Caution and retake as per the Laws. As per Law 14 under "Offences and Sanctions": That covers the restart. The caution would be for illegally feinting. And the players encroaching on the penalty area have minimal (if any) effect on the kick/non-kick, and the kicker's offence falls much more prominently on the scale... so... Caution and retake (since the ball was never put into play).
Shocking! News Alert! Poorly written provision in the LOTG! In Law 14, the consequence for illegally feinting at the ball is an IFK coming out, regardless of whether the kick was successful. And we have the language that it needs to be taken. Read literally, it would seem that by stopping play before the ball was actually kicked, the kick still needs to be taken. So, read literally, if there is an illegal feint, the referee should just wait until the ball is kicked, and then give an IFK coming out. But that seems really silly. Once the illegal feint takes place, the only possible result is an IFK coming out. So the spirit and intent of Law 14 would seem to say that the R got this right with an IFK. (Though the clip doesn't show him showing a yellow card for the feint, which he should have if that was the call.) But we have another example of poor drafting. (Side note: doesn't matter if the encroachment came first, as play would be allowed to continue following the encroachment, and the more serious feinting would be punished.)
"If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: The player taking the penalty kick or a team-mate offends: ..... except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored: ... feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker." Actually, socal lurker, I think that's pretty clear. He completed the run-up, he failed to kick the ball. Kicker cautioned, IFK coming out. The encroachment on this kick is trifling.
Can you have encroachment without the kick being taken? If a player stepped into the area but was back out before the kick was taken, would you call encroachment?
And that's where socal lurker's issue of wording comes into play (no pun intended). The heading in blue under 14.2 says "If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: the player taking the penalty kick or a team-mate offends:...if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts with an indirect free kick." yahda, yahda, yahda. and then it gets to both teams offending, so the kick is retaken. The Law assumes that the referee allowed the kick to be taken, despite the offense(s) and then the referee sorts things out. In this, unusual, case, the kick was not taken and not taken even though the referee, apparently, didn't stop the kicker. The Law does not even mention 'encroachment' after, earlier, stating that when the other players are outside the penalty area, the referee blows for the kick to be taken. So, to your questions, you always have encroachment before the kick is taken. Can you have encroachment after the referee whistles for the kick to be taken? Of course but, if you do, then you have to decide whether it was trifling, like you do with any other offense in the Laws. The kicker doing stupid stuff, as in this case, is considered more serious than encroachment. see 14.2.third major bullet point. If they did the hokey-pokey ("put your right foot in, put your right foot out....") again, you have to judge whether it's trifling or not. Their second step in that scenario is away from the goal, so now they're disadvantaged by what they did. Now in the real world of game management, if they're, say, two steps in and the ball hasn't been kicked yet, I'm stutter whistling, giving the perps a warning, and getting them settled back down, outside the penalty area, before whistling for the kick to be taken for real this time.
The drafting problem is with the language @sulfur quotes above that says the kick must be taken. That would (read literally) indicate that if the kick wasn't taken following the feint, the caution could be given, but the the kick would still be taken--which conflicts with the IFK for the feint. I agree the IFK is the right answer. Side note--does anyone know if the caution was given?
so this happened. check out at about 2.05 from this clip. I was watching the game and the whistle did blow before the player pulled up and didnt take the kick https://highlightsfootball.net/video/hellas-verona-vs-parma-highlights/