Law 10 KFPM

[RobOda]

Happened this weekend, so I thought this was a fun one to post;

Cup game;

Team A has a player dismissed during the game. The game is drawn and goes to penalties; At the penalty shoot-out Team B must reduce their numbers.

Team B asks if they can exclude their goalkeeper from kicks - i.e. the keeper won't take a kick, but will still take part as a keeper.

What's your call?

 

[JamesL]

Say Yes. That's no problem.
Then toss coin for choice of ends. Then toss coin for choice of who goes first or second.

 

[es1]

Say Yes. That's no problem.
Then toss coin for choice of ends. Then toss coin for choice of who goes first or second.

have you read the question correctly?!

***

assuming i'm not missing something blindingly obvious, no, you can't exclude the keeper from taking the pen while allowing them to take part as the keeper

 

[Anubis]

Interestingly, when a team has to lose a kicker, that player can still replace the gk mid kicks if the gk got injured.

 

[JamesL]

have you read the question correctly?!

***

assuming i'm not missing something blindingly obvious, no, you can't exclude the keeper from taking the pen while allowing them to take part as the keeper

I have... I answered it wrong
I always like to answer first, check 2nd. The question is what would I do, not what is the correct answer. So yes. I'd have got it wrong too. But I won't now.

 

[OIREF!]

Say Yes. That's no problem.
Then toss coin for choice of ends. Then toss coin for choice of who goes first or second.

If you're feeling bit mischevious !!!

 

[JamesL]

If you're feeling bit mischevious !!!

Or just plain wrong in law

 

[OIREF!]

Or just plain wrong in law

I realise that it would be wrong to let the keeper continue as a keeper. The mischief would come from accepting the keeper's exclusion while knowing, but not explaining, the consequences. I wouldn't be so devious though!