Here's what I think is a MAJOR issue. The game is over. You are in KFTM and all the LOTG no longer really apply. Consider sanctions on a red card for example. During KFTM the ball is NEVER in play, nobody can touch it other than the kicker, once and the keeper. So in effect you don't even have the 7 remaining players, nor do you stop if through red cards you drop below 7. All LOTG are pretty much mute when it comes to resolving things in KFTM. Rule 1 in KFTM, Do not F-up Rule 2: See Rule 1 After that you get scary little guidance.
Exactly, which is why I always enjoy getting berated for telling players to put their shin guards back in for KFTM.
Although this particular scenario is not specifically covered in the laws (which is unsurprising as the allowance for multi-use pitches is fairly new) for me this is an analogous situation to when a referee fails to signal for an indirect free kick. When this happens, the law says: The laws document also says that: As far as I'm concerned, the IFK provision establishes a 'spirit of the game' principle that if the correct procedure for the restart has not been followed because of an oversight on the part of the referee, the kick should be retaken.
Following on this line of thinking how does this apply to a PK situation where the kicker does not wait for CR whistle before taking the PK? Does your thinking about the restart change if CR fails to advise him/her to wait for whistle before taking pk? Does the result of the premature kick impact the restart?
There used to be a Q&A on this. Absent the whistle, taking a PK didn’t happen. (When the Laws only required the R to “signal,” many ref wink-wink-nod-nod would conclude they must have done something that was a signal if the player took the kick and missed. The requirement to whistle took away that possibility. Also makes it wise to always tell the kicker to wait to reduce the possibility of it happening.)
It's not just my thinking on this. The official line on this from the IFAB/FIFA for a while now, has been that if a penalty kick is taken before the whistle, it is retaken, no matter what the result. As @socal lurker mentioned, this used to be in the Q&A, as follows:
The kicker has infringed the KFTM procedure by not having the ball on the penalty mark so it stays recorded as a miss and you make sure it doesn't happen again. If he had scored the goal, it is changed to a miss and the kicker shown a YC, as per LOTG.
That sounds too much like "gotcha" refereeing. Right up with penalizing a new keeper in the second half of a game for handling the ball because they didn't report to you at halftime. The player placed the ball and you signaled for the kick to be taken. You share some responsibility for the incorrect placement since you allowed the kick to take place. Correct the error and do it again.
Wow. The ref formally permits the kicker to take a kick from too far back by whisting for him to take the kick, and you'd like him to take the ball out of the net and record it as a miss? I really don't see that as a remotely plausible interpretation of Laws 10 or 14--I think it is much, much worse than the other two interpretations being discussed. (I think we now have 2 bad options and one atrocious option.)
Correct. The change in the 2017/2018 LOTG explicitly states that this is not a violation, codifying the way keeper substitutions at the half were already being handled by most sensible referees.
This was NEVER a Law. You always treated the person in the GK jersey as able to handle the ball in their own penalty area. Before this year, you did caution them at the next stoppage... but not allowing them to handle has never been there.
Agree. (At least in the modern era. I have a vague recollection that this was a debatable point back in the 70s, but wouldn't swear to it.) Disagree--nothing changed. The new LOTG simply made express what has long been implicit. (The explanation of text changes described it as clarifying the rule.) It has long been recognized that starting the second half is the referee's approval of whoever has the spiderman shirt being the proper goalkeeper. E.g., from the 2012 ATR: The referee's whistle to start the second half is a tacit acknowledgment that the persons on the field are players and the persons wearing a goalkeeper jersey are the goalkeepers-so long as the persons themselves are not illegal and the team is fielding the proper number of players. (Long doesn't mean forever. As I recall, back in the '70s there was an expectation to tell the referee, even at half time. Wise referees in youth games would often ask if not told to avoid the chaos.)
There must have been some disagreement (or at least uncertainty) more recently than that because JA found the need to address it when he was the official mouthpiece on such things.
I had it happen in a game I was coaching. The referee smirked when the benches couldn't figure out why he had given a penalty kick and he said, "Handball. On the keeper." (Note that he identified the player as 'the keeper.') Fortunately, it was a penalty kick in my team's favor so, while he was arguing with the other coach, I called over my forward and told him to miss the PK. He did. I wasn't a referee yet but I knew that this was wrong. How to handle this was not in the Laws of the Game until the great rewrite. Before that, the Laws had far too much 'well, if you read this here and then flip back to Law 12, and taking into consideration what it says in Law 4.....' kind of stuff. That allowed those who weren't intense literary critics to be the inner priesthood and any referee who hadn't read all of the sections at the same time and understanding how to combine them was clearly an idiot who shouldn't be out there, 'for the good of the game.' The Advice, which grew out of Socref-l, covered it explicitly, as noted above, even though it was simply advice, from USSF, not FIFA. Fortunately, the great rewrite has fixed (most) of our ignorance.
I dunno. JA wrote about a lot of things that were well established. Things can be well established but still misunderstood in areas. (I have a vague recollection that this was addressed in the old FIFA Q&A, but I haven't kept links to those.)
I agree that it was something that was essentially (implicitly) agreed upon to not caution, but... by the book, you'd not be wrong (before the latest re-write) to caution that. Though, I don't recall any instance where that actually happened in a game I participated in or watched -- hopefully that just means that all of those referees had a clue