The referee being the only judge of the end of the game mad sense when only the referee could afford a stopwatch.
I've had this happen once, in a boy's game. "Boys, you can gather around the Penalty area if you want but the game's over as soon as this kick is done". They started post-game handshakes while we set up and took the PK. In full disclosure it made the score something like 9-2, so it had no bearing on the match, meaning the "give-a-d%^n" of the players was busted at that point.
Indeed, I meant 20. The 20 not involved move toward the benches and treat it like a water break. Really, they can sit on the bench, what do I care. But what they can't do is touch the ball. The penalty kick is being taken after play is over. The kicker takes it and the keeper either saves it or he doesn't; wait till the ball expends its energy and see where it ends up. I see zero problems being created by the ATR. The players are going to have mental anguish because of their uncertain metaphysical state? What problems are being created? The other defenders can't clear it off the line, the kicker cant' rebound it, the 2nd attacker can't shoot it because play is over. Sending the players away from the kick prevents those things. It also prevents the unlikely but possible scenario (seen on video last year) of the keeper batting the ball away but putting spin on it that will bring it back to the goal--then a 3rd player grabs the ball. What are the referee difficulties of treating it like a kick from the mark? (BTW, I had one of these in a game a month ago. The CR sent the players to the benches; it was halftime.)
I agree. You seem to be getting better at it. For me the ATR was a great teaching tool to get me to think things through. It was the text book for Refereeing 101. But just like any textbook, at some point you have to let go and think about the intent behind the Laws. And always remember that the ATR and Laws are both the map, but neither is the territory.
JH- You are adamant about the idea that a defender can't clear the ball -- is there any basis for that other than the ATR? LOTG simply says the period is extended, not that play is over. And if the period is extended until the PK is over, what in your view prohibits any player from playing? (Of course, if an attacker plays the ball, the goal won't count because that would clearly end the PK. But what rationale prevents a defender from defending? (And since the game is extended (i.e. still going on), what the players can't do is leave the field of play -- ATR seems to nail that one properly.)
How many other choices are there? The slippery slope. The scenario is that a second defender runs up to clear the shot off the line, right? So, I guess the kicker could run up to legally shepherd the ball across the line. Now the two of them are jostling. Something about this doesn't seem like a penalty kick anymore. But second man now kicks the ball out, while fouling the kicker.
Had this happen once - Boys U12 Recreational. Make-up game for a rain out played after post-season league cup is over. Had to be made up since it was between two teams tied for 1st place during regular season. Winner is regular season champion, loser gets 2nd place medals. Score is 2-1, less than 30 seconds to go in one minute of stoppage time. Ball enters PA, defender handles it, I think.., AR's flag goes up confirming it, whistle for PK for team down a goal. Players setup for PK. I instruct them that time has expired and that nobody should enter the PA after the taking of the PK and that the game will be over if the PK is scored or the keeper saves it, etc. Players still line up around PA as normal (book says I can't force them off the field..). Blow whistle, kick is taken, players rush in, keeper deflects it strongly away from goal, blow whistle HARD, then a couple more times to signal end of game.. WHEW! Interesting fact - if goal had been converted, game would've ended in a draw since it was a makeup of a regular season match. Head-to-head and goals against would've been ties, as well. Rules of competition would've resulted in awarding 1st place medals to both teams if they had just converted that one PK.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with MassRef so I recognize that I am about to get clobbered over the head for missing something obvious, but I'm surprised by this response as I'm not seeing what the harm is of giving the announcement and it would seem to me that there are plenty of reasons (and maybe even some virtue) to do so: - You eliminate any issue of encroachment by either team. Why put yourself in a position where you have a second attacker standing next to the kicker after he does a stutter step. - You avoid the possibility that the kicker gets cute and plays the short pass to the onrushing teammate. That's a particularly ugly situation if you've just been asked about time and given an evasive answer. "What do you mean we were already in extended time? Not only does the ATR say you're supposed to tell us, but I asked you. I would have just shot the PK had you followed the ATR or even answered my question honestly......" - You avoid the possibility that players get into it with each other as push or jostle to be in the best spot. What if something that could have been avoided entirely suddenly escalates into something that requires you to show cards? - You avoid the possibility in the hypothetical in the original post that the kicker goes and pounds the ball into the net for emphasis even though would would have otherwise spun back into the net on its own following the GK's touch. As above, it would seem like a legitimate complaint from a kicker who claims that he wouldn't have made such a touch and would have let the spinning ball play its course had he known. - You avoid the possibility of an injury with a bunch of players racing after this hypothetically backward spinning ball. - You avoid the situation where you're blowing the whistle to end the game as the kicker is blasting the rebound into the net. It's an easy call, but why even create that situation when you don't have to. You seem to only open yourself up to inquiry by virtue of not having said anything. And, I'm sure that there are a few more equally valid reasons. I'll grant that some of these are quite unlikely, but why risk any of it when the simple solution is to tell everyone what's going on? At least that seemed very obvious to me until I read the OP. I don't know the answer to the OP about whether a defender can do this or not, and I suppose on a theoretical level it would be a reason to trump everything above because the defender shouldn't be precluded from this possibility if it's truly a possibility, but it's also worth considering at this point how likely or not the hypothetical is. At least for the moment, that leaves me unwilling to go against the ATR.
