The Ref Stop

Player numbers at KFTPM and 'fair play'

one

one

RefChat Addict
This Law 10
A goalkeeper who is unable to continue before or during the kicks and whose team has not used its maximum permitted number of substitutes, may be replaced by a named substitute, or a player excluded to equalise the number of players, but the goalkeeper takes no further part and may not take a kick.
Click to expand...
And this Law 10
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.
Click to expand...
And this explaination for one of the changes
This applies the ‘fair play’ principle at the start of KFPM i.e. one team should not benefit from having fewer kickers than their opponents as this could mean their ‘best’ kicker taking a 2nd kick against the opponents’ last/worst kicker.
Click to expand...
How would you apply the law and 'fair play' if the goal keeper is replaced by a substitute
a. Before he takes a kick?
b. After he takes a kick?
 
The Ref Stop
As the order of takers doesn't need to be submitted to the referee, 'before he takes a kick' would be no different to 'if he wasn't going to take a kick anyway', therefore ask the other team to nominate a player to be excluded, and commence with 10 v 10 (assuming you finished the game 11v11).

B has totally baffled me. 'Fairness' and logic would dictate that you would continue the shootout 11v11 and only reduce the other team to 10 when all 11 have taken a kick. However, that isn't what the law says. So no idea :D
 
The law does not distinguish in reduce to equate whether it is a GK or not. It simply afford the opponents the opportunity to pick a player that s it weakest kicker to be removed. It does make a difference if the 11th kicker is the opponents 1st choice and it is the 11th choice for the non offending team.
It should not be confused with substitutions as there is no equating there
 
Goldfish said:
The law does not distinguish in reduce to equate whether it is a GK or not. It simply afford the opponents the opportunity to pick a player that s it weakest kicker to be removed. It does make a difference if the 11th kicker is the opponents 1st choice and it is the 11th choice for the non offending team.
It should not be confused with substitutions as there is no equating there
Click to expand...
@Goldfish I think i understand what you are saying but I am not sure if you answered my question. If one team's goalkeeper is substituted would you reduce the other sides numbers (in either cases of a or b)?
 
one said:
@Goldfish I think i understand what you are saying but I am not sure if you answered my question. If one team's goalkeeper is substituted would you reduce the other sides numbers (in either cases of a or b)?
Click to expand...
No, you wouldn't. By the very act of substituting the number of players wouldn't reduce therefore there is nothing to equalise.

However, if the goalkeeper was injured, couldn't continue and the team had used all its permitted number of subs then yes you would equalise as that it what the law now requires.
 
Hi
The previous wording stated
""If a player is injured or sent off during the taking of kicks from the penalty mark and the team has one player fewer, the referee should not reduce the number of players taking kicks for the other team. An equal number of players from each team is required only at the
start of the taking of kicks from the penalty mark.""
What has changed now is that reduce to equate continues during the kicks so an injury results in a reduction. If the GK is injured and can be replaced then no requirement to equate.
 
Thanks for input @Goldfish and @ASM .

So that we are clear, if the goalkeeper of team A is inured before taking a kick and is replaced by a named substitute (who is not allowed to take a kick), if team A has used all of its kickers, then their ‘best’ kicker is taking a 2nd kick against the opponents’ last/worst kicker. Is that correct?
 
Hi
It is not up to the referee to decide the order of kicks and the entering substitute GK will have to take a kick at some point. He is not excused from a kick. The anomaly only arises where the GK has already taken a kick before being replaced so Team A will have taken 11 kicks and the replacement GK or another team mate has not taken one if the sub decides to take one. As the 2nd series order can be changed his team chose the order in that series also.
For all that to happen there is a lot needed to happen for all that to line up, injury, available sub for GK, 11 pens taken. It is an outlier event not likely to test any referee in a game
 
@one the entering GK will take a kick as necessary going forward (either within the initial round of kicks if the Player he replaced hadn't taken one or in any subsequent round of kicks).

The quote in the original quote affirms that if the original GK is replaced as a substitute or any player removed to equalise numbers take no part in KFTPM from that point. This is in because some teams had previously attempted to say the GK was removed for equalising numbers but then wanted them to be in goal for the opposition kicks!
 
I'm with ASM on this. The quotes relates to the goalkeeper that is substituted not the replacement one. The only anomaly I can see is where the substituted GK has taken a penalty before being replaced so the question arises as to whether the new GK has to take a kick as the 12th kicker or can he wait. That relates to the law that every player must take a kick before a player can take a second kick.
 
He can take any subsequent kick after the initial 11 have each taken one in that scenario. For the purposes of KFTPM, they are one and the same person so, as explained earlier in the thread, if the GK who is subbed has already taken a kick, his replacement can take any kick from number 12 onwards.
 
My understanding was that "but the goalkeeper takes no further part and may not take a kick" refers to the new goalkeeper and not the original one. I know many others who believe the same. Clearly that part of the law needs clarification.

ASM said:
He can take any subsequent kick after the initial 11 have each taken one in that scenario. For the purposes of KFTPM, they are one and the same person so, as explained earlier in the thread, if the GK who is subbed has already taken a kick, his replacement can take any kick from number 12 onwards.
Click to expand...
For me that would be the correct thing to do and in line with the spirit of the law but not in line with its wording. They in fact are not the same person and are different players.
 
There was a penalty shootout last night between Derby and Carlisle which went through the entire teams. Derby had a player injured (Johnson) so Carlisle had to nominate someone to not take part but they selected their goalkeeper (Gillespie) who went in goal for the shootout despite not taking a penalty. It was my understanding that an excluded player could not take part in the shootout at all and so would not be able to go in goal, is this not the case?
 
Hi
Fail to understand how a team that has to reduce to equate can have 11 players on the FOP? I had KFTPM at the weekend and one team had a player sent off so I told the opponents that they could reduce by one who did not have to take a PK. They asked if it could be the GK and I said that if he leaves he does not go into goal. They chose an outfield player so we had 9 v 9 in the center circle and two GKs. that is my understanding of equating.
 
The intent (Spirit?) of this law has more to do with equating the number of kickers than the number of players. This is supported by the reason given in the latest change

“one team should not benefit from having fewer kickers than their opponents as this could mean their ‘best’ kicker taking a 2nd kick against the opponents’ last/worst kicker.”

So in @Golf's scenario. for me, the intent was followed. Its the wording that causes the problem and the anomaly.

@CapnBloodbeard I believe you are a futsal referee as well. Futsal LOTG explicitly allow a non-kicking goalkeeper as an extra player when a team has to reduce. It has worded this law much better.
 
And I think the intent is and always has been that there is no such thing as a non-kicking player.
Yes I did also referee Futsal - there were a few areas where I felt that the outdoor game could learn from whoever wrote the laws of the indoor one :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top