A&H

Resetting the penalty run up

OldNavyRef

OldNavyRef

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee

The penalty in the video is 3:35

So struggling with the LOTG on this one. My interpretation of the LOTG is this is legal as he is not about to kick the ball when he restarts the run.

Procedure:
Feinting in the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, feinting to kick the ball once the player has
completed his run-up is considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behaviour for which the player must be cautioned.

 
The Referee Store
If he'd stopped at the end of the runup, without motioning to kick it, then stepped back would that be considered a feint?
 
bester said:
If he'd stopped at the end of the runup, without motioning to kick it, then stepped back would that be considered a feint?
Click to expand...
Have to see it as well but as a general rule I'd say it word be ok. The law was brought it to stop kickers unsportingly getting an unfair advantage by getting the keeper to dive to one side then have "lots of time" to pick the other side to kick to. If we can adhere to this principle then I don't see any issue (there may bebother factors).

An interesting scenario will be what happens if there is no intent to feint to kick or anything sinister. The kicker changes his mind in the very last second (after the completion of the run up and kicking motion). The keeper dives but the kicker doesn't take the kick. He steps back a few steps and allows the keeper to reset as well. The wording of the law requires a caution here but I doubt the spirit of it does.
 
Good videos. Respect to the creator. Really useful for grassroots refs.

If only the goalkeeping was as good as the camera work!

Is the channel owner on here?
 
one said:
An interesting scenario will be what happens if there is no intent to feint to kick or anything sinister. The kicker changes his mind in the very last second (after the completion of the run up and kicking motion). The keeper dives but the kicker doesn't take the kick. He steps back a few steps and allows the keeper to reset as well. The wording of the law requires a caution here but I doubt the spirit of it does.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with the spirit. I could run up, see which way the keeper moves, then have another go, with some idea of what the keeper was thinking.
I think the spirit of the law is that one the kicker reaches the ball the kick is taken.
 
JamesL said:
I think the spirit of the law is that one the kicker reaches the ball the kick is taken.
Click to expand...
That is basically what the wording says. The spirit is the reason behind it. Why do you think we want once the kicker reaches the ball the kick is taken? That would be the spirit.
 
one said:
That is basically what the wording says. The spirit is the reason behind it. Why do you think we want once the kicker reaches the ball the kick is taken? That would be the spirit.
Click to expand...
I probably didn't refine the quote as much as I should have. You say the wording requires a caution by but the spirit does not, but I don't agree.
If the kicker runs all the way to the ball, keeper dives, or indicates the direction they will/would have dived, and the kick is not taken, this is, in my opinion, unfair or to coin a better word, unsporting.
 
JamesL said:
I probably didn't refine the quote as much as I should have. You say the wording requires a caution by but the spirit does not, but I don't agree.
If the kicker runs all the way to the ball, keeper dives, or indicates the direction they will/would have dived, and the kick is not taken, this is, in my opinion, unfair or to coin a better word, unsporting.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I didn't say the spirit of the law does not, I said I had doubts. Subtle difference. :)

What you are implicating (or at least I think you are) is that the kicker didn't take the kick because he saw the keeper diving or indicating a dive one way If that was the reason then I'd have no issue with a caution. That would align with I think the spirit of the this law is. The kicker here has used the feint to his advantage even if he allows the keeper to reset after.

I deliberately used the words "nothing sinister" which possibly needed a better explanation. Sometimes we get ourselves into a pickle kicking FK on how we want to kick it and pull out of it in the last second. My scenario was more of this situation where no advantage was taken out of not kicking the ball or at least not a deliberate one.
 
I was always under the impression the run up couldn't stop. No idea where I got that from. But I think some people think, once you commit to the run, you are committed.

E.g. when you see a player run to the ball, slip, then stand up and end up carrying on the run from where they were (usually to great detriment to themselves).

I think not calling this will lead to protest just like it did in the video. The referee in the video even said he had made a mistake by not fouling the run up, in response to the protests from the opposition team to him stopping during the run up (even though he was correct).

I am by no means suggesting I would call it any other way than the ways of the LOTG.

Just a good example of what most people think the rules are Vs what the rules actually are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top