All good points. This situation may be one place where the NFHS rules give us a slightly better lit path to walk. Rule 14-1-6 says: That seems perhaps slightly better than the Laws' "The referee decides when a penalty kick has been completed." But, the NFHS path is not lit perfectly: read literally, this language says the keeper is not allowed to try to block the kick. Nor does the rule or its associated play rulings tell us what happens in the OP's posed situation, i.e., when a defender other than the keeper rushes in and clears the ball away from the goal when it otherwise might have trickled in. (And, of course, an NFHS game with a visible running clock takes away the discretion to just keep time running until the PK is completed.)
The LOTG and I&G, which is what I was musing about at the start of the thread -- nothing in either one of them (in my opinion) remotely supports the conclusion drawn in the ATR. I guess I'm a bit surprised that you take the ATR as gospel on this point but but simultaneously disregard the specific requirement that the players stay on the field. IMHO slippery slope arguments are dangerous. The period is extended till the PK is over -- so unless the Laws say something to the contrary, still seems to me that the players get to play until the period is over. Don't think we're going to agree on this one -- but since all of us will probably go to our graves without ever seeing it happen, it probably won't change too many games . . .
Not clobbered, but I do disagree. The primary reason is that you have no authority to go make people stand some place else. The game is still going on. So what if an attacker or defender insists on standing outside the penalty area? A defender might do it to implicitly put more pressure on the kicker. A defender might also say he has the right to rush in and clear the ball if it's partially saved yet rolling into the net (doesn't he, in fact?). An attacker might want to do it in order to help alleviate pressure (so as to make the kicker not feel "iced," as they say in American football). Whatever their reasons, both sides would have a right to be there. Secondly, timekeeping is not scientific. If it was, I could see the virtue of what the ATR says and recognize this as a fundamental issue of fairness. But I just don't see it that way at all. Taking your points in order: Not a big concern for me. Plus, as I said above, I don't think you have any right to tell a person they can't stand at the top of the penalty area, even if you make an announcement about time. So this point would be moot in my book. Well, I don't think any player in the country would be citing the ATR to you and I also think this sort of "cute" PK is exceedingly rare and that it would be even rarer at the end of a half or match, presuming the outcome is in doubt. So I would put this scenario in the category of "almost impossible." Just as much possibility, for me, that they congregate around the benches and get into a jostling match. And now you've got 20 players, plus the benches, being policed by one official (presuming a situation with no fourth). And again, I think you lack the right to order the players over to that area, regardless. If a blow-up is a concern, I'd rather stick with what works and keep the players where we are used to having them. This is probably the point where we just have a real philosophical disagreement. If this happens, I just don't care. Timekeeping is imperfect. We're talking about a +/- 3 seconds on the clock at most. We always add time in "a minimum of X whole minutes," so it's inherently vague. If I'm at the point where I give a penalty kick and I know it's around the end of the game, and a ball legitimately is hanging in the air off the rebound like this, I have no philosophical issue with letting the play continue until it's either hammered into the back of the net or cleared from the goal area. If timekeeping were scientific in our sport, I'd understand the counter-argument. But it's not, so I have no problem with this happening. Eh. I just don't find this to be a strong argument. Players could get injured throughout the game, including at other penalty kick situations. Trying to erase the possibility just because the penalty kick is at or near the end of a half doesn't seem like something we should be concerned about. Same answer as your point two paragraphs above. We probably disagree here, but I'm never blowing my whistle as that's about to happen. For me, it all rests on the notions that our timekeeping is not scientific and the referee has no authority to send the players away from the penalty area.
Does he? It's not clear to me one way or the other. We talking about an extended time PK. Time is being extended until the end of the PK. Surely the PK has ended and thus time expired when someone other than the kicker or keeper touches the ball. I can see what you're saying if the PK happens in a situation where it's unclear whether the kick is occurring in stoppage time or extended time, but I don't think it works if it's clear that it's in extended time.
