Quiz question
- Thread starter one
- Start date
This has been abandoned, so that's not the answer.
There's always a snag with One's questions. But I am going to go with this... Yes. Because:
If the kicker is penalised for an offence committed after the referee has
signalled for the kick to be taken, that kick is recorded as missed and the
kicker is cautioned.
Therefore if the kicker offends after the signal but before the taking of said kick the kick is recorded as missed. Therefore it was never taken meaning a team may take consecutive KFTPM.
Tell me. Why I am wrong @one
one
RefChat Addict
Because in that case the referee allows the kick to be taken then it is recorded as a miss. Otherwise its a caution and a new signal for the same kick.
"Kicks from the penalty mark are taken after the match has ended and unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game apply." Pg 93
"Once the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, the kick must be taken; if it is not taken the referee may take disciplinary action before
signalling again for the kick to be taken." Pg122
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Yes. In theory.
A kick is forfeited by a player who leaves the field and doesn't return in a timely way to take the kick. Pretty fanciful, however, since the kicker isn't identified till the time of the kick, so it would have to be the 11th kicker for it really to apply. (Or, I suppose, a team dumb enough to identify a kicker in KFTM who had left the field.) Seems like a solution in search of a problem.
A kick is forfeited by a player who leaves the field and doesn't return in a timely way to take the kick. Pretty fanciful, however, since the kicker isn't identified till the time of the kick, so it would have to be the 11th kicker for it really to apply. (Or, I suppose, a team dumb enough to identify a kicker in KFTM who had left the field.) Seems like a solution in search of a problem.
RefJef
RefChat Addict
I didn’t know that (that the ABBA option had been abandoned.
IIRC, it had only recently been introduced. Any idea why it was abandoned, and where it’s abandonment was announced?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It was only an experiment. The powers that be thought it brought more complication than benefit.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
that's a retake, not a consecutive kick
Yampy
RefChat Addict
And where does the OP stipulate 'retake' is an exclusion?
Which would make my answer correct.... Almost.
one
RefChat Addict
If the referee was standing on the penalty mark, does kicking the referee count because the OP has not exclude it?
Seriously though, the retake is not the one which is excluded. Its the first kick with the defective ball that is excluded. The OP doesn't need to stipulate it. Law 10 does (and law 2.2). If the first kick 'counts' then by your logic the retake can't happen because "The kicks are taken alternately by the teams".
I take it you are not familiar with my style of LOTG questions then
. Its a question in search of someone who can think outside of the box when inside of the box. Looks like it found one or two.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
Yampy
RefChat Addict
I didn't pose the question, I just answered it. It's a bit like asking what is 10 + 10 and when everyone says 20, giving the answer as 100.
But if you'll permit another useless stab of stupidity, I'll suggest this:
If the goalkeeper has been replaced because he/she is unable to continue and has taken a kick, the replacement may not take a kick until the next round of kicks
And if that replacement had yet to take a kick, this action would exclude them from taking one thus, creating a gap in the order.
It would also need the opponents to miss their kick because it would almost certainly be a sudden death situation at this point.
But if you'll permit another useless stab of stupidity, I'll suggest this:
If the goalkeeper has been replaced because he/she is unable to continue and has taken a kick, the replacement may not take a kick until the next round of kicks
And if that replacement had yet to take a kick, this action would exclude them from taking one thus, creating a gap in the order.
It would also need the opponents to miss their kick because it would almost certainly be a sudden death situation at this point.
It’s 5-5 all and both teams have taken 10 kicks each. I step up and slam it home. The 11th taker from the opposition also scores. Since all the players left on the field have taken a kick we go through again with players taking a second kick until we reach a result.
I now take kick number 12, and therefore a consecutive kick
I now take kick number 12, and therefore a consecutive kick
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I take it you are not familiar with my style of LOTG questions then
Oh, I'm not criticizing the question at all. Screwy trivia questions are good to make people think about the intricacies of the laws.
I think the provision in the Law is a solution in search of a problem.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Nope. There is never a gap created if the GK is replaced--the replacement GK steps into the shoes of the prior GK. If the original GK had already take a kick, then a field player would be kicker 11 for that team, and at the 12th kick everyone is eligible again.
Proper left field suggestion here as I really don’t know, but if a game is abandoned during KFTPM and replayed/restarted, does it carry on from before or begin again at kick 1?
In which case it’s feasible for a team to take 2 consecutive kicks - eg. take kick 3, abandon, coin tossed again and go first- it’s technically the same match.
I offer this as there have been occasions where the remainder of a game has been played following abandonment/suspension so I’ve applied that logic here.
In which case it’s feasible for a team to take 2 consecutive kicks - eg. take kick 3, abandon, coin tossed again and go first- it’s technically the same match.
I offer this as there have been occasions where the remainder of a game has been played following abandonment/suspension so I’ve applied that logic here.