Understood and I agree that's why I do not believe I am saying a thing about extended time etc - if I am in added time then I am adding time to take care of this kick if the kick matters. If it will not tie or win then its whatever works to get us home. I will claim to have ended on a corner though, it wasn't a good time for us from 1/2 of everyone there. Funny - I almost included that in the other post about ending the match on a promising attack however in the light of fairness, if the defense has held for the allotted time, it really isn't fair to them to allow the kick in your scenario (or promising attack) but I agree, to get home I don't see ending the game right then.
I've also ended on a corner plenty of times. No qualms or issues about that for me and I think that's easily sellable so long as you do it right when the ball goes out for the corner. Waiting for the ball to be retrieved, nevermind placed, is a recipe for disaster. But I do think that's different from a DFK. A DFK within the "danger area" is usually the result of a foul that stopped a decent attacking chance. And the DFK itself is a scoring chance. All of this stems from a foul--an illegal play--by the defense. Ending the match there, if the attacking team is showing eagerness to put the ball back into play, is crazy, in my opinion. Totally different from a corner kick, which, though an attacking chance, is still a run-of-the-mill out of bounds situation.
I told myself to stop posting, but just can't help myself. Extended time for a PK is an express provision of the LOTG. Doesn't have to be there as it could be wrapped into allowance for time lost, but it isn't. And I don't see a need to be afraid of it, just conscious of how to handle in the extraordinarily unlikely situation that it comes up (I've never had one). And while the extreme issue I flagged to start this thread isn't going to happen, after readubg the various thoughts here, I realized that I'd never really given thought to exactly how I would handle an ET PK if it ever came up. Now I have, and now I know how I will handle it. I'll simply get teams lined up, then I'll tell them that the PK is all we have left. Tweet. PK. Tweet-tweet-tweeeeeeet. End of game. But no need to compliat things by telling players not to rush in, no need to send anyone anywhere. YMMV. So, personally, in the end I did get something out of this thread that may help me in the future; for those who got nothing but irritated, apologies.
This will sound trite, but, "so?" It's an express provision of the Laws so that no referee would ever be stupid enough to end a game after he called a PK but before it was taken. We all know there are a lot of literal book referees out there. This provision is a fail-safe against idiocy, in my opinion. It's making a dumb refereeing decision unlawful so no referee will ever actually be tempted to make said dumb decision. It's not that I'm afraid of the clause. It's that I don't think I need to utilize it to manage my match. And I don't think anyone else who posts here genuinely would, either. Until someone tells me they are blowing a game dead while a DFK is being set-up 19 yards from goal, I'm treating the "extended time PK" like a unicorn. I can read about it all day, but I'm never going to see one.
Dumb referees? Are there such a thing? Your approach doesn't offend me. (My post wasn't intended to be critical of your approach -- if it read that way, my apologies.) And you may well be right about the genesis -- would be interesting to know when that languge came in. (And I may know some refs who would have been capable of doing just that . . . .) Need it? I suppose not. But it is there, so I don't see why I need to avoid it, either. When we leave this interweb thing and get onto a field, I'm not sure any of the players, coaches or specators would notice we'd done anything differently from one another. But if I ever do it my way and it blows up, I'll be sure to post about it in the "worst" thread . . . Thx to all for the discusison. (And now I'm unplugging my keyboard . . . )
MassRef: Scenario 1: PK at end of game. Kick is taken, keeper blocks shot, you allow play to continue. Attacking player legally gets to deflected shot and puts it away for a goal. Scenario 2: Same, but you tell players time is up. This is just like a kick from the mark. Keeper blocks shot, therefore no goal. So your choice of how to end the game potentially affects the outcome. That's not a consideration here?
No, because of the timekeeping not being scientific aspect of the equation. If I could be certain that every single moment of allowable time was up, then this would concern me. But I think there's enough variance in timekeeping to legitimately justify scenario 1 in almost all circumstances.
Of course it does, for me that's why play continues. Again, no one knows when time is up but the referee. By the same token, the defenders get a chance to defend and head off said chance and this mythical slow rebound with back spin. Everything a referee does has an affect on the outcome. Aside from that, what happened to promoting attacking play? Why so much concern for the defenders? What about the attacking team suffering a foul while attacking as the game is about to end?
You're losing me bill. What mythical backspin are you talking about it? And who says I care about the defenders. Maybe I don't give s... about the defenders or the attackers. All I asked was does the potential difference in how play continues seem worthy of consideration. Massref says no. I'm not trying to bait massref into an argument. It was a honest question.
Not to hijack this, but back in 2010 at a Philadelphia Union - Seattle match, that's exactly what happened. About 25 yards out, Philadelphia got a free kick.. everything got set up, the wall, the kicker.. and then the ref blows for half time.. Was quite.. weird, to be honest. Toledo was the ref.
