PK At End of Time

[Postmaster]

Here’s the scenario. Tie U-15 match in the waning moments. My team is awarded a PK in what was probably the final 30 seconds (Refs in our league rarely add any time). Once all is set for the kick, the Ref announces that the game is over at the PK – “if you get the ball, just hold it” (i.e., forget any rebounds). Fortunately, my player makes the shot and we’re thrilled to have beaten a previously undefeated/un-scored-upon team by 3-2. :D

First of all, is it customary to terminate the game immediately after a PK awarded at end of time?

My others questions are about the declaration that the game is over with the kick (i.e., when is a PK really over):

1) Let’s say the keeper gets a hand on the shot and the ball squirts around a bit and then rolls over the line? Goal, right? Just can’t blow the whistle while the ball is rolling over the line.

2) As above, but in trying to save the rolling ball, the keeper fumbles it over the line? Goal, right? If so, did the game really end with the PK?

3) What if a defender ran into the box and muffed the clear into the goal instead of the keeper? Do you say the PK is over as soon as the defender touches the ball even though he puts in into the net – or is it a goal? If it’s OK for a defender to clear the ball that is rolling in on its own, why not an attacker to score the goal?

4) As in #2, but the kicker (or any other player on the field) moves toward the rolling ball and without illegally impeding the keeper, leads to the keeper not reaching the ball in time to save? OK, a stretch, but could another player affect the keeper in any way and still have it be “part of the PK”?

5) How about the keeper kicksaves directly off the shooter’s head and the ball goes into the goal? :rolleyes:

OK. I’ll stop now, but can you please clarify for the untrained? Thanks

[T Nitty]

Well, no answers here, but I'm really curious to see what the experts and the "experts" have to say.

IMO (haven't officiated a game in 15 years) the game should continue until the defense clears, the ball goes out, or a goal is scored (directly or off a quick rebound). I don't think the end of the game should be predetermined. It's not basketball or football where you might have a free throw or field goal at 00:00.

[Ref Flunkie]

Here’s the scenario. Tie U-15 match in the waning moments. My team is awarded a PK in what was probably the final 30 seconds (Refs in our league rarely add any time). Once all is set for the kick, the Ref announces that the game is over at the PK – “if you get the ball, just hold it” (i.e., forget any rebounds). Fortunately, my player makes the shot and we’re thrilled to have beaten a previously undefeated/un-scored-upon team by 3-2. :D

First of all, is it customary to terminate the game immediately after a PK awarded at end of time?

My others questions are about the declaration that the game is over with the kick (i.e., when is a PK really over):

1) Let’s say the keeper gets a hand on the shot and the ball squirts around a bit and then rolls over the line? Goal, right? Just can’t blow the whistle while the ball is rolling over the line.

2) As above, but in trying to save the rolling ball, the keeper fumbles it over the line? Goal, right? If so, did the game really end with the PK?

3) What if a defender ran into the box and muffed the clear into the goal instead of the keeper? Do you say the PK is over as soon as the defender touches the ball even though he puts in into the net – or is it a goal? If it’s OK for a defender to clear the ball that is rolling in on its own, why not an attacker to score the goal?

4) As in #2, but the kicker (or any other player on the field) moves toward the rolling ball and without illegally impeding the keeper, leads to the keeper not reaching the ball in time to save? OK, a stretch, but could another player affect the keeper in any way and still have it be “part of the PK”?

5) How about the keeper kicksaves directly off the shooter’s head and the ball goes into the goal? :rolleyes:

OK. I’ll stop now, but can you please clarify for the untrained? Thanks


I'm no expert but here is what I know (or think I know).

Yes this is customary to do. The referee extended time to complete the PK that happened before time had expired. These are my opinions on your questions

1. I would say yes. You want to let the momentum of the PK finish up.
2. Yes, again all part of the PK (at least from your description it is). Of course, a smart GK will just perry the shot and not try to catch it in this case.
3,4,5. Ok for these, I'm just going to say 'no', no one else can play the ball. Unless the ball is moving toward the goal and about to go in, the game is over (he made the save). If he saves it forward (away from his goal) in any way, the game is over. The only part I will let finish is if the keeper makes the save, it continues to dribble behind him, and either makes it over the line or is saved. Again, this is just a flunkie's opinion

[Garkbit]

A half may be extended if the referee awards a penalty kick and subsequently time expires before it is taken, in order to allow it to be taken.

