Penalty Shoot Out- Change in Order

[JoetheRef]

Hi Guys,

Yesterday I had an U15 cup match that went to penalties. One of the players had to leave early so he asked if he could take the first penalty and then leave. Both managers agreed that this was fine so I allowed it. In law however, if all 11 players take penalties and we go round again, does the order have to be the same or can it be different so would this technically be allowed, although I know that the other team could also only use 10 takers?
If I were in the same scenario again I would do the same thing for the level of game it was but I was interested whether law actually supported this.
Cheers.

 

[FirsFox40]

Order can change. The most important thing is equalising the number of takers each side.

 

[RefereeX]

As @FirsFox40 said, order can change, but I would imagine in theory if you had 21 penalties taken by each team and still no result, that team would forfeit their 22nd as missed and the opposition have a free chance to win the shootout.

 

[JamesL]

As @FirsFox40 said, order can change, but I would imagine in theory if you had 21 penalties taken by each team and still no result, that team would forfeit their 22nd as missed and the opposition have a free chance to win the shootout.

If the number of kickers or one team is reduced the opposition have to reduce their number so that the number of participants are always equal.
Not sure how this would work but in reality when he left the opposition should also have excluded someone.

 

[RefereeX]

If the number of kickers or one team is reduced the opposition have to reduce their number so that the number of participants are always equal.
Not sure how this would work but in reality when he left the opposition should also have excluded someone.

But would that not be through dismissal / injury? I'm guessing the LOTG don't legislate for a player 'having to go' so we can go with spirit of the law? For me, spirit of the law is to not exclude a player on the basis that the opposition players can't stay for the duration of the shootout, so the kick would count as missed.

Either way to be fair I would make sure everything was agreed pre-shootout.

I know the player that has to go could just claim injury anyway rendering everything I've just said irrelavant...

 

[FirsFox40]

As @FirsFox40 said, order can change, but I would imagine in theory if you had 21 penalties taken by each team and still no result, that team would forfeit their 22nd as missed and the opposition have a free chance to win the shootout.

All the player has to do is say he’s injured after taking the first one and negate this.

Edit: just seen follow-up replies

 

[one]

If the number of kickers or one team is reduced the opposition have to reduce their number so that the number of participants are always equal.
Not sure how this would work but in reality when he left the opposition should also have excluded someone.

Interesting scenario. But it would work. If we number takers at the start 1 to 11 then when A1 leaves after taking the kick B11 (the weakest in Team B) is also taken off. All this means is that if after 10 kicks each still no result, A11 (weakest in team A) takes his first kick vs B1's second kick (strongest in team B). So in theory the person leaving puts his team at a disadvantage.

 

[JamesL]

But would that not be through dismissal / injury? I'm guessing the LOTG don't legislate for a player 'having to go' so we can go with spirit of the law? For me, spirit of the law is to not exclude a player on the basis that the opposition players can't stay for the duration of the shootout, so the kick would count as missed.

Either way to be fair I would make sure everything was agreed pre-shootout.

I know the player that has to go could just claim injury anyway rendering everything I've just said irrelavant...

I'd argue the spirit of the law is the opposite given that all scenarios that are in the book where the other team reduces to equalise.

 

[santa sangria]

Smart refereeing - if there is any doubt about eligibility - is to state your interpretation of the laws to both coaches.

“My interpretation is, if a player is injured or dismissed, then the other team can reduce to equate. If a player just leaves, their kick will be recorded as a miss.”

I think that will ensure the player in question will be injured and everyone will be happy.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

"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 (except as outlined below)" is what the LOTG say.

 

[RustyRef]

Realistically if you told the team who's player was leaving they would forfeit his second kick they would just claim he was injured and not fit to take a second penalty. A referee can't really challenge the validity of that, even if said player is half way down the M1 on his way home, so all outcomes are going to lead to the other team removing a player from the penalties.