What is the penalty for "faking" a PK?

[superdave]

If a PK taker runs up and takes a swing and misses, what's the call? To be clear, I'm NOT talking about a stutter step or anything. I'm talking about the taker intentionally whiffing on the ball.

[Ref Flunkie]

If a PK taker runs up and takes a swing and misses, what's the call? To be clear, I'm NOT talking about a stutter step or anything. I'm talking about the taker intentionally whiffing on the ball.


I would say if you think it is intentional (not sure WHY one would do this), you could caution for USB, but since the take was never actually taken, it would still be a PK restart.

[Wreave]

What was the intent, to get the keeper to jump, then put it in the other corner? Not asking you to do jedi mind reading, just a gut feel.

Feinting is permitted, but the action you describe crosses the line of feinting into USB. Caution and retake (or just take) the PK.

[PirateJohn]

Looks like Arsenal tried almost this very thing this weekend. The kicker barely touched the ball and was going to let Thierry Henry run up to blast it in. Stupid thing to do, really, since it was a tight match. The Man City defender just ran up and took the ball from the player and play continued.

[superdave]

The kicker barely touched the ball
Really? The announcers kept saying that, but I didn't see it. Not that I ran it over on the DVR 5 times or anything.

As it happened, shouldn't the ref have called Henry for encroachment? He was in waaaay early.

There are no soccer gods, or else Man City would have equalized. :p

[PirateJohn]

Really? The announcers kept saying that, but I didn't see it. Not that I ran it over on the DVR 5 times or anything.

As it happened, shouldn't the ref have called Henry for encroachment? He was in waaaay early.

There are no soccer gods, or else Man City would have equalized. :pI saw the replay, and in one camera angle you could clearly see the ball move. The camera was from the opposite side of the field (behind the PK taker) and field level, so you could see under the player's foot.

And you could call Henry for encroachment, but overall I think the ref was correct to leave the whistle in his pocket as Man City clearly had control of the ball by then. Besides, the best punishment in such a scenario was to let Arsenal bask in their own idiocy.

[Englishref]

Actually, Mike Riley gave Man City an IDFK for touching the ball twice - although replays showed this to be untrue. And yes, he could have ordered a retake as players from both team had encroached. :)

[superdave]

Englishref...any word from Wenger on what he thought of the play?

[billf]

The ball isn't in play until it is kicked and moves. If it is a total whiff then the restart is the PK. I can't see there being misconduct unless there was some trickery or unsporting behavior involved. If there is, then you show the card and get on with the kick.

[jkdd77]

As I understand it, having seen several still pictures in my newspaper Pires just touched the ball, but only once. The ball just wobbled slightly, in a forward direction, before returning to its orginal position.

The newspaper (The Telegraph) speculates that Mike Riley may conceivably be charged by the FA with "less than proficiently applying the Laws of the Game", although it does go on to say that such a charge is unlikely.

If Mike Riley did make an error, it appears to be one of judgement (in thinking that Pires had touched the ball twice), and not one of Law, so, in my opinion, such a charge would be unfair.

[M]

As I understand it, having seen several still pictures in my newspaper Pires just touched the ball, but only once. The ball just wobbled slightly, in a forward direction, before returning to its orginal position.

The newspaper (The Telegraph) speculates that Mike Riley may conceivably be charged by the FA with "less than proficiently applying the Laws of the Game", although it does go on to say that such a charge is unlikely.

If Mike Riley did make an error, it appears to be one of judgement (in thinking that Pires had touched the ball twice), and not one of Law, so, in my opinion, such a charge would be unfair.

My take is the ball was never in play (neither moved forward, nor travelled the requisite distance for it to be in play). Therefore, the penalty should have been retaken.

[refmike]

Remember the rule change this year that if the kicker does something illegal and a goal is not scored, it is an IFK, not a replay. There is an arguement for the retake because the law says after the whistle and before the kick but the kick was not completed. I believe USSF is asking FIFA for clarification on that point with a directive that we (in the USA) retake the kick until the answer comes back.

[Ref Flunkie]

My take is the ball was never in play (neither moved forward, nor travelled the requisite distance for it to be in play). Therefore, the penalty should have been retaken.

