I was just reading about the San Jose v. Club America exhibition in which a CA player took a pk, put the ball off the post, then put the rebound in the net. Apparently the goal was disallowed because the pk taker was in an offside position. Is this the correct call? How does the pk taker get in an onside position?
Who made the comment? Sounds to me like he double touched the ball. By that I mean that the kicker cannot play the ball again unless it has been touched by another player. This would result in an indirect free kick to the other team. Remember as long as you are behind the ball, even if there are no defenders, you can receive a pass and not be judged offside.
The PK taker can not be offside. If he played it off the post without anyone else playing it, then it is an indirect kick for the other team (same result as an offside call). The PK kicker can't play the ball a second time until the ball is touched by another player. The post is not a player, nor is the referee.
that is the correct call.....the ball must be touched by another player before the pk shooter can touch it again.....if the ball were to hit off of the goalie and then hit the post, he would have been able to play it, but since it directly hit the post he can not touch the ball again until somebody else touches it
I doubt he called offsides. A PK is an indirect kick and since no one touched the ball beside the kicker he wasn't to play the ball. Stupid play by the PK taker; players should know that.
the official explanation on the 'quakes matchtracker said the ball hit the post without touching the keeper and came back to the shooter. it wasn't offsides. confusing call, though
There can not be any offside on a PK as long as the refree made sure that the players are in their proper possition and no player encroaches before the kick is taken. This is a result of the change in the law a few years back that required all players except the keeper and kicker to be behind the penalty mark. This will put them even or behind the ball. This change was done so that referees and ARs would not have to worry abour offside calls when the ball rebounds into play from a PK. Since the AR is on the goal line, he/she is not in possition to judge offside line.
as noted, it was correct to disallow the goal. as is the case anywhere on the field, the player taking a free kick cannot touch the ball a second time until it is touched by another player. the shooter on a penalty kick can follow up on a rebound off the goalie, but if the ball is off the post, the shooter can't touch it (since it hasn't touched a second player yet). indirect kick to the other team. (for those new to this concept, a similar result would follow if a kicker of a free kick inadvertently blasted the ball into the referee, and then tried to kick it again). also, even aside from the shooter, i don't think there could ever be an offside call on a penalty kick. if i'm not mistaken, the players on the shooting team have to line up behind the ball on a penalty kick (meaning, they can't stand in the corner and then run in, but have to be positioned outside the box/arc, behind the ball).
The PK is neither DFK nor an IFK. It is a PK, and it has it's own rules. One of the rules is that a goal may be scored directly (so in this sense, you can think of it as a 'direct' kick). another one is that the kicker can not touch (make contact with) the ball until the ball has touched another player. If you look at the rules for all the restarts, you will see that for all of them, the player that puts the ball into play can not touch it again until it (the ball) had been touched by another player. Some people think that a dropped ball is an exception to this, because the player that first touches the ball after it has hit the ground may touch it again and it is not a violation, but in a drop ball, the player does not put the ball in play, the referee does, and when the player first touches the ball, it is already in play.
Actually, all players except the keeper and the kicker must be "behind the penalty mark", not just the attacking players.
Thanks. I knew that, but was focusing on the offside aspect of it, which only involves the players on offense in this case. But, now I'm not certain about something else contained in your two posts. Do all the players (except goalie and kicker) have to be behind the penalty mark or 18 yards from the goalline? Either way, you can't have an offside, but, just so it's clear, can players line up on the side of the penalty area if they're more than 12 yards away from the goalline (i.e., behind the penalty mark).?
The Law states....... The players other than the kicker are located: *inside the field of play *outside the penalty area *behind the penalty mark *at least 10 yds (9.15m) from the penalty mark quoted straight from my trusty law book
Thank for pointing out my mistake. I meant to say 12 yards. I edited the post to use the correct terminology.
What's the underlying reasoning? What is the reasoning behind the rule? If the ball rebounds off the frame of the goal, then what is the objective of prohibiting the PK taker from touching the ball again until another player touches it? What is the ill that the rule seeks to prevent? Just curious. Thanks.
It's not an ill, it's just a technicality. The ball must be played by a second player after played by the PK taker - just like a free kick, corner kick, kick off, or throwin. The goal post is not a player. Playing it off the posts is like taking a dribble or three before taking the kick - no ill, just against the LOTG.
Just tryin to get a little schoolin here... Thanks. I understand that it's against the LOTG. But what I'm curious about is the reasoning for it being against the LOTG. Why is it considered appropriate for this situation to be prohibited by a rule? I know that I still suffer from my unfortunate law school theoretical training in thinking that any rule should have an underlying principle - some reasoning that explains why the rule should exist - so, sorry if I'm just being thick. I appreciate your explanation, but I thought that a PK is a situation that's analytically distinct from other free kick situations. Not so?
Re: Just tryin to get a little schoolin here... Which law system in the whole wide world follows this principle? (okay, you said that this is what law schools teach...) Really, I wouldn't think too much about this rule. Would also be justified to have a rule determining the fouled play to take the pk, but for some reason the game developed differently. Technically I think that every situation in which the game is stopped by either the ref (except direct free kick) or by the ball leaving the marked field (except corner kick) requires a second player to touch the ball - no clue why this developed like that. But as andyrey already mentioned, pk is a special situation with an own paragraph in the rules, so it could have found a special treatment (but e.g. you could also think about prohibiting a second shot if you see a pk as punishing shot).
Re: Just tryin to get a little schoolin here... I've got to say, sometimes you just have to accept the rule the way it is. You could ask the same question about the rule requiring the ball to touched by a second player in the first place. Why not just let the kicker dribble if he wants to? No real reason. The defense could pressure him as soon as he started dribbling, and it wouldn't be significantly different from touching it to another player who can dribble which is permitted. Also, and I'm really not busting your chops here, but why change the rule from it's present state? As someone who converted a high percentage of penalty kicks when I was playing, I don't have a lot of sympathy for a kicker who screws up and hits the post. From where I sit, he should have put it in on the first try. Why should he get another chance just because he happened to boink it off the post?
Re: Re: Just tryin to get a little schoolin here... Exactly, Olaf. That's why it was unfortunate theoretical training. Don't worry, I won't lose too much sleep pondering the rationale behind this rule. But the LOTG do get examined from time to time, so I don't think there's anything odd (ok, maybe not anything really odd) with wondering about a few of them. And I'm by no means suggesting that this rule should be changed. I'm just wondering what thinking resulted in people concluding that the PK taker shouldn't be allowed to play the ball off the frame. He would likely have an advantage over any other field player, so maybe that's what the authors of the rule had in mind?
Re: Re: Re: Just tryin to get a little schoolin here... Without this rule, the PK taker could just dribble the ball in. More commonly, run up, tap the ball, then drill it to the opposite side from the one the GK dove to. It makes perfect sense. It's only that the rule doesn't have a clause about hitting the post that makes it seem weird in this situation. At one time, it was legal for a basketball player to run up to the FT line, take off, and lay it in. That's because when Naismith designed the game in 1895 or whatever, the notion of that kind of athleticism didn't occur to him. I've seen it mentioned that Wilt Chamberlain used to dunk FTs (he was an amazing all around athlete, you know. A collegiate track star and all.) They put in the current rule to stop him from doing this.