The half ends as soon as the kick has a definite outcome (either as soon as it's definitely a goal, or it's definitely been saved), and as long as it does not need to be retaken.

As for the questions:

1). Goal. The ball has not been definitely saved, and then definitely enters the goal in accordance with Law 10.

2). Goal, for the same reason.

3). Unclear exactly what you mean.

4). I'm hard-pressed to think of any way an attacker could prevent the goalkeeper from making a save that didn't constitute unsporting behaviour, impeding the progress of an opponent, or any of the direct free-kick offences. Can you?

5). Opinion may well vary on this one. I say no goal. The goalkeeper has definitely saved the penalty and the half is over as soon as he does so, regardless of whether the referee has actually blown his whistle to confirm this or not.

[MidwestRef]

Number 5 should be no goal, because the initial momentum of the ball was stopped when the keeper saved the ball back to the shooter. I would not allow this goal to stand.

[BC_Ref]

A PK in "extended time" (regulation plus any stoppage is over) is treated very much like kicks from the mark in a shootout.

The only people involved should be the kicker and keeper. Have an AR (if you have them) keep everyone else at the centre - they can't do anything.

I've been told that a PK is over once the momentum of the ball dies. So if the keeper knocks it into the net, it is a good goal. I'd avoid the mess you mentioned by ensuring that everyone not involved is at the centre circle (or somewhere well away) and you tell the kicker that they get one shot and one shot only to score - the can't rebound a deflection, or otherwise interefere with the keeper after his shot since you are dealing with "extended" time.

Situations # 1,2 - good goal (keepers should simply punch the ball away in these situations rather than risk an "own" goal). 3&4 - shouldn't ever happen (get the unneeded players out of the way). #5 - no goal.

[kevbrunton]

As others have indicated, the half may be extended to take the PK, so it is fine to indicate to the others that we're taking the PK, but that's it - game over. I've done it just like your referee did.

As far as what you would allow in this situation and whether to determine if it's a goal or not, think about the taking of kicks from the penalty kick to determine a game winner. You don't get to play rebounds, but if the ball enters the goal on its own momentum even after being initially saved by the keeper or rebounding off the post or cross bar, then back off the keeper into the goal or any number of other imaginable scenarios that does not involve someone else (even the kicker) becoming involved, then it's a goal. If someone else becomes involved to get it into the net, then it's not a goal.

[JohnR]

I posted a similar situation several months back. The referee did not inform the team of his decision, but he clearly had arrived at the same viewpoint, since he blew the whistle the moment that the keeper stopped the ball. Although the stop consisted of a fumble that might well have been put into the net by an attacking player, who was running toward the loose ball at the time of the whistle.

The consensus on these boards was that it was an acceptable call, that the referee keeps the time and if the time is up, it's up.

I didn't buy it then and I didn't buy it now. Doesn't pass my sniff test of "If you did this at the conclusion Man U - Arsenal game, would there be a riot?" Yes, there would be. And that referee would be viewed by the FA as having screwed up.

Let 'em finish the play, then blow the whistle.

[MassachusettsRef]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to get involved in an unnecessary mess by telling everyone that the PK will be the end of the match. Surely, after 45 minutes of play you can find an additional few seconds that might have been lost that you can add on after the PK. Of course we are supposed to be accurate timekeepers, but does anyone actually believe we always find the exact amount of appropriate stoppage time? Look how it's done at the professional level--you add on a minimum amount of stoppage time, rounded to the nearest minute, and the match is typically terminated when that minute is reached. Are we thus led to believe that, somehow, an exact number of minutes is always lost over the course of the half (and never, say, something like 3:23 or 1:47)?

My argument is simple: there's no way to truly know whether or not, when you call a PK at 1:15 into added time, there has been exactly 1:15 lost during the half or 1:19 (or 1:22 or 1:36 or even only 1:09, for that matter.). Save yourself (and everyone else) the confusion, the time and the potential controversy of going through the lecture and ceremony of announcing that the PK will be the final act of the game. Let it be taken normally. If it goes in, kickoff and end the match. If it goes out of bounds, end the match. If it's saved and there's a potential rebound, surely you can find the 2 seconds necessary to see that through. Some will argue this is arbitrary and lacks justice; but honestly, are you 100% sure that the match wasn't supposed to be over 2 seconds before the PK was awarded?

