infrigement on a pk, the no win situation

[uniteo]

Spurs vs. Reading today, 5th goal for Spurs (go ahead goal, not as if it were a blowout)

Penalty kick, Berbatov takes, Defoe (Spurs) about 5 yards into the box when the kick is taken, save by Hahnneman, Defoe heads in the rebound.

Now here is where my Grade 8 education has me at a loss...kick was saved, so no re-take? But the goal was scored by the player who was into the box, so he clearly gained an advantage by infringing, but then if you say, goal was scored, so we'll re-take the kick, then you're giving Spurs a 2nd try at a PK that was already saved, when Spurs were the team at fault?

Any suggestions? Is this just a case of "Sorry Reading, best you can hope for is a missed 2nd pk."

I would think the proper call is to re-take the penalty, but it seems unjust.

[campton]

I dont want to sound like a complete ignoratnt a$$, but i believe the correct restart would be an IDFK going out from the spot from where the player entered the penalty area.

[Ref Flunkie]

Wait, so the attacking team was in the area early and the penalty was saved? Then it is an IDFK for the defending team. You don't retake the kick because, as you said, the goal was not scored (by the penalty kicker, not by the team) and the attacking team infringed. If the goal HAD been scored and the attacking team infringed, then you retake the kick. If you as a referee feel the attacking team infringed, and the ball is saved, then you immediately blow the whistle and signal the infringement and kick going out.

[Alberto]

Wait, so the attacking team was in the area early and the penalty was saved? Then it is an IDFK for the defending team. You don't retake the kick because, as you said, the goal was not scored (by the penalty kicker, not by the team) and the attacking team infringed. If the goal HAD been scored and the attacking team infringed, then you retake the kick. If you as a referee feel the attacking team infringed, and the ball is saved, then you immediately blow the whistle and signal the infringement and kick going out.


Ding! Ding! Ding! That's my take as well.

[uniteo]

I knew I'd forgetten something. Thanks.

Reading can feel a little hard done by, as that was the 5th goal, and the 6th appeared to come from an attacker who was slightly offside.

[lmorin]

Wait, so the attacking team was in the area early and the penalty was saved? Then it is an IDFK for the defending team. You don't retake the kick because, as you said, the goal was not scored (by the penalty kicker, not by the team) and the attacking team infringed. If the goal HAD been scored and the attacking team infringed, then you retake the kick. If you as a referee feel the attacking team infringed, and the ball is saved, then you immediately blow the whistle and signal the infringement and kick going out.

As this seems to be correct, is this an appealable error by the ref or simply a case of ITOOTR?

[Alberto]

I must say that I do not like the decisions of the IFAB and FIFA with respect to the subsequent restart. If the kicking team infringes, the restart in my opinion should be an IDFK for the defending team regardless of the outcome of the penalty. Why reward the kicking team by allowing them to retake the kick if they scored and infringed on the attempt. If the miss and infringe you restart with an IDFK, why the reward with a retake of the penalty kick? This is just plain stupid.

[ref47]

the pk call was for a very serious violation and gave the offended team a high reward opportunity. any violation during the pk has a less serious nature (relatively speaking) and does not negate that favorable opportunity that the kicking team was granted.

might be easier to remember your way, but not as fair.

[Rufusabc]

Jermaine Dafoe was clearly given an unfair advantage to get to the rebound of the missed penalty. It was ignored by the referee. It was not trifling in the least but a clear 3-5 yard run in. Another top flight mistake this past weekend. What is going on with these officials? And how are we expected to do as well?

Has the speed of the game overwhelmed these guys?

R

[Ref Flunkie]

the pk call was for a very serious violation and gave the offended team a high reward opportunity. any violation during the pk has a less serious nature (relatively speaking) and does not negate that favorable opportunity that the kicking team was granted.

might be easier to remember your way, but not as fair.

Exactly as it has been explained to me in the past. Balance the "technical" violation vs. the reason the PK was called in the first placed and you will see why it makes no sense to take away the PK just because of a technical violation.

[blech]

As this seems to be correct, is this an appealable error by the ref or simply a case of ITOOTR?

I believe this falls into the category of ITOOTR, in that it is the CR's judgment as to whether the attacker had entered the area too early. Had the CR whistled for entering the area too early and then allowed a second chance at the PK, you'd have an appealable error. But, here, irrespective of what the replays may show, the CR never made that initial determination.


Note: In fairness to Berbatov, whose four goals showed that he didn't miss much in this game, I believe the pk was taken by Keane....

[USSF REF]

If the team of the kick taker encroaches and the defending team doesn't, then it is an IFK. If the team oppsing the kick taker encroaches and it is missed, then it is a retake. If both teams encroach then it is a retake.

[Sagy]

If the team of the kick taker encroaches and the defending team doesn't, then it is an IFK. If the team oppsing the kick taker encroaches and it is missed, then it is a retake. If both teams encroach then it is a retake.

