FA Vase

[DJIC]

You are giving too much credit to IFAB for writing something a certain way to mean a certain thing. Here is what really happened. That sentence used to read "Any player thus excluded may not participate in kicks from the penalty mark" in the 2015/16 LOTG as per post 15. "Kicks from the penalty mark" used the be the name for entire process of penalty shoot-out. Then, in an attempt to simplify the wording from 2016/17 onwards, they changed references to the process to just "kicks", This wasn't too confusing given the name of the process. Then a couple of years ago they changed the name of the process to "penalty shoot-out", leaving references to the process as "kicks" stranded, but it still means the entire process.

Someone can email IFAB on this but I wont be surprised if they deny the stuff up, or better yet refer to the spirit of the law.

This part of law would get you to the right answer, the GK not taking a kick would not be an eligible player.

During penalties (penalty shoot-out)
Only eligible players and match officials are permitted to remain on the field of play.

 

[Redref34]

The poor player who is excluded because the other team had a player sent off can’t even stay on the field of play during the shootout

 

[JamesL]

Scenario that popped into my head on this one.

At the start of penalty shoot out team A has 10 Players and Team B has 11. Team B opts to exclude the GK. Player 2 is nominated as Goalkeeper. During the penalty shootout Player 2 becomes injured. Team B has no substitutions available...

 

[RefereeX]

Scenario that popped into my head on this one.

At the start of penalty shoot out team A has 10 Players and Team B has 11. Team B opts to exclude the GK. Player 2 is nominated as Goalkeeper. During the penalty shootout Player 2 becomes injured. Team B has no substitutions available...

Appears to go against the 'spirit of the laws' but I'm guessing the outcome is that Team B then goes down to 9 men with a new man having to be nominated as GK and Team A have to select a player to exclude.

 

[bester]

Scenario that popped into my head on this one.

At the start of penalty shoot out team A has 10 Players and Team B has 11. Team B opts to exclude the GK. Player 2 is nominated as Goalkeeper. During the penalty shootout Player 2 becomes injured. Team B has no substitutions available...

Original goalkeeper can replace player 2 as goalkeeper.
If player 2 has taken a penalty already then the original goalkeeper doesn't take a penalty during this round of penalty kicks.
If player 2 hasn't taken a penalty then the original goalkeeper has to take one.


I

 

[JamesL]

Appears to go against the 'spirit of the laws' but I'm guessing the outcome is that Team B then goes down to 9 men with a new man having to be nominated as GK and Team A have to select a player to exclude.

Original goalkeeper can replace player 2 as goalkeeper.
If player 2 has taken a penalty already then the original goalkeeper doesn't take a penalty during this round of penalty kicks.
If player 2 hasn't taken a penalty then the original goalkeeper has to take one.


I

Thanks both. Proved my point of where I was headed with it.

 

[RefereeX]

Original goalkeeper can replace player 2 as goalkeeper.
If player 2 has taken a penalty already then the original goalkeeper doesn't take a penalty during this round of penalty kicks.
If player 2 hasn't taken a penalty then the original goalkeeper has to take one..

Correct

Appears to go against the 'spirit of the laws' but I'm guessing the outcome is that Team B then goes down to 9 men with a new man having to be nominated as GK and Team A have to select a player to exclude.

Incorrect


Just read up on this again.... think I need to focus on these unlikely scenarios on my law studying....

 

[one]

Thanks both. Proved my point of where I was headed with it.

This is not the only loophole in the laws. We discussed mutile issues with the PSO in more than one thread. But the point picked up on this thread which results in different referees interpreting the procedure differently is a new one.

 

[RefereeX]

Presume we're calling it a loophole because a sort of smart team could nominate their goalkeeper to exclude, have an outfield player take their first kick then 'become injured' and replace him with the goalkeeper who then wouldn't have to take a kick in that round?
However, this would backfire if it went to a second round of penalties as you've then replaced one of your best penalty takers rather than your sh*test outfield one. (Unless of course your sh*test outfield one is the one who took the first penalty, but then that wouldn't be too smart either)

 

[one]

Presume we're calling it a loophole because a sort of smart team could nominate their goalkeeper to exclude, have an outfield player take their first kick then 'become injured' and replace him with the goalkeeper who then wouldn't have to take a kick in that round?
However, this would backfire if it went to a second round of penalties as you've then replaced one of your best penalty takers rather than your sh*test outfield one. (Unless of course your sh*test outfield one is the one who took the first penalty, but then that wouldn't be too smart either)

You nominate your 5th best taker who takes the first kick and is replaced by the actual keeper. The actual keeper doesnt have to take a kick until the 39th or 40th kick, and the 5th best taker is due again after 28 kicks (which will be taken by the 6th best, which is not a big gap). It's a very small risk well worth taking by a smart team.

 

[bester]

Thanks both. Proved my point of where I was headed with it.

Worth noting they could still does this trick even if they had substitutes available.

 

[JamesL]

Worth noting they could still does this trick even if they had substitutes available.

Yes very true. I was leaning more towards people having a different view on it and had neglected to remember that this is actually covered more explicitly in law than OP.

 

[Kes]

This is not the only loophole in the laws. We discussed mutile issues with the PSO in more than one thread. But the point picked up on this thread which results in different referees interpreting the procedure differently is a new one.

Are you taking the P?

 

[RefereeX]

You nominate your 5th best taker who takes the first kick and is replaced by the actual keeper. The actual keeper doesnt have to take a kick until the 39th or 40th kick, and the 5th best taker is due again after 28 kicks (which will be taken by the 6th best, which is not a big gap). It's a very small risk well worth taking by a smart team.

Maybe... but then there is also the fact that is a goalkeeper really that bad at taking a penalty that it's worth going to this effort? (And when I say is he that bad, we're only talking about compared to the next worst, who could be excluded)
A lot of teams don't even have their GK as taker number 11, and some include them in their 5...

 

[JamesL]

Are you taking the P?

And the other L.

 

[Redref34]

My game could go to penalties tonight I’m hoping for an easy one if I’m honest after reading this thread

 

[Kes]

And the other L.

Yep. Maybe he wants letters after his name?

 

[Samuel]

My game could go to penalties tonight I’m hoping for an easy one if I’m honest after reading this thread

My game on Tuesday went to pens with one team down to ten. Luckily the other teams gk took the 4th pen so didn't need to worry

 

[one]

Yep. Maybe he wants letters after his name?

I prefer Emails to letters.

 

[one]

Maybe... but then there is also the fact that is a goalkeeper really that bad at taking a penalty that it's worth going to this effort? (And when I say is he that bad, we're only talking about compared to the next worst, who could be excluded)
A lot of teams don't even have their GK as taker number 11, and some include them in their 5...

In answer to yous qustion, apparently the keeper in the OP was the worst in the team. Otherwise why did they exclude him fom taking a kick.

But the point is about making something the law but leaving a loophole open to go around it.