A&H

Penalty - oops a daisy

Alex71

Alex71

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Law 14 : The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves

Incident from the weekend (first one) which got me wanting to be 100% sure on other possible scenarios

  1. Player trips during their run up - falls - no contact with the ball
  2. Player trips during their run up - falls onto the ball - contact is with chest only - ball rolls forward
  3. Player trips during their run up - falls onto the ball - contact is with feet first and then with chest - balls rolls forward
Re-take ... Re-take ... IDFK the other way ..?

Thanks!
 
The Referee Store
I would agree with all three results there.

Noting that as soon as the player trips, I'd likely be on the whistle to show people that "hold up, hold up, we have a problem Houston."

Heck, if I'm able to react quickly enough, even the last scenario could POTENTIALY become a retake rather than an IFK for the second touch. Depending on the type of trip/fall.
 
Padfoot said:
'Kick' is a deliberate act of using the foot to propel the ball in a given direction.....
Click to expand...

... I can see shades of grey in scenario 3 for us to interpret ... is a stumble and a massive slice different to a 'kick' ..?

The offside law is a little clearer in this respect - "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched"
 
Not that there's any real logical reason to do it, but would we count a penalty as "taken" if a player deliberately chooses to use his knee/chest/head to move the ball instead of his feet?
 
GraemeS said:
Not that there's any real logical reason to do it, but would we count a penalty as "taken" if a player deliberately chooses to use his knee/chest/head to move the ball instead of his feet?
Click to expand...

The law specifically states that the ball must be "kicked" so theres not much room for interpretation there.
 
Alex71 said:
... I can see shades of grey in scenario 3 for us to interpret ... is a stumble and a massive slice different to a 'kick' ..?

The offside law is a little clearer in this respect - "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched"
Click to expand...

If a player stumbles and rather than stop and start from scratch they decide to complete the penalty and end up kicking the ball into row z.....tough, goal kick...carry on.

If they fall arse over head and, purely by chance, happen to make contact with the ball with their foot.....unless you are a complete Farage you couldn't view that as a deliberate kick.......
 
'Kicked', by the dictionary term, suggests a fair amount of force. ie the touch on the ball that makes it roll half a centimetre? We may accept that as a kick, although under the dictionary definition it perhaps wouldn't be.
Thus the game seems to have a different definition. However, I think the argument that 'kick' suggests an intentional foot movement, whereas falling into the ball isn't that, is reasonable. Not arguing for or against it, but it's reasonable.
I've seen a video of some pro-level match where a defender slipped running in to a corner, knocked it with his feet over the goal line. Ran straight off for a goal kick.
The first 2 questions are black and white - wasn't kicked so it's a retake. The third? Laws could be interpreted 2 ways here. What about Spirit of the game? Or do you want to prioritise what's easier to sell (and when the LOTG would seem to permit a decision either way I think that does become a valid consideration)?
Personally I think no matter which way you go one team's going to abuse you, so just go to what you feel is right instead of trying to make the 'easy' decision.
I think, retake.
 
On this law

Law 14 : The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves

Why was the word "forward" removed from the previous wording? yet the FAQ says kicking the ball backward is against the PK procedure.
 
one said:
On this law

Law 14 : The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves

Why was the word "forward" removed from the previous wording? yet the FAQ says kicking the ball backward is against the PK procedure.
Click to expand...
Forward has been removed from that part of Law 14 as a way of distinguishing that the ball comes into play once kicked and moves and the direction of the movement is not relevant to the ball coming into play.

Law 14 itself sets out the ball being kicked backwards as an infringement resulting in an indirect free kick on p96.

If the kicked forward part remained in the procedure then we would be in a situation of requiring the kick to be retaken as it hadn't come into play in accordance with law despite an infringement of law 14 taking place.
 
ASM said:
If the kicked forward part remained in the procedure then we would be in a situation of requiring the kick to be retaken as it hadn't come into play in accordance with law despite an infringement of law 14 taking place.
Click to expand...
That kind of makes sense but I am not sure if it is by design. I have already mentioned in another thread that there is precedence for an infringement occuring before the ball in play changing the restart (feinting to kick the ball after the last step). This would be regardless of if the ball comes into play or not. I don't see why kicking the ball backwards would be any different.

I do think it is a trivial point though
 
If the player falls over, just by chance - not deliberately, then retake. If they are trying to fall over in order for you to let them retake it (ie. because they know that they have messed up their run up), IDFK and YC for USB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top