I think that this is the case only if the PK is missed/saved. If a goal was scored directly from the PK then the correct restart is a retake. IIRC this (IFK for the defending team after a converted PK with an attacker encroachment) was the error that led to the replay of the Bahrain-Uzbekistan 2006 WCQ game.

[USSF REF]

I think that this is the case only if the PK is missed/saved. If a goal was scored directly from the PK then the correct restart is a retake. IIRC this (IFK for the defending team after a converted PK with an attacker encroachment) was the error that led to the replay of the Bahrain-Uzbekistan 2006 WCQ game.

That's correct.

I didn't realize that I missed covering that possibility.

[Tarheel Ref]

The title on this thread says it all: "no-win situation."

Although I'm still a lowly grade 8, the matches I work are competitive enough that the players work for every advantage they can get and I've got my own threshold as to how much encroachment is too much (since there always seems to be at least some encroachment on EVERY PK EVERY TIME), be it committed by the GK, attacking or defending players.

Watching international matches, however, this seems to be one of the situations where enforcement is so inconsistent that it seems every int'l referee has their own standard.

I'm not asking about the restarts specifically as that's just a chart to be memorized but I'm curious about FIFA or league directives as to what level of encroachment MUST be penalized as opposed to ITOOTR.

[USSF REF]

First of all, you grade 8's that consider yourself "lowly" are foolish to do so, there are higher level refs that may not understand the laws or the game as well as some of the people here.

Once the GK saved the shot and the infringer scored you have to say that it is an IFK out for the defense because the defender infringed and the shot wasn't scored. That seems simple to me, and while I get the idea that the attacker scored and it makes it hard, just stick by the laws of the game, and no matter what they argue and no matter how much sh*t they give you, you will always be right. And the assessor will say you're right, so long as you were correct in your facts that the attacker entered the penalty area too quickly you will not get into trouble.

Remeber if the kicker misses and the attacking team infringes, then an IFK is the restart. Just know dissent is coming and be prepared to punish - the league will back you up so long as you are in the right regarding the laws.

[campton]

First of all, you grade 8's that consider yourself "lowly" are foolish to do so, there are higher level refs that may not understand the laws or the game as well as some of the people here.

Once the GK saved the shot and the infringer scored you have to say that it is an IFK out for the defense because the defender infringed and the shot wasn't scored. That seems simple to me, and while I get the idea that the attacker scored and it makes it hard, just stick by the laws of the game, and no matter what they argue and no matter how much sh*t they give you, you will always be right. And the assessor will say you're right, so long as you were correct in your facts that the attacker entered the penalty area too quickly you will not get into trouble.

Remeber if the kicker misses and the attacking team infringes, then an IFK is the restart. Just know dissent is coming and be prepared to punish - the league will back you up so long as you are in the right regarding the laws.


You make it very clear (no wonder you're on the NC list :)!).

[Tarheel Ref]

First of all, you grade 8's that consider yourself "lowly" are foolish to do so, there are higher level refs that may not understand the laws or the game as well as some of the people here.

Once the GK saved the shot and the infringer scored you have to say that it is an IFK out for the defense because the defender infringed and the shot wasn't scored. That seems simple to me, and while I get the idea that the attacker scored and it makes it hard, just stick by the laws of the game, and no matter what they argue and no matter how much sh*t they give you, you will always be right. And the assessor will say you're right, so long as you were correct in your facts that the attacker entered the penalty area too quickly you will not get into trouble.

Remeber if the kicker misses and the attacking team infringes, then an IFK is the restart. Just know dissent is coming and be prepared to punish - the league will back you up so long as you are in the right regarding the laws.

Thanks, Steve...and for the record, I don't really consider myself lowly but instead I used the term for the sake of modesty. I've got 20+ years of experience and have passed 2 assessments to upgrade to 07, just never followed through. Your words of encouragement are, however, well-understood by me and hopefully will be taken to heart by others I've seen use similar terms. Without self-confidence, no referee can last long doing what we do.

I'm not generally concerned about dissent following any of my calls...like the air, it's always there...so much as I'm just curious about the gross infringements on PKs that go unpunished after many PKs I see in matches on TV.

[dadcoachref]

First of all, you grade 8's that consider yourself "lowly" are foolish to do...

as a 5th-year grade 8 referee i just wanted to thank you as well for the encouragement...i read these posts often but rarely post myself...this is a great place to learn from real-life experiences from the referees that post here...

[campton]

as a 5th-year grade 8 referee i just wanted to thank you as well for the encouragement...i read these posts often but rarely post myself...this is a great place to learn from real-life experiences from the referees that post here...

POST MORE! Hell, my first few months i pissed some people off but i learned alot from it. So what if you may not be sure on everything ( i am surely not), voice your opinion on the board. THe more people to add to the discussion the better.