KFtPM question

[RefJef]

... or ball rebounds of post back to penalty taker who instinctively slots it into the back of the net.

No goal, yes; IDFK restart, yes; caution for penalty taker? No way!

 

[Peter Grove]

Is it an offence?
It's all very well saying "must not"... What if she does?

(And not using the ball as a weapong... Just playing it a second time...)
...coz if it's an offence the LotG say YC as far as I can read...

OK, I see what you mean. I was using 'offence' to mean simply 'something that the player is not allowed to do.' I do not think that it is 'an offence for which the player must be penalised' (and therefore, under the terms of Law 10, cautioned). For instance, during the normal course of play there are plenty of offences for which a player is not cautioned, simply a free kick is awarded - that kind of offence. Obviously during KFPM there are no free kicks to be awarded.

 

[one]

Is it an offence?
It's all very well saying "must not"... What if she does?

(And not using the ball as a weapong... Just playing it a second time...)
...coz if it's an offence the LotG say YC as far as I can read...

Your reference to offence or not is semantics really. Its only definition. It makes no difference to what the outcome should be. A couple of years ago when the term infringement was used, this would have been refereed to as an infringement of the procedure (and same outcome). But now it can only be referred to as an offence (but not the strict meaning of the term because it is not penalised during KFTPM). If it was done at a PK during a game, it is an offence punishable by an IFK. I don't see why it can't be referred to as an offence during KFTPM. However as PG pointed out, no free kicks are given during KFTPM. But nonetheless, its an offence (infringement in old terminology).

As far as a caution,
Kicking the ball backward: This is not an offence in KFTPM (not specified as one in law 10) . There is no need for it to be an offence since you don't have a team mate to pass the ball to (unlike a normal time PK). No offence no caution.
Kicking the ball twice: You have picked up on poor wording (and a good one too). For me it is no caution. You can argue that the offence was committed after the kick is complete (well technically at the same time as) so the clause that requires a caution doesn't apply.

 

[santa sangria]

Your reference to offence or not is semantics really. Its only definition. It makes no difference to what the outcome should be. A couple of years ago when the term infringement was used, this would have been refereed to as an infringement of the procedure (and same outcome). But now it can only be referred to as an offence (but not the strict meaning of the term because it is not penalised during KFTPM). If it was done at a PK during a game, it is an offence punishable by an IFK. I don't see why it can't be referred to as an offence during KFTPM. However as PG pointed out, no free kicks are given during KFTPM. But nonetheless, its an offence (infringement in old terminology).

As far as a caution,
Kicking the ball backward: This is not an offence in KFTPM (not specified as one in law 10) . There is no need for it to be an offence since you don't have a team mate to pass the ball to (unlike a normal time PK). No offence no caution.
Kicking the ball twice: You have picked up on poor wording (and a good one too). For me it is no caution. You can argue that the offence was committed after the kick is complete (well technically at the same time as) so the clause that requires a caution doesn't apply.

My bold: obvs that is the whole point of this ramble, though my first example of kicking backwards was rightly binned!
Do we have some kind of agreement that this is probably poor wording rather than the IFAB wanting us to caution for a double kick in KftPM?

(Obvs next step is to write to the chiefs)