The Ref Stop

FA Vase

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

D

DavidObs

RefChat Addict
The FA Vase first-round tie between Wythenshawe and Holker Old Boys is to be replayed after the referee made an error in a penalty shootout.

I get it that something had to be done about it, but to me it would have been logical to have had the penalty shoot out re-taken in full, not the entire game. The game came to an appropriate conclusion at the end of normal time. Why would that part need to be replayed!!
 
The Ref Stop
They just go with the easy option of carte blanche replay the full games.
This saves them having to think.

A few years ago they came back to play the penalty shootout for a Midland League (supply league) penalty shootout.

A Women's FA Cup game had to be replayed due to a concussion substitute being incorrectly used.
The final score was 7-1.
 
Interesting error which may have caught many of us out?

Most us know a player has to be nominated to not take a penalty, to even up if a team has ten players.

In this case it was the GK nominated, who would not take a penalty, but he then should not have been in goal saving the penalties!

Could common sense prevail, let the result stand, as shootout finished 4-3, the 10th penalty taker was irrelevant & did not impact the penalty shoot out?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c1d04yyxvv5o
 
There is zero excuse for this, to think that a team can exclude their keeper from taking penalties but still being able to save them is nonsensical. We are talking L4 officials here, not some randoms that haven't gone through promotion in the past 20 years.

The stance in England is if the referee was incorrect in law the game will always be replayed in full. I do get the argument that common sense says just replay the penalties, but equally people want consistency and there's zero doubt the FA are consistent on this, the entire game is always replayed.
 
DJIC said:
Interesting error which may have caught many of us out?

Most us know a player has to be nominated to not take a penalty, to even up if a team has ten players.

In this case it was the GK nominated, who would not take a penalty, but he then should not have been in goal saving the penalties!

Could common sense prevail, let the result stand, as shootout finished 4-3, the 10th penalty taker was irrelevant & did not impact the penalty shoot out?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c1d04yyxvv5o
Click to expand...
They had already nominated the goalkeeper to be the player excluded, and he took part. Difficult to say it hasn't impacted it! I'll be honest, anyone getting to L4 shouldn't be getting caught out on something as basic as this. Even worse, it appears both the ARs are former L4s too - how none of the three of them knew the law is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
ARF said:
They had already nominated the goalkeeper to be the player excluded, and he took part. Difficult to say it hasn't impacted it! I'll be honest, anyone getting to L4 should be getting caught out on something as basic as this. Even worse, it appears both the ARs are former L4s too - how none of the three of them knew the law is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. You don't exclude a player from taking penalties, you exclude them from taking part in the penalty shootout. I really don't understand how senior referees could make such a mess of this.
 
I'm not a fan of Holker's statement where they are trying to absolve themselves of all blame by claiming the error is *solely* down to the referee. It's just as much their error as it is the referee's - ignorance of the laws isn't a reasonable excuse.
 
I actually stopped a team doing this in county cup game a couple of years back by telling them if you nominate the keeper he can’t go in the goal for the penalty’s either swiftly decided to nominate a CB 😂.
 
To be fair the wording of the law doesn't help. "Any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks". When this was called "kicks from the penalty mark" it made more sense but now they should change it (and a few other references to kicks) to penalties. "Any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the penalties". The word "kicks" is frequently used in the procedure to refers to the actual taking of the kick.
 
Replaying the penalties is practical at professional level where the players that were involved will be available to take part but at this level it's possible that the players that were eligible to take part may not be available on the scheduled date and so you're not really replying the penalty shootout.

I Feel for the referee here a little bit. He has made a misinterpretation. Rather than just being totally ignorant to the law. But it is wrong and so as history shows the competition will generally order these games to be replayed
 
JamesL said:
Replaying the penalties is practical at professional level where the players that were involved will be available to take part but at this level it's possible that the players that were eligible to take part may not be available on the scheduled date and so you're not really replying the penalty shootout.

I Feel for the referee here a little bit. He has made a misinterpretation. Rather than just being totally ignorant to the law. But it is wrong and so as history shows the competition will generally order these games to be replayed
Click to expand...
Glad you've said this... I am sitting here thinking I could stay quiet and suggest I knew this, but I genuinely didn't.