There is no longer a "requisite distance" for it to be in play, if it is touched and moves any amount, it is in play.

[Englishref]

Englishref...any word from Wenger on what he thought of the play?

Wenger hasn't said anything about the decision to award the IDFK, he was more miffed that Henry and Pires would try it at 1-0, as were all us Arsenal fans! :D

[whistleblowerusa]

As I understand it, having seen several still pictures in my newspaper Pires just touched the ball, but only once. The ball just wobbled slightly, in a forward direction, before returning to its orginal position.

The newspaper (The Telegraph) speculates that Mike Riley may conceivably be charged by the FA with "less than proficiently applying the Laws of the Game", although it does go on to say that such a charge is unlikely.

If Mike Riley did make an error, it appears to be one of judgement (in thinking that Pires had touched the ball twice), and not one of Law, so, in my opinion, such a charge would be unfair.
The newspapers may speculate anything. They do not, however, understand the Laws.
If the Referee gives the signal for the kick to be taken and before the ball is in play one of the following situations occurs: The player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game or a teammate of the player taking the kick enters the penalty area or moves in front of or within 10 yards of the penalty mark and the with either of these situations, the ball does not enter the goal the Referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick for the defending team.
In the Arsenal game all three situations occurred and Riley properly restarted the match.
1- Pires stopped in his approach to the ball and then touched the ball. This is not the allowed feinting.
2- Henry entered the penalty area after the signal was given and well before the kick.
3- Henry moved in front of the penalty mark.

[M]

The newspapers may speculate anything. They do not, however, understand the Laws.
If the Referee gives the signal for the kick to be taken and before the ball is in play one of the following situations occurs: The player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game or a teammate of the player taking the kick enters the penalty area or moves in front of or within 10 yards of the penalty mark and the with either of these situations, the ball does not enter the goal the Referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick for the defending team.
In the Arsenal game all three situations occurred and Riley properly restarted the match.
1- Pires stopped in his approach to the ball and then touched the ball. This is not the allowed feinting.
2- Henry entered the penalty area after the signal was given and well before the kick.
3- Henry moved in front of the penalty mark.

That would be fine except for one small fact: the referee has acknowledged that he gave a freekick because he believed that Pires touched the ball twice, which replays clearly show he didn't. So the penalty kick should have been retaken, as the ball never moved forward and was thus never in play.

[Gary V]

That would be fine except for one small fact: the referee has acknowledged that he gave a freekick because he believed that Pires touched the ball twice, which replays clearly show he didn't.Oops, an error in judgement. If Pires says the ball was touched twice, it was touched twice. No matter what the video seems to say. (The governing authorities will decide whether or not Pires' judgement was suspect, and if there should be any consequences for him.)
So the penalty kick should have been retaken, as the ball never moved forward and was thus never in play.Except that the 2005 FIFA Q&A specifically addresses this point - that the ball does not have to be in play for there to be an infraction of Law 14. The proper restart is an IFK coming out when the kicking team infringes and the ball does not go into the goal - whether or not the ball was put into play! That's the whole crux of the matter. FIFA has told us that we are to change a restart for something that happens while the ball is out of play. That just doesn't happen elsewhere. When a fouled player retaliates and is sent off, the restart is still based on the original foul. The only other situation reasonably close to this is when we change possession on a bad throw-in - did the ball go into play or not?

Law 14 was changed this year, and 2005 FIFA Q&A made that interpretation by a very strict reading of the new text. We will have to live with it until they correct it in 2006 Q&A.

[macheath]

There is no longer a "requisite distance" for it to be in play, if it is touched and moves any amount, it is in play.


Thank you. Most of the commentary on the Pires "touch" has assumed the old jazz about the ball having to move its circumference is still in effect. That interpretation was dropped, in part because it led to trickery like Pires was trying--if the trick had worked, he doesn't say anything, if it doesn't work he says "but it was never in play." Of course, then you have encroachement, but I saw the match on TV, and the ball is clearly touched, and it moves--not much, but enough to call it in play under the new interpretation. DIdn't realize the ref called Pires for a second touch; that clearly didn't happen. But the ref got the right result for the wrong reason.