroached, it would have been considered inconsequential and no retake would have been required.

I also take issue with your edit. The laws have already gone out of their way to enshrine the concept that a GK's encroachment can be inconsequential - they do not allow for an attacker's encroachment, defending teammate's encroachment or a taker's offence to be considered inconsequential. Again, might feel unfair but that concept is 100% clear from the first few main bullets. To throw this away in the second to last bullet then feels inconsistent. And the concept is then reinforced again in the final bullet - if both the GK and the taker offend, we essentially ignore the GK's offence even if it has a measurable consequence and punish only the taker.

Throughout the entire screenshot you've posted, the laws are imbalanced in favour of the GK for offences at a PK. The only situation where they're not is the specific example suggested by the OP - which then feels inconsistent from the rest of the laws as a result!

 

[one]

The other question is does this count as the GK causing the kick to be retaken, even though we're now applying the "both teams" logic rather than the "GK section" logic? ie. if this happens twice in a row, does he get a caution?

I think you are mixing the two bullet points again if you did caution or warn. Goalkeeper being cautioned applies when goalkeeper is the only person offending which not the case in OP.

 

[Justylove]

Love these theoretical situations as they never really tell the full story.

Keeper encroaches but doesn't have an impact on the outcome, therefore it can't be a save so it's either the taker has put it over the bar or wide, or its hit the woodwork and come back out.

If it's put out of play directly from the penalty. I'm going goal kick or IFK for defending team which would be dependent on how much encroachment from the attacker there is. If it's a small amount then goal kick if it's really obvious like he's level with the penalty taker when it's kicked, it's an easy IFK.

If it's come back into play from post or bar, I'm going IFK to defending team.

If and only if it's obvious that the keepers encroachment has made a difference to the outcome am I going retake.

 

[GraemeS]

I think you are mixing the two bullet points again if you did caution or warn. Goalkeeper being cautioned applies when goalkeeper is the only person offending which not the case in OP.

But again, that makes very little sense. For the penalty to be retaken, the GK has to have offended. No GK offence, no retake.

 

[socal lurker]

I think @one 's reading is wholly illogical.

Under the logic, if the GK is the only one to offend without impacting the shot, nothing happens.

But if an opponent also offends, suddenly the miss becomes a retake.

So the kicking team benefits from offending.

To paraphrase Dickens, if that is what Law 14 says, the Law is an ass.

In the unlikely event I ever see this unicorn, I'm sticking with my first answer for the reasons in my post above.

 

[one]

I think @one 's reading is wholly illogical.

Under the logic, if the GK is the only one to offend without impacting the shot, nothing happens.

But if an opponent also offends, suddenly the miss becomes a retake.

So the kicking team benefits from offending.

To paraphrase Dickens, if that is what Law 14 says, the Law is an ass.

In the unlikely event I ever see this unicorn, I'm sticking with my first answer for the reasons in my post above.

I am not saying I agree with it or I like it. Just that it is what it says and it is fairly clear. I have been writing/reading point form structured business requirement over a couple of decades now and there has never been any debate over how they are interpreted.
As @GraemeS pointed out there are inconsistencies in this law. I started to respond to his last post then it opened up a can of worms so I deleted it.
In your 'logical' case if the ball bounces of the post to the taker and about to score, both the keeper and a team mate of taker have clearly encroached but neither has had an impact, do you still give a IFK. You call it illogical, I call it inconsistent.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

I am not saying I agree with it or I like it. Just that it is what it says and it is fairly clear. I have been writing/reading point form structured business requirement over a couple of decades now and there has never been any debate over how they are interpreted.
As @GraemeS pointed out there are inconsistencies in this law. I started to respond to his last post then it opened up a can of worms so I deleted it.
In your 'logical' case if the ball bounces of the post to the taker and about to score, both the keeper and a team mate of taker have clearly encroached but neither has had an impact, do you still give a IFK. You call it illogical, I call it inconsistent.

Save yourself the hassle and go IFK for the double touch.

 

[one]

Save yourself the hassle and go IFK for the double touch.

Haha. Why didn't I think of that.
The point is still there thought, if the ball goes to a teammate legally there.

 

[socal lurker]

I am not saying I agree with it or I like it. Just that it is what it says and it is fairly clear. I have been writing/reading point form structured business requirement over a couple of decades now and there has never been any debate over how they are interpreted.
As @GraemeS pointed out there are inconsistencies in this law. I started to respond to his last post then it opened up a can of worms so I deleted it.
In your 'logical' case if the ball bounces of the post to the taker and about to score, both the keeper and a team mate of taker have clearly encroached but neither has had an impact, do you still give a IFK. You call it illogical, I call it inconsistent.

I disagree that it is clear in the way you say it is. And I think a fundamental concept in reading the LOTG is to read them with the SOTG to make sense, not to have ridiculous results.

I do understand your literal reading of the sub bullets. But I don't think that kind of parsing frequently works for the Laws given how they are written. (For decades, read literally, it was impossible to have an OS offense--but we all knew what it really meant.)

I think it is pretty clear that the intent is that an encroaching GK is only an offense if the GK makes a save or affects the kicker. And I think the intent is to import that into the opponents scenario.

As far as your scenario, the real problem is that soccer can't decide what it really wants when it comes to encroaching. We have a black and white standard for those other than the kicker and GK, but we routinely ignore it. If we fix your scenario by saying it goes to a non-encroaching attacker (to avoid the double touch), I am most likely ignoring both encroachments. If, however, I determine the attacker's encroachment was bad enough that it needs to be called, I'm giving the IFK going. Under no circumstances where a PK misses and the GK did not affect the miss am I going to rely on the GKs actions to give a second bite at the apple. I think that is the clear message intended in Law 14.