2016-17 Penalty kick complete

[one]

If a penalty kick has to be taken or retaken, the duration of either half is extended until the penalty kick is completed.

The penalty kick is completed when the ball stops moving, goes out of play or the referee stops play for any infringement of the Laws.

Although no sensible referee will allow it to happen, the new definition of ‘complete’ technically allows the possibility of the defending team to score a valid goal at the other end when time has been extended to take a penalty kick.

 

[Will Triffitt]

I would say the penalty is over either when a goal has been scored or when the ball comes back away from the goal (e.g. after a save or rebound of goal frame)

 

[richard ramjane]

Although no sensible referee will allow it to happen, the new definition of ‘complete’ technically allows the possibility of the defending team to score a valid goal at the other end when time has been extended to take a penalty kick.

the second bit really only applies to KFTPM

 

[Alex71]

I would say the penalty is over either when a goal has been scored or when the ball comes back away from the goal (e.g. after a save or rebound of goal frame)

@Will Triffitt

Goal or not goal :

 

[RefJef]

Goal!

 

[mikedn]

Goal!

Agreed ..... Goal, ball still has momentum.... the law states "when the ball has stopped moving or goes out of play".....

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
Reading too much into the wording. Once time has been extended to take a PK the referee will end the game as soon as the ball rebounds back into play with no hope of a goal direct from the PK.

 

[GraemeS]

That's a goal in any situation IMO - "normal" penalty, time extended for a PK or kicks from the mark.

It's a difficult thing to express in wiritng, but I believe that the intent of the law is that in the latter two cases, the ball's "natural" movement after the kick must have stopped for either full time to be blown, or for the KFTPM to be considered "missed". That can be tricky if the laws clearly state that no rebounds should be allowed, but it would definitely seem wrong to disallow that just because time's been extended.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Although no sensible referee will allow it to happen, the new definition of ‘complete’ technically allows the possibility of the defending team to score a valid goal at the other end when time has been extended to take a penalty kick.

The way you're reading the LOTG would suggest that play could continue for 5min after this PK. Given that's not the case I think that gives evidence to suggesting that the game stops when the referee considers the kick is over

 

[one]

Reading too much into the wording....

The way you're reading the LOTG...

I agree with what you say on when a penalty is complete. All I am saying is there is an unintended consequence by this new definition (which I thought the new laws were supposed to fix).

I really don’t know how else I could read it or how else anyone else can read it. Its written very simple “extend time until penalty is completed. And this is how it is completed”. In fact what we all agree with is reading something that is no longer in the law.

Anyway it’s all there in black and white and right next to each other. And there is always that referee who follows the clear letter of the law.

I won’t be surprised if this is fixed in the following year.

 

[richard ramjane]

question;
if you are extending time at the end of a half to allow a PK to be taken, do you verbalise this, and tell the players its the kick and the kick only, no follow up etc as per KFTPM ?

 

[GraemeS]

question;
if you are extending time at the end of a half to allow a PK to be taken, do you verbalise this, and tell the players its the kick and the kick only, no follow up etc as per KFTPM ?

Although I've never had this situation, I've previously decided that I absolutely would tell the players that. Ideally, you'd try and encourage them not to crowd around and rush in for the rebound, although you've got no way of stopping them if they want to, you'd just have to disallow any goal that comes from a rebound.

 

[AlexF]

I've used phrasing like "think of it like a shootout kick, you can't get involved" and "if you stand on the line, chances are you'll come into the area before the kick, and if that happens, we'll likely have to do this all over again."

Most of the time when you tell them the deal, they stand around the area, but show 0 urgency, which is nice.

 

[bester]

I don't think referees should be misleading players.

Would an attacker be allowed to shield the ball as it was back spinning towards the line? Similarly is a defender allowed to run in and clear it.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

question;
if you are extending time at the end of a half to allow a PK to be taken, do you verbalise this, and tell the players its the kick and the kick only, no follow up etc as per KFTPM ?

I would. By doing that, you're hopefully stopping any attackers encroaching thus reducing your chance of a retake. Also, do you really want to explain to an attacker why it's no goal if there's a follow-up kick?

I don't think referees should be misleading players.

Would an attacker be allowed to shield the ball as it was back spinning towards the line? Similarly is a defender allowed to run in and clear it.

Where is the deception?
For a defender - heck, the defender can run in and kick It into the goal himself and it's no goal.
As for shielding a ball moving into the goal - I think there's an implication in shielding that you can play the ball. Given the attacker can't touch the ball, I would argue that shielding would be impeding the progress here

 

[GraemeS]

I don't think referees should be misleading players.

Would an attacker be allowed to shield the ball as it was back spinning towards the line? Similarly is a defender allowed to run in and clear it.

I think you're technically correct - there's an edge case where you extend time to allow the PK and the resulting kick spins back into the goal as per the video posted earlier. Unlike KFTPM, a defender would have to be allowed to come in and clear the ball (or even just control it to end the game) and you're right in saying that you shouldn't discourage that from happening.

Having said that, I think the benefits of explaining the situation clearly and stopping any post-match arguments before they begin does outweigh the tiniest possibility of something mad like that happening. I still think it's prudent to explain that it's going to be the last kick of the game - how the players take that and what they do with that information is up to them.

 

[Will Triffitt]

@Will Triffitt

Goal or not goal :

Blame my last RDO who said that was the case!!!! Never had to deal with it but he said as soon as the ball goes forward (Back towards penalty mark), that's it! My bad for listening!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I think you're technically correct - there's an edge case where you extend time to allow the PK and the resulting kick spins back into the goal as per the video posted earlier. Unlike KFTPM, a defender would have to be allowed to come in and clear the ball (or even just control it to end the game) and you're right in saying that you shouldn't discourage that from happening.

Having said that, I think the benefits of explaining the situation clearly and stopping any post-match arguments before they begin does outweigh the tiniest possibility of something mad like that happening. I still think it's prudent to explain that it's going to be the last kick of the game - how the players take that and what they do with that information is up to them.

Agreed. I don't think it's reasonable to tell the defenders to not get involved because the defenders could certainly stop a goal. There's no possible way an attacker could get involved.

So you could actually say that - tell attacking team they can't get involved. Because that's 100% correct. Telling all the players they can't get involved is simply not correct and is misinformation that could dictate the result of a match.

Which is a horrendous outcome.