In the absence of someone saying he doesn't, why wouldn't he? Defenders would be forced to watch a ball roll slowly into an empty net to lose the game just because it's at the end of the half? In a situation where, had it been any other point in the game, they would be able to rush in an clear the ball? If that's not arbitrary and inherently unfair, I don't know what is. I know what we're talking about but, to be blunt, I really don't care about the differences between "stoppage" and "extended" time. I think it's putting way too fine of a point on something that is not scientific. Law 7 allows for allowance of time lost through "any other cause" and says the allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee. If I can't get a PK restarted immediately at the end of the match (be it for dissent, confusion, injury or any other reason), I've got no moral or philosophical issues with letting play go on an additional 2 or 3 seconds after the penalty kick is taken. And even if I can get the restart set up and taken seamlessly, I'm sure there were a few seconds in the match earlier that I lost which I failed to account for. Matches are scheduled for 5,400 seconds. If, as a referee, you are confident that your timekeeping is accurate to the point that you're sure it's not off by 0.056% (I think I did that math right--and note the number would go lower once you include stoppage time), then saying the game ends the minute the kick is taken is a reasonable position to take. I'm not that confident. And I think ending a match the moment a penalty kick ends is just as arbitrary as waiting an extra 3 seconds.
Just to clarify one piece that addresses the last point and that you mentioned elsewhere, others made comments to this effect, but I'm not in the camp of actually sending the players anywhere or even away. I'm simply telling them the situation; what they do about it is up to them. I've only had this extended time PK occur once. I told the players that time was up and the laws provide for the penalty kick to be taken but the game would then be over. I didn't tell them to go anywhere, but my sharing this information had the desired impact of everyone taking a deep breath and a step back. They didn't leave the field or go far at all, and most stayed in the general area outside the area to watch the PK. If someone wanted to stand right at the line at the edge of the area and rush in, I wouldn't stop them (although I suspect my tolerance meter for encroachment would probably be a little more strict than normal...). I don't want to put words in your mouth/your post, but you're basically saying that you're never going to give an extended time PK if you're always going to allow the kicker to follow up on the rebound, right? Fair enough if that's you're view, but I think that can in some cases give an undeserved advantage to the attacking team. I understand what you're saying about the timekeeping not being scientific, but it goes too far for me to say that I'm always going to add additional time.
Fair enough on this point. That is an important distinction so sorry for presuming you were ordering them away. You're not putting words in my mouth. You've essentially got it right. I wouldn't say "always," but I'd probably put the number in the 98%+ range.
I think you're right for non-Fed games. There is simply no percentage in deciding that stoppage time is up with a PK waiting to occur. But even if it should never happen, it will to someone. So, just hypothetically, let's assume you're the SAR. The referee, in a fit of madness, has let it known that time has expired but will be extended for the taking of a penalty kick. He then has a severe asthma attack and cannot continue causing you to have to administer this extended time PK. So we would allow a defender to clear the ball, but we would disallow a goal scored by a non-kicker?
Attackers get to watch a ball slowly roll into an empty net and win the game, too - and any other time they would be able to rush in and finish the shot. What if the rebound didn't head toward goal but sat there slowly rolling away form goal, keeper out of position, easy finish for the kick taker or another attacking team mate (as keeper touched it). Not sure how it's arbitrary or unfair, it just is.
It's arbitrary or unfair viz-a-viz how penalty kicks are taken throughout the rest of the match. I'm not saying it's inherently unfair toward the attacking or defending team, I just used the defending team example because it seems more realistic. My point is that why should a penalty kick be different just because it's at the end of the match? If a team commits a foul in the penalty area at any other point in the match, they would have an opportunity to clear the rebound (just as the attacking team would have an opportunity to ensure the ball entered the net, if it didn't directly). Having new rules for the end of a half, for a very specific restart, seems arbitrary. And I'm sure a common response will be, "well, but the Laws explicitly stipulate that things are different regarding timing at the end of a half for a penalty kick, so it's natural there are different rules." That's good in theory, but it's not reality in practice. Is anyone willing to claim that they have ended a tied or one-goal match with an attacking DFK (let's say within 25 yards of goal) about to be taken without any mitigating factors, like gamesmanship or obvious timewasting?
I had this situation happen in a U12B tournament pool game this past weekend. The defender had a deliberate handling offense just outside the PA. I called the foul and started the PK process. About the time I set the ball on the PK mark, the time expired for the half (before the PK was actually kicked). My AR was working with the GK and asked if he needed to watch for rebounds. I explained to him and the players that the half was over after the PK. I had a short instructional discussion with the GK (his first PK ever) and then I instructed the kicker to make one address to the ball and one kick, not a dibbling motion or passing motion. In this case, the attacker kicked the ball, the GK missed in his defense, the ball went into the net for a goal, and I blew Half-Time on the whistle. Had the defender blocked the ball, I would have blown the half-time signal and the play would be over. In my opinion, once the keeper has "blocked the ball" (it is not going to go into the goal without being touched) the PK is over. IMHO the PK lasts as long as it take the ball to go from being kicked to the goal or goal keeper. If the keeper blocks the ball and it enters directly or bounces into the goal due to backspin or other inertia, it's a goal and the PK is over. If the ball is blocked by the keeper in it bounces away from the GK and/or Goal and will not be entering the goal without being touched by another player, the PK is over. Any kick/touch/play by any player other than the GK after the initial PK kick are separate and distinct actions. In the case of being in the "extended time" of a half, when the PK play is over, the "extended time" is over, and therefore the the half/game is over.
