Question reg. penalty kick encroachment rule

Danepak

During the Sydney v Wellington Phoenix game a couple of days ago, Sydney was awarded a penalty very late in the game.
The penalty was saved. The ball rolled out to a Sydney player, who tried to cross the ball. His cross then hit a Phoenix players arm. Sydney therefore got another penalty by VAR.

But as the Sydney player was in the box prior to the kick being taken (circled in photo below), should VAR not have ruled against another penalty?

See the incident at 4:28.

https://youtu.be/pjU7SG4r76w

oohaahmortimer

Phoenix player looks like he encroached first so may have been retaken on that , not watched video yet 

Danepak

@oohaahmortimer - You might be right.

If it’s based on the following:

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- then play goes on

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- it has to be retaken



Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- it has to be retaken

Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- then goal is awarded


But with a player from each team encroaching, is it then based on who entered the penalty box first?

In the Sydney v Phoenix example, the goal keeper team member enters the box first (encroachment), but a Sydney player also does it and is directly involved in the following incident, which resulted in another penalty.

In this case, Sydney got their 2nd penalty awarded, but not following the same rules as above.

PeterGage

Danepak said:

@oohaahmortimer - You might be right.

If it’s based on the following:

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- then play goes on

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- it has to be retaken



Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- it has to be retaken

Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- then goal is awarded


But with a player from each team encroaching, is it then based on who entered the penalty box first?

In the Sydney v Phoenix example, the goal keeper team member enters the box first (encroachment), but a Sydney player also does it and is directly involved in the following incident, which resulted in another penalty.

In this case, Sydney got their 2nd penalty awarded, but not following the same rules as above.

If a player from both team encroaches, the penalty is retaken, regardless of the outcome of the original penalty kick.

redman

PeterGage said:

Danepak said:

@oohaahmortimer - You might be right.

If it’s based on the following:

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- then play goes on

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- it has to be retaken



Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- it has to be retaken

Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- then goal is awarded


But with a player from each team encroaching, is it then based on who entered the penalty box first?

In the Sydney v Phoenix example, the goal keeper team member enters the box first (encroachment), but a Sydney player also does it and is directly involved in the following incident, which resulted in another penalty.

In this case, Sydney got their 2nd penalty awarded, but not following the same rules as above.

If a player from both team encroaches, the penalty is retaken, regardless of the outcome of the original penalty kick.

I'm sure you're right the laws say this. However not one referee's usually enforce. 

Danepak

redman said:

PeterGage said:

Danepak said:

@oohaahmortimer - You might be right.

If it’s based on the following:

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- then play goes on

Penalty taker team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- it has to be retaken



Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is saved
- it has to be retaken

Goal keeper team member encroaching
and
penalty is scored
- then goal is awarded


But with a player from each team encroaching, is it then based on who entered the penalty box first?

In the Sydney v Phoenix example, the goal keeper team member enters the box first (encroachment), but a Sydney player also does it and is directly involved in the following incident, which resulted in another penalty.

In this case, Sydney got their 2nd penalty awarded, but not following the same rules as above.

If a player from both team encroaches, the penalty is retaken, regardless of the outcome of the original penalty kick.

I'm sure you're right the laws say this. However not one referee's usually enforce. 

OK, cheers.

I find it strange that refs don't enforce it. It's pretty black and white. Don't enter the penalty box, until the player has kicked the ball.

So we shouldn't expect VAR to enforce this either then?

Cloudworm

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

Danepak

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

In this case (given that I follow Phoenix in the A-League), I'm happy that VAR didn't look into it. But as you mentioned, it should really be enforced.

I watched highlights of the WC 2002 encounter between Sweden and Argentina:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POgFKaPynbo

Check it out at 0:54

That's ridiculous.

5 players in the box, before the Argentinian has kicked the ball and look at the huge advantage the goalscorer has, as he's made the run into the box extremely early.

If this happened now, surely VAR would ask for it to be retaken? And if there were no Swedish players in the box, the goal should've been ruled out, if they'd scored.

Off_it

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

If hes got a foot on the line then isnt he still on the line?

Would hate to see the set squares come out and penalties get retaken because of a few millimetres. 

Cloudworm

But they have for the offside law already. That's what VAR is - a digital set square. Personally, I like it. 

