PK restart Matrix

Something different than the chart in the ATR?

 

But don't forget the exceptions: If the ball is kicked backwards or is kicked by a player other than the identified kicker, IFK to defense regardless of what happens.

 

Yes, of course.. That stuff is right below the chart on the same page in the ATR under "Exceptions"

 

This is actually is part of a question on the 2012-2013 State Test

 

I have a question on this.

Here's the scenario. White vs Blue, White is taking the PK. White player encroaches the top of the "d" by one step and you see it. White takes the kick, keeper saves. However, ball comes off the keeper and falls to the kicker - the one that took the kick - and he blasts it in the back of the net.

Re-kick?

I had this happen to me a few months ago and I let the goal stand. The player that encroached knew he messed up and said "awe *$%&" and then took two steps back. At the kick, he had no impact on the play and no one else impacted the play at all. No complaints from coaches or players at all.

 

It should be a IFK coming out at the top of D. The goal should not stand because of the encroachment. If the keeper had held onto it you may have made a case for advantage, however there was an infringement on white, the ball did not enter the goal, and the keeper did not maintain possession so we should have a whistle and IFK.

 

Mostly agree. Though the initial question is whether ITOOTR the infringement was trfiling. Many referees will find a step at the top of the D trifling unless the infringing player gets to the ball.

That gives two possible conclusions on this play:

• The infringement was trifling and the goal stands; or
• The infringement was not trifling, in which case the restart is a IFK for the defense.

(There is no possibility of having a retake -- a retake on an attacking infringment requires that the ball go directly into the goal. Putting in a rebound does not qualify as a goal being scored from the PK.)

 

So, the "infringer" took a step in, when"oh no" and stepped back out, has no effect on play and you want to call the goal back, and award an IFK?

This may be 100% technically correct, with the exception of "trifling" we don't call trifling things. If you proceed with an IFK here, be prepared to lose the players respect and control of the game.

 

I've got to say that the "Consequences of Law 14" is one of the areas of refereeing that seems to involve a lot of counter intuitive thinking, and one where the infringements are "trifling" more often than not.

I've even heard of someone getting marked down in an assessment because a defender infringed into the PA on a kick (just a step), but the kicker shanked it way over the goal. So the ref called a re-kick. The assessor said that even though the ref was "technically correct", the defender didn't influence the kick at all, and the kicker had a fair kick and the kicker screwed it up. So it should have been a goal kick.

 

Agreed. Have you ever seen a PK in professional game in which no one infringed the PA before the ball was kicked? Draconian enforcement would make our lives easier in many ways, as players would stop doing it if they believed it would be called; but that just isn't how it's percieved in the spirit of the game.

 

I'm not saying that I would call back the goal, but per the LOTG it'd be an IFK. I'd have to actually see the situation to give an opinion on the play.

 

I would look at it this way, a PK is just another restart and the idea of not allowing anyone in the area is simply to maintain at least 10 yards, just like all other free kicks. How many of you have done a game where the attacking team executed a really good step over on a free kick and tricked the player in the wall into taking an early step forward? Did you give a caution/retake if the ball when sailing by the wall with no impact on the play there? No? Then apply this principle to the PK. If you think the early movement in any way affected the kicker, angle of the shot, or goalie then by all means punish the infraction, otherwise let the play go on.

On the flip side, the only problem I have with not giving the IFK is that the players verbal admission seems to point out what happened. It is sort of like the play that happens when you have a maybe, maybe not handling and you are planning to let the play continue till the offending player gives the little dejected arms thrown up in the air in frustration and everyone stops. At that point you may be stuck.

All of this is said with the idea, you probably had to be there to see how things actually played out.

 

Following this same principle, it's a good way to remember that - just like any other other restart - the player can't touch it twice unless it's been touched by an opponent first. (see: PK kick rebounding off posts).

 

I laugh every time I watch this video.

 

I've never screwed up any of these restarts before , but I have a laminated copy of this in my book behind my scoresheet.

 

I'd suggest that if you parse through the logic behind the grid, you won't need the grid any more -- put simply, the infringing team can never have a successful result on the PK.

• If both teams infringe, neither team is able to have a sucessful result, so it is always a retake.
• If the defending team infirnges, it cannot have a succesful result (i.e., a non-goal), so unless the goal is scored the PK must be retaken.
• If the attacking team infiringes, it cannot have a successful result (i.e., a goal), so
  • (a) if they scored directly from the PK, then it must be retaken to void the successful result;
  • (b) if they did not score, play needs to be stopped to prevent them from scoring on the rebound, hence the IFK to the defense to prevent the possibility of a benefit from the ball being in play while avoiding the unfairness of giving them as second bite at the apple.

And then you just have to remember the two outliers (1) the wrong player taking the kick or (2) kicking the ball backwards, which are considered such blatant offenses against the PK procedures that the team forfeits its right to the PK.