An undeserved advantage? Let's take an honest look at the kinds of desperate situations that are likely to lead to a last second penalty being given. If you're giving a penalty literally as your stoppage time expires and you're going to blow the whistle, chances are it was a pretty significant event. It's also likely that your decision is going to lead to a lot of "discussion". The most common outcome on a penalty is a goal. The chances that there will be a save and rebound or a hit post and rebound are fairly low. The chance that one of these things happens in such a way that the ball will spin slow enough towards an open goal that an attacker or defender can get there legally, even more remote. Don't over think this, just let the whole play happen and the whistle when it's over. Why make extra trouble for yourself or waste brain power on something with a very low chance of happening?
Nah. We're abandoning the match on account of the referee's health. I kid, of course. But I'm sure you're recognize this is a very strained hypothetical. I think that's the answer if a referee were boxed into this situation, yes. I don't see how you could punish a defender from preventing the goal, under the Laws (what would you call? would you caution? and what would be the restart?). And you obviously wouldn't be able to allow a rebound to be converted. That seems unfair, doesn't it? Avoiding getting boxed into this situation is one of the top reasons to not announce an "extended time" PK.
Has anyone seen an "extended" time PK given in a high level professional match in Europe or international match or even MLS or at least in the last 10 years? I think the answer is no. It would just be absolutely idiotic to do something like that. Most players and fans have no idea that such a thing even exists. It would just not be very smart refereeing to give something like that.
So in your opinion, if there are less than 10 seconds left in the game, the defense can do anything it wants in the PA?!? Yeah, I know that's not what you meant -- extended time PKs are going to be extremely rare, just by the math of the game as it requires a foul in the dying moments of stoppage time (and I think that MR is right that they will often be masked as just stoppage time -- though that could take us into a whole nother thread of controversy*). Even if actually handled as ET, I think all the ref is going to do is tell the captains that time has expired and it's over after the PK, not the fans, who would never even know that is what happened, other than that the game ended after the PK. (This thread, which I know I'm responsible for starting, raises the question of the extent to which the discussions of extreme cases are valuable tools as opposed to mind @#$*%s. I think the answer is that sometimes discussing the extreme cases gives insight into the realistic things that actually happen. Not sure this one did.) *I was an AR last season with an end-of-game-is-exact referee who blew for full time as the ball was rolling into the goal following a collission with the GK -- he'd never be able to use the stoppage time "out."
I am still not seeing what" box" and what "situation" you are talking about. Following the ATR, you announce" "The half or game is over except for this PK. The shot will be taken and it will either be saved or not. No rebound; no other players involved." (And if it is me, I am going to say go toward your benches.) The players are going to do whatever you say. No one is going to say, I have a right to stand here; and no one is going to say I have a right to get involved. And if they did, I would say, no you don't. I just don't see the practical difficulty of running things this way.
I just disagree and think you are making assumptions that are not true. I think "players are going to do whatever you say" is a giant leap of faith that is going to be unfounded in reality for a lot of competitions. Maybe you're envisaging a youth competition, where I'm not (that's not said to offend--just thinking it might be the reality). I think many adult or professional players would insist they want to be near the penalty kick. And, quite frankly, if you said they didn't have a right to be there, I think you'd be lying. What power would you be using to tell them to go away from a particular spot on the field, where they are not encroaching, while the game is going on? As for the "box" I'm talking about, it exists based on the premise that you can't (and, in my opinion, shouldn't) send the players away, which you obviously reject. But the point is that after an announcement of extended time, you obviously couldn't allow a rebound to be converted by the attack. That part is clear. But on what grounds would you prevent a defender from stopping the kick from going over the goal line, so long as he didn't encroach? What Law would he be violating? You make statements that you would send people away and that only the goalkeeper and kicker could be involved, but on what grounds do you cite such assertions? Short of all this, I just refer to what billf and RedStar wrote above. Where have we ever seen this before? There's a reason this doesn't happen at the professional level. You might be very right that your chosen path could work in some cases. But just having a normal PK works, too. Invoking an "extended time PK" seems like it would create a weird situation that no one is used to, when we don't have to do so.