Penalty kick LOTG quiz question
- Thread starter one
- Start date
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Goal and no sanction for GK. On the basis that the attacker wasn't meaningfully distracted so you can class the offence as trifling. Whereas if he misses then a retake and a caution.
i'm going with an attempt to distract still being a caution-able offence, though see your POV.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
It's a tricky one, the laws just say that it's a caution if you verbally distract an opponent during play or at a restart.
I have always worked on the basis that if an opponent shouting doesn't put the player off then they havent been distracted enough to constitute an offence worthy of a caution.
I think it is open to interpretation, the laws define distract as "disturb, confuse, or draw attention (usually unfairly)"
I have always worked on the basis that if an opponent shouting doesn't put the player off then they havent been distracted enough to constitute an offence worthy of a caution.
I think it is open to interpretation, the laws define distract as "disturb, confuse, or draw attention (usually unfairly)"
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
For me, depends on how bad it was.
If it was close to the line, I probably just tell the keeper he's lucky it scored as I'd have had to caution him and have it retaken, in part on the "was it really a distraction?" line of thinking.
If it was really bad, it creates a bit of a Laws conundrum, as the misconduct takes place before the restart takes place. We have the new "quick restart" exception to having to give a caution before a restart, but there is no such thing as a quick restart on a PK. So, from a technical perspective, can we both allow the kick to stand and issue the caution for something that happened before the restart? So I probably would not touch this unless the distraction reached the level of OFFINABUS and warranted a sendoff. (But if I really thought in a particular game that I needed to caution for game control, I'd probably issue the caution and keep the goal anyway, even though there is a good argument it is not technically proper.)
If it was close to the line, I probably just tell the keeper he's lucky it scored as I'd have had to caution him and have it retaken, in part on the "was it really a distraction?" line of thinking.
If it was really bad, it creates a bit of a Laws conundrum, as the misconduct takes place before the restart takes place. We have the new "quick restart" exception to having to give a caution before a restart, but there is no such thing as a quick restart on a PK. So, from a technical perspective, can we both allow the kick to stand and issue the caution for something that happened before the restart? So I probably would not touch this unless the distraction reached the level of OFFINABUS and warranted a sendoff. (But if I really thought in a particular game that I needed to caution for game control, I'd probably issue the caution and keep the goal anyway, even though there is a good argument it is not technically proper.)
one
RefChat Addict
So have you made up you mind yet
. It's a lotg question with facts only. No situational circumstances.socal lurker
RefChat Addict
So have you made up you mind yet
Technically speaking, I don't see a rationale for caution and goal as I don't see a clear basis to depart from the general concept that misconduct needs to be given before a restart. (I don't think Law 14 contemplates this--if it did, I would expect it to have a carve out similar to the quick kick carve out.)
one
RefChat Addict
LOTG requires a retake and caution if the penalty kick is missed and goalkeeper commits and offence. The caution is for committing an offence (any offence) after the signal and before the ball is in play when the kick misses. Let's call the reason for the caution 'causing a retake' offence.
Now if that offence attracts another sanction, now we have two offences at the same time (similar to a DOGSO which is committed by a reckless or UEF tackle). We must punish the more serious offence. E.g. if the offence by keeper is OFFINABUS, you still retake as per law 14 but the sanction is not a caution for 'causing a retake' as per law 14, it is a red for the more serious offence of OFFINABUS as per law 12.
If the goal is scored however as in OP you can not caution for the offence of 'causing a retake'. But a goal being scored does not void the law 12 USB offence of "verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart". The keeper has committed that offence which attracts a caution no matter what the impact/outcome is.
My thoughts anyway on what the technical lotg answer should be. Of course what happens on the field may not be the same story.
Now if that offence attracts another sanction, now we have two offences at the same time (similar to a DOGSO which is committed by a reckless or UEF tackle). We must punish the more serious offence. E.g. if the offence by keeper is OFFINABUS, you still retake as per law 14 but the sanction is not a caution for 'causing a retake' as per law 14, it is a red for the more serious offence of OFFINABUS as per law 12.
If the goal is scored however as in OP you can not caution for the offence of 'causing a retake'. But a goal being scored does not void the law 12 USB offence of "verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart". The keeper has committed that offence which attracts a caution no matter what the impact/outcome is.
My thoughts anyway on what the technical lotg answer should be. Of course what happens on the field may not be the same story.
Last edited:
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
But you still need to decide whether the keeper 'verbally distracted an opponent'
Just shouting isn't verbally distracting, and there is the argument that if the goal is scored how much of a distraction could there have been anyway.
Just shouting isn't verbally distracting, and there is the argument that if the goal is scored how much of a distraction could there have been anyway.
one
RefChat Addict
Why 'but'? What does the question in the OP say? As I said before the OP is a LOTG quiz question. Giving what you should consider as facts and asking for a decision.
It's like a question saying that ball goes over the goal line outside the goal, last touched by a defender of that goal. What is the decision? And the answer says but you have to decide if the ball has gone over the goal line.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Shouting is not an offence, it is only an offence if the keeper verbally distracts the person taking the kick.
If the penalty is scored then it is debatable whether the kicker was distracted, and if they weren't then there is no grounds to caution the keeper.
The offence is not attempts to verbally distract an opponent, it is verbally distracts an opponent.
If the penalty is scored then it is debatable whether the kicker was distracted, and if they weren't then there is no grounds to caution the keeper.
The offence is not attempts to verbally distract an opponent, it is verbally distracts an opponent.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Understand your point. However I think where some (myself included) are coming from, is that if the attempted distraction fails, then it pretty much becomes self evidently 'trifling'. For me, good game management would then be a clear and obvious communication to the GK about the ill advised nature of his actions ... without feeling the need to resort to a card
one
RefChat Addict
I think we are talking different languages. Who said the keeper shouted? The question is not asking if the the kicker was distracted. It is telling he was distracted. Its a hypothetical for the purposes of a quiz question. See my analogy in my previous post.
one
RefChat Addict
Fine and I completely understand that if that happens in a game and that is what you do. I can come up with hypothetical when 'attempting to distract' succeeds to 'distract' and the ball still ends up in the back of the net. But the OP is not about that. You just take what is says a fact.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
How else is the keeper going to verbally distract someone who is at least 9.15 metered away without at least having to raise his voice?
Also, how are we determining that the kick taker was distracted, if he was able to take and score the penalty it can't be because of his reaction to whatever the keeper did.
one
RefChat Addict
How do you make the assertion it was verbal?
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
Thank you.
How do I know the kicker was distracted?
Dont pick and choose what is fact and what is questionable. It's a hypothetical.
Not that it matters if I come up with a hypothetical scenario that it can happen. It's beside the point of the question. But her we go. The kicker is in his run up. Keeper lets out an almighty booo. The kicker is startled so badly he stumbles over and in the process his back foot makes contact with the ball which ends up in the net. As a referee i have no doubt in my mind the kicker was distracted and the ball ending up in the net was a freak accident.
How do I know the kicker was distracted?
Dont pick and choose what is fact and what is questionable. It's a hypothetical.
Not that it matters if I come up with a hypothetical scenario that it can happen. It's beside the point of the question. But her we go. The kicker is in his run up. Keeper lets out an almighty booo. The kicker is startled so badly he stumbles over and in the process his back foot makes contact with the ball which ends up in the net. As a referee i have no doubt in my mind the kicker was distracted and the ball ending up in the net was a freak accident.