[MassachusettsRef]

Let 'em finish the play, then blow the whistle.A more concise version of my post.

[tmaker]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to get involved in an unnecessary mess by telling everyone that the PK will be the end of the match. Surely, after 45 minutes of play you can find an additional few seconds that might have been lost that you can add on after the PK.

I'd agree with this in situations where you happen to be the official timekeeper. It does not, however, apply in high schools everywhere, where the "official scorekeeper" is often mentally deficient, so it seems to me still a relevant question. I suppose the crucial part of this is that it isn't upon the referee to tell players how much time is left, anyway, so why include them in the decision?

[Garkbit]

I posted a similar situation several months back. The referee did not inform the team of his decision, but he clearly had arrived at the same viewpoint, since he blew the whistle the moment that the keeper stopped the ball. Although the stop consisted of a fumble that might well have been put into the net by an attacking player, who was running toward the loose ball at the time of the whistle.

The consensus on these boards was that it was an acceptable call, that the referee keeps the time and if the time is up, it's up.

I didn't buy it then and I didn't buy it now. Doesn't pass my sniff test of "If you did this at the conclusion Man U - Arsenal game, would there be a riot?" Yes, there would be. And that referee would be viewed by the FA as having screwed up.

Let 'em finish the play, then blow the whistle.

I would expect any referee given Arsenal-Man U to know the common-sense procedure of letting everyone know that time was being extended for the penalty and not to rush in and risk forcing a retake (if time was indeed being extended).

I would also, however, say that it's a lot wanky of any ref to decide that he's extending time and then not tell anyone. If you don't tell anyone, then you should let play go until the ball is either well in the net or well clear.

Incidentally, as to why using the extended-time procedure rather than just having 30 seconds more injury time is a better idea: you remove the chance of either:

The penalty to be saved, leading to an enormous scrum in the goalmouth, which would be the perfect time for a player to commit some act of villainy (or even some painful-but-accidental contact) with a good chance of it going un-noticed.

Players encroaching into the penalty area before the kick, necessitating a retake. This one's always a sod to apply (but a necessary sod) because players hate it, and doubly and triply so when it's right at the end of a half.

Saying it's going to be time removes so many obstructions. With it, all the officials have to watch is the kicker, the keeper, and then the goal-line.

[blech]

I posted a similar situation several months back. The referee did not inform the team of his decision, but he clearly had arrived at the same viewpoint, since he blew the whistle the moment that the keeper stopped the ball. Although the stop consisted of a fumble that might well have been put into the net by an attacking player, who was running toward the loose ball at the time of the whistle.

The consensus on these boards was that it was an acceptable call, that the referee keeps the time and if the time is up, it's up.

I didn't buy it then and I didn't buy it now. Doesn't pass my sniff test of "If you did this at the conclusion Man U - Arsenal game, would there be a riot?" Yes, there would be. And that referee would be viewed by the FA as having screwed up.

Let 'em finish the play, then blow the whistle.


a riot? maybe. has the ref done it incorrectly? no.

let them finish the play. sure, that's why you extend play to allow the pk to be taken.

i don't think it's right for the ref simply to add time. that's not his job. the laws are pretty clear - you extend time to allow the kick. the kick is essentially treated like a kick from the mark following overtime. you don't get a rebound there. there's no fundamental entitlement to it here. if the goalie stops a pk in extended time, why should he also have to stop the shot on the rebound? and, if you're the kicker and you didn't put it away, blame yourself, not the ref for not giving you more time. :)

as for whether the ref announces it beforehand or not, that seems like more a matter of personal preference. i haven't had to deal with it yet, but i'd tell the players and back everyone else away. seems better to be up front, rather than not say anything, have a rebound, and then be blowing the whistle as the kicker puts the rebound in the back of the net.

[MassachusettsRef]

i haven't had to deal with it yet, but i'd tell the players and back everyone else away.Ok, I still stand by my above argument and obviously agree with JohnR. But, for those that would follow the other path, what do you do if players refused to retreat? What recourse would you have?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "none", as you're asking players to do something that they most certainly don't have to do. It's just another reason, in my opinion, to not go down that road and create more headaches than necessary.

