>
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:38:18 -0500, Jim Livingston
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > 2) Premature kick by proper kicker -- use the decision tables,
> > > driven by the argument "Where is the ball?"
> > >[snip]
> >
> > Jim-
> >
> > Are you suggesting that if the ball is kicked before the whistle and
> misses
> > it should be an IFK coming out? That would be a change in the Law -- a
> kick
> > before the whistle cannot put the ball in play. Note that the ATR refers
> to
> > infringements *after* the referee's whistle. (That said, I'm not sure it
> > would be a bad change to the Laws . . . always awkward to tell the
> defense
> > "sorry, but that miss didn't count, we're doing it again.")
>
> It is not merely ATR that makes this assertion. It is directly inferrable
> from the text of Law 14:
>
> "Infringements and Sanctions
> If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken
> and, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: ..."
>
> From this I deduce that no infringement of Law 14 can occur until the
> referee has signalled for the PK to be taken. I suggest that proper
> procedure for the referee is to blow the whistle (loudly, possibly multiple
> times) as soon as the kick is noticed to be prematurely taken, maybe even
> before, and sell the non-status of the kick, regardless of the outcome. To
> borrow a mechanic from another sport, if a baseball umpire needs to negate
> the current pitch from being a pitch (for whatever reason), she dives out
> from behind the catcher while shouting "No pitch!"
>
> Just tell everyone that you hadn't yet signalled for the kick to be taken,
> and the PK never happened - just like for kickoffs, and ceremonial FKs, or
> any other time a second whistle is required.
>
> The critical period for a PK is the time between when the referee signals
> for the kick to be taken, and when the referee decides the PK has been
> completed. The latter is very subjective, and should be; the former is
> neither.
>
> Doug Smith
>
Doug --
I have no doubt that your exposition is correct, for Law 14 as written.
I am merely making a suggestion for a change in either Law 14, or its
interpretation,
since I am convinced that the disposition of the premature PK is not well
thought out
for all forseeable outcomes.
