FA Vase

[DavidObs]

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!!

 

[bester]

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.

 

[DJIC]

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

 

[RustyRef]

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.

 

[ARF]

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

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.

 

[RustyRef]

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.

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.

 

[ARF]

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.

 

[HonestRef]

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 .

 

[one]

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.

 

[JamesL]

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

 

[RefereeX]

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

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.

 

[JamesL]

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.

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"

 

[DavidObs]

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"

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.

 

[RustyRef]

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.

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.

 

[one]

This is from 2016



IFAB has a habit of fixing one thing and breaking other things at the same time.

 

[DJIC]

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.

To me that is the key part, the law is consistent in the early part calling it ‘the penalty shoot-out’.

Then references, ‘any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks’.

I would conclude if IFAB meant ‘excluded from the penalty shoot-out’ why then switch to use ‘the kicks’?

Kicks refers to kicking the ball, the GK is not kicking the ball in the penalty shoot-out.

 

[ARF]

To me that is the key part, the law is consistent in the early part calling it ‘the penalty shoot-out’.

Then references, ‘any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks’.

I would conclude if IFAB meant ‘excluded from the penalty shoot-out’ why then switch to use ‘the kicks’?

Kicks refers to kicking the ball, the GK is not kicking the ball in the penalty shoot-out.

A goalkeeper is taking part in the kicks by being stood in the goal to face them - a penalty cannot be taken unless there is a goalkeeper there.

 

[one]

To me that is the key part, the law is consistent in the early part calling it ‘the penalty shoot-out’.

Then references, ‘any excluded player is not eligible to take part in the kicks’.

I would conclude if IFAB meant ‘excluded from the penalty shoot-out’ why then switch to use ‘the kicks’?

Kicks refers to kicking the ball, the GK is not kicking the ball in the penalty shoot-out.

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.

 

[Redref34]

For me - until this happened I would not know the correct answer and looking in the laws it wouldn’t have told me clearly either.

I probably would have gone with the keeper not taking part at all but that would have been an educated guess at best.

 

[Kes]

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!!

Extra gate receipts (?)
The home club will benefit from a replay (especially if they win).
Not many would pay just to watch a replayed penalty shoot-out I'd imagine.