Just to be totally clear in the situation, as many here are giving their opinions without actually making a decision. 1. Penalty Kick is called, perhaps at a tournament with no stoppage time*. 2. Horn sounds (as in a tournament). 3. You (correctly) allow the PK to be set up because the match must be extended for a PK. 4. Kicker takes the kick, GK saves, but the momentum of the ball is carrying it back towards the goal. If nobody intervenes, the ball will certainly roll over the line and into the goal. 5. A defender who enters the PA after the ball is kicked manages to sprint to the ball and kick it clear before it crosses the line. What (if any) is the restart? My response: During KFTPM (different situation, i know), a ball rolling such as in #4 is still live, and, if it enters the goal, a goal must be awarded. Do you decide that the defender acted illegally? If so, is the penalty kick retaken? Doubtful, because he didn't commit a violation of Law 14. As there is NO mention in any publication of this being a violation, I can't arbitrarily (no pun intended) make up a rule stating that PKs are retaken in this case if i don't have documentation to support it. He also didn't commit a penal foul, so you cannot award another PK for his actions. That leaves you with an IFK or a Dropped Ball, both of which are not valid reasons to extend the game. Blow the whistle, half is over. If the attacker had rebounded, I'd get the same result, as the ATR is clear about who can be involved in this "final play". I wouldn't feel guilty at all pulling the ball out of the net. You can perform some "Preventative Officiating" by telling the players, "Only the goalie can play the ball once it is kicked." If they complain (they won't, as no one is expecting the strange scenario above to actually happen), tell them, "Sorry, just telling you what the rulebook says!" If it feels unfair, then perhaps you could sell an Unsporting Behaviour caution to the defender who cleared the ball. It helps to sell this call if you had previously made the "Preventative" statement above. You told him the rule, he knew the rule, he chose to ignore the rule. I wouldn't caution, though the more I think about it, the more I think it would make sense to do so. Note that this is my response to the specific scenario above. If I'm the only one who knows how much time is left, I'm doing what I wrote in italics below. *In a non-tournament format, i think this is easy. DON'T ANNOUNCE THAT TIME HAS EXPIRED! Now the clearance, or quick rebound, is not controversial and you can safely allow the game to continue, and end the game moments later. Then what is the restart?
Nobody rose to my NFHS bait up in #34, but for those of us who do HS games with a visible clock, that's where we're mostly likely to find ourselves confronted with this scenario. At least there we have the "only the kicker may play the ball" language to fall back on and arguably find the authority to clear everyone else away a la KFTPM. (But I'm still mulling over what my response will be to the wiseguy coach who yells, "Ref, the rules say the keeper is not allowed to play the ball in this situation.")
And does only the kicker mean the only attacker? If it doesn't exclude the GK, how do we know it excludes any other defender . . . just stirring the pot . . . humorously poor drafting . . .
Right ... it still doesn't answer your OP question regarding whether a defender other than the keeper may come in and clear the ball away from goal.
Unless you saw today, the Arsenal-Fulham penalty given by Referee Dowd with 93:14 on the clock [with 4' added], and by the time the actual kick was taken and completed, the time was 94:07 and 94:15 respectively.
The elapsed time between the penalty kick decision and the kick itself can be significant (discussion amongst the ref crew, injury, protestations of players, etc.). If the decision takes place late in added (stoppage) time, it's well possible the actual kick is done well after the added time has elapsed. Thus the provision for the "added time". Without that provision, once can easily imagine the book ref who calls the potential game-winning PK with 20 seconds of stoppage time left, but just before the kicker gets into his run up, blows to end the match.
I'm not sure how we would know, as I would imagine any announcement was to the players -- so to ask a slightly different question did he end the game immediately upon completion of the PK?
I used to tell the captains during my pre-game that if an attacking restart was earned with time left on the clock, that I would allow the attacking team to play out that restart. Most notably, if there was a corner kick, I would allow that play to play itself out until the ball was controlled by the defense, cleared away from the penalty area, or went out of play again. That was my personal policy. It didn't make any sense to allow the kick to be taken and then blow for full time while it was in the air. Basically, I wouldn't consider the corner kick to be "over" until one of those conditions were met, or a goal was scored. But on an extended time PK, the ATR specifically states that no player other than the goalkeeper can participate once the kick is taken. Which means, really, that no rebound can be played by any other player on the field. Yet, the Laws say "The referee decides when a penalty kick is completed." Hmmm. Seems to me that these two actually fly straight into the face of each other. When is a PK over? To me, it's over once the shooter scores or fails to score. If in the rare event you have a situation where a ball has been saved and is rolling perilously towards the goal line, and is reached by another player by either team before crossing the line, it's no goal and it's the end of the period. Because if the shooter's teammate reaches it, the penalty kick is over and we've now crossed back into "open play". And if a defender reaches it, the penalty kick is over because, well, it didn't go in. I had to deal with this once. Boys U-13, first half. A penalty call with about ten seconds on the clock. I told everyone that this kick was going to be the last kick of the half, so do yourselves a favor and don't risk a kick getting retaken because you were in the box too soon for actions that didn't matter. The kicker shot it off the crossbar. As it was going back to him, I already had my right hand in the air and my Fox40 in my mouth blowing the multi-whistle signal. (As it turned out, the kicker tried to trap the rebound, so it would have been an IFK out for a x2 touch anyway.)
Yes. Well, kinda.. the ball went out of play for a corner immediately after the save, and that's when Dowd blew up for FT.
I was out today, so I just got to watch it. From the way that he signaled for the corner, I wouldn't consider it an "extended time" PK, even though he then ended the game before they took the kick. If it's an extended time PK, there's no need to signal corner at all and you're blowing the final whistle. It was past the minimum that had been shown when he kicked, but certainly within Dowd's discretion to have added a little more during the extra time, particularly with all the dissent that followed the call.
Yeah, that's why I said "kinda." That threw me off a bit. Why signal for a corner and then end the game, he surely should have known that time is gonna be up, since he had to book a player.