[Chubbywubby]

You're both right, at least in the US. From ATR:

14.8 PENALTY KICKS AT THE END OF THE HALF
Penalty kicks, once awarded, are taken regardless of the amount of time remaining in the half. If time expires or will expire before the restart can occur, the referee should announce this fact and indicate clearly that the penalty kick is now being taken "in extended time." No player other than the goalkeeper can participate in play after the penalty kick is taken. In case of an "extended time" penalty kick, the goalkeeper may be replaced, if necessary, by a substitute if the maximum number of substitutions has not been exceeded, or he may be replaced by an eligible player on the field. All players must remain on the field until the penalty kick has been completed. The referee has no authority to make the players leave the field or the vicinity of the penalty area for the taking of a penalty kick in extended time.

[Garkbit]

What you do is you tell them what's going on and ask them to take a few steps back from the area and not to rush in because it won't matter. That you can do, and if you're nice and they're all right, they will. If they refuse to do that, remind them about the law on encroachment and ask how they'd feel if they scored or the penalty was saved (as appropriate), but they were in the area so there's got to be a retake. 95% of players will have enough brain to realise that much. It's a small and slight hassle, and a good trade-off for eliminating the chances of there being any hassle if one of them encroaches or it's saved and there's a massive ruck afterwards.

[Postmaster]

Thanks for the replies. :)

Personally, I like the “find a few seconds to let it play out” school, but ATR sounds clearly thought out on this point. Thinking of it as analogous to the tiebreak PKs helps me understand the “ATR, only the keeper can touch the ball” school.

To that school, a one more issue of curiosity:

Suppose the Ref instructs the players not play rebounds per ATR, the kick is taken, the keeper dives to get a hand on the ball, the ball could still roll in, a defender runs in (against instruction) and either clears or muffs a clear to score an own goal. In both cases, no goal, red card to the defender, and another PK?

[Garkbit]

I'd go with Law 18 here: ping the defender for encroachment or the goalkeeper for moving forwards and take the penalty again.

However, I'm not entirely sure how it could be physically possible for a player on a full-sized pitch to reach a parry by the goalkeeper that still carries on towards the net before said goalkeeper could do something about it, even if he's next to the penalty spot when the penalty is taken.

[Wa-Soc-Ref]

[Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
Let 'em finish the play, then blow the whistle.

A more concise version of my post.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what "finding a few more seconds" has to do with man management. IMO, knowing when time has expired, even to the second is your responsibility. Extending time for a PK IS the play that the game has dictated. Why would you leave the door open for so many other things to happen that could, when you could simply announce extended play, take the kick and be done. Arbitrarily playing the clock out to keep from having to make the tough call isn't on my radar. I was a bit shocked at your post MassRef. :confused:

[MassachusettsRef]

knowing when time has expired, even to the second is your responsibility.It might be the abstract goal, but do you honestly believe it's possible?

Arbitrarily playing the clock out to keep from having to make the tough call isn't on my radar. I was a bit shocked at your post MassRef. Well firstly, you've made the tough call by giving the PK with barely any time left.

I'm arguing--despite what the ATR says about making an announcement--to keep the knowledge that there is barely/no time left to yourself because it prevents other problems from arising. As I stated, there's the issue of having no recourse in dealing with players if you ask them to move away. Further, you have no authority (and it's implicitly illegal in the laws) to make the players not involved in the PK leave the field. A third issue that some might not have thought of is that dissent is highly likely to increase if the defending team knows that the game is "over". The goal--of getting the game restarted and then ended as quickly as possible--is actually hindered by making the PK more ceremonial than is required.

There is an additional supporting point that come to mind. We are supposed to account for any time lost through both "wasting time" and "any other cause", among other things. A strong argument can be made that most delays during a PK could fall under either of those categories. Effectively, unless the foul for the PK occurred at the exact moment when time ran out, you can make a case that you should add on for the time lost due to the ceremony surrounding the PK.

Ultimately, unless you conciously say to yourself at the 45 or 90 minute mark that there is going to be x:yz of added time and then a foul occurs exactly x:yz into added time (and there's been no additional time lost in the interim), I don't see a reason for this to ever become an issue. Lots of time gets lost during soccer matches. It is humanly impossible for the referee to get a reliably accurate account of that time. If you award a PK in added time, find the 3-5 seconds necessary to make the situation less confusing and less volatile than it needs to be.