In the Woking-Accrington Conference match, Woking were awarded a penalty. The penalty was saved, but the ball rebounded to an encroaching attacker, who scored. The referee disallowed the goal...and ordered a retake. Surely this should have been an IFK? "A team-mate of the player taking the kick enters the penalty area or moves in front of or within 9.15 m (10 yds) of the penalty mark: the referee allows the kick to proceed. If the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken. If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team. If the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper, the crossbar or the goalpost and is touched by this player, the referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team." Your thoughts?
You're sure the basis for the retake was the encroachment and subsequent score? Might there have been something else prior to the kick and rebound which caused the retake? If there were no other problems with the PK except the encroachment, then clearly this call is wrong.
Unless the encroachment was by a defensive player... Or, perhaps the pk was taken prior to the whistle???? If the call was due to encroachment by an offensive player, then you are correct that Law 14 appears to have been misapplied, but there certainly are some other plausible explanations.
I agree with Blech the referee needs the encroachment to be BOTH teams or a defender only to order a retake. If there was a no restart signal it could be retaken but in any retake for that I would likely caution the PK shooter. THe keeper off the line too early but the referee would likely state the reason. DID he do so? If the referee did as jkdd77 suggested then you have grounds to protest a misaplication of the law.