Danepak

One foot is definitely on the line and according to the rules, that’s all that’s required (not both feet). If you slow the clip down at 4:29, you’ll see that his right foot is on the line, when the penalty kick is taken.

PeterGage

Off_it said:

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

If hes got a foot on the line then isnt he still on the line?

Would hate to see the set squares come out and penalties get retaken because of a few millimetres. 

VAR is in place to determine " Penalty/No penalty". Thereafter in the subsequent penalty process, VAR has no involvement.

Danepak

PeterGage said:

Off_it said:

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

If hes got a foot on the line then isnt he still on the line?

Would hate to see the set squares come out and penalties get retaken because of a few millimetres. 

VAR is in place to determine " Penalty/No penalty". Thereafter in the subsequent penalty process, VAR has no involvement.

But VAR is involved in other areas as well. Fouls leading up to a goal and offside to name two.

SomervilleAddick

PeterGage said:

Off_it said:

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

If hes got a foot on the line then isnt he still on the line?

Would hate to see the set squares come out and penalties get retaken because of a few millimetres. 

VAR is in place to determine " Penalty/No penalty". Thereafter in the subsequent penalty process, VAR has no involvement.

Not aimed you you Peter, but that seems ridiculous. It’s the same as offside, the officials can’t be watching the player taking the kick, all the players on the edge of the box and the goalkeeper at the same time. The rule looks like it’s designed for VAR. 

PeterGage

Danepak said:

PeterGage said:

Off_it said:

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

If hes got a foot on the line then isnt he still on the line?

Would hate to see the set squares come out and penalties get retaken because of a few millimetres. 

VAR is in place to determine " Penalty/No penalty". Thereafter in the subsequent penalty process, VAR has no involvement.

But VAR is involved in other areas as well. Fouls leading up to a goal and offside to name two.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My reference to VAR was limited to "goal/no goal" because that was the subject matter in the preceding posts.

For reference, the use of VAR is limited to four areas: "goal/no goal", penalty/no penalty", "red card" and finally "mistaken identity" involving red or yellow card.

Danepak

PeterGage said:

Danepak said:

PeterGage said:

Off_it said:

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

If hes got a foot on the line then isnt he still on the line?

Would hate to see the set squares come out and penalties get retaken because of a few millimetres. 

VAR is in place to determine " Penalty/No penalty". Thereafter in the subsequent penalty process, VAR has no involvement.

But VAR is involved in other areas as well. Fouls leading up to a goal and offside to name two.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My reference to VAR was limited to "goal/no goal" because that was the subject matter in the preceding posts.

For reference, the use of VAR is limited to four areas: "goal/no goal", penalty/no penalty", "red card" and finally "mistaken identity" involving red or yellow card.

In the NZ v Costa Rica game, VAR was also used for another area. They believed a foul had been made in the lead up to the NZ goal and therefore ruled the goal out.

Watch at 3:30.

https://youtu.be/g0-A4PEjGM0

PeterGage

Danepak said:

PeterGage said:

Danepak said:

PeterGage said:

Off_it said:

Cloudworm said:

Law 14 includes:

a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting);

Neither committed the offence first as the ball is live only when kicked.

In addition the goalkeeper in this instance was off his line.

Should have been retaken. In effect, it was. So they got to the right decision, albeit by the wrong route. Silly sod missed the 'retake' anyway.

It's an example of an unenforceable law without VAR. With VAR, they really should enforce it.

If hes got a foot on the line then isnt he still on the line?

Would hate to see the set squares come out and penalties get retaken because of a few millimetres. 

VAR is in place to determine " Penalty/No penalty". Thereafter in the subsequent penalty process, VAR has no involvement.

But VAR is involved in other areas as well. Fouls leading up to a goal and offside to name two.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My reference to VAR was limited to "goal/no goal" because that was the subject matter in the preceding posts.

For reference, the use of VAR is limited to four areas: "goal/no goal", penalty/no penalty", "red card" and finally "mistaken identity" involving red or yellow card.

In the NZ v Costa Rica game, VAR was also used for another area. They believed a foul had been made in the lead up to the NZ goal and therefore ruled the goal out.

Watch at 3:30.

https://youtu.be/g0-A4PEjGM0

It is not "another area". If a goal is scored, the preceding play is reviewed to see if any incident, such as a foul or offside occurred, thus denying the goal. It is therefore part of the "goal/no goal" scenario, not another separate VAR review area.