I genuinely thought you were nominating a player to be excluded from taking a penalty so that both teams have the same number of penalty takers.

I must say I've never thought of it that deeply because it's never happened to me... but the applicable wording from LOTG is...

  • If at the end of the match and before or during the kicks one team has a greater number of players than its opponents, it must reduce its numbers to the same number as its opponents and the referee must be informed of the name and number of each player excluded. Any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks

It's not one of those things that reading the laws over and over is going to change your thoughts on. You only know, if you've read and interpreted it correctly or if it's come up.
Clearly by 'taking part in the kicks' it means take part at all in any aspect of 'kicks from the penalty mark' (although this should probably be updated in line with it now being referred to as a penalty shootout.)
If you've interpreted that to mean that the excluded player can't take a kick.... as I had... then I don't think it's necessarily indicative of a referee with generally poor law knowledge. I'm not sure how somebody who initially interpreted it that way, would then know any different, without being asked a question directly about it, seeing it happen, or having it crop up in conversation some other way.

An unfortunate scenario, but one I'm glad happened to someone else and now I will know better for if it would happen to me.
 
RefereeX said:
Glad you've said this... I am sitting here thinking I could stay quiet and suggest I knew this, but I genuinely didn't.

I genuinely thought you were nominating a player to be excluded from taking a penalty so that both teams have the same number of penalty takers.

I must say I've never thought of it that deeply because it's never happened to me... but the applicable wording from LOTG is...

  • If at the end of the match and before or during the kicks one team has a greater number of players than its opponents, it must reduce its numbers to the same number as its opponents and the referee must be informed of the name and number of each player excluded. Any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks

It's not one of those things that reading the laws over and over is going to change your thoughts on. You only know, if you've read and interpreted it correctly or if it's come up.
Clearly by 'taking part in the kicks' it means take part at all in any aspect of 'kicks from the penalty mark' (although this should probably be updated in line with it now being referred so as a penalty shootout.)
If you've interpreted that to mean that the excluded player can't take a kick.... as I had... then I don't think it's necessarily indicative of a referee with generally poor law knowledge. I'm not sure how somebody who initially interpreted it that way, would then know any different, without being asked a question directly about it, seeing it happen, or having it crop up in conversation some other way.

An unfortunate scenario, but one I'm glad happened to someone else and now I will know better for if it would happen to me.
Click to expand...
Yes they should change the wording to taking part in the penalty shootout out. And it they really wanted to bolt and lock it they could add "in any capacity"
 
JamesL said:
Yes they should change the wording to taking part in the penalty shootout out. And it they really wanted to bolt and lock it they could add "in any capacity"
Click to expand...
Not only do I agree with your comment James L, I think it is essential for the wording to be changed. All Referees, but especially those starting out need to be able to fully understand the Law as written & as you have stated in a previous thread, it looks like there was a mistake in its interpretation, where the situation described with a goalkeeper is very rare.
 
RefereeX said:
Glad you've said this... I am sitting here thinking I could stay quiet and suggest I knew this, but I genuinely didn't.

I genuinely thought you were nominating a player to be excluded from taking a penalty so that both teams have the same number of penalty takers.

I must say I've never thought of it that deeply because it's never happened to me... but the applicable wording from LOTG is...

  • If at the end of the match and before or during the kicks one team has a greater number of players than its opponents, it must reduce its numbers to the same number as its opponents and the referee must be informed of the name and number of each player excluded. Any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks

It's not one of those things that reading the laws over and over is going to change your thoughts on. You only know, if you've read and interpreted it correctly or if it's come up.
Clearly by 'taking part in the kicks' it means take part at all in any aspect of 'kicks from the penalty mark' (although this should probably be updated in line with it now being referred to as a penalty shootout.)
If you've interpreted that to mean that the excluded player can't take a kick.... as I had... then I don't think it's necessarily indicative of a referee with generally poor law knowledge. I'm not sure how somebody who initially interpreted it that way, would then know any different, without being asked a question directly about it, seeing it happen, or having it crop up in conversation some other way.

An unfortunate scenario, but one I'm glad happened to someone else and now I will know better for if it would happen to me.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point. I just thought it was obvious, but that's probably because I've been around since the year dot when the law was much more clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top