A&H

KFTPM - bizarre situation

E

es1

RefChat Addict
Just been sent this

1666205606551.png

Apparently the issue was that the 11th taker for team B was too injured to take his kick and this only became apparent after the previous kick from team A.

I must admit I've no clue what the right outcome is here - I think there's several things you could do...but totally unsure what's right or correct in law (and I also don't know what the ref did here)

Any thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
es1 said:
Just been sent this

View attachment 6066

Apparently the issue was that the 11th taker for team B was too injured to take his kick and this only became apparent after the previous kick from team A.

I must admit I've no clue what the right outcome is here - I think there's several things you could do...but totally unsure what's right or correct in law (and I also don't know what the ref did here)

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
As a guess it's one of two things.
Kicker 11 Team Bs kick is forefeited.
Kicker 11 team As kick is scrubbed from the record and team A have to exclude kicker 11 from KTPM.

Now going to scour law 10.
 
JamesL said:
As a guess it's one of two things.
Kicker 11 Team Bs kick is forefeited.
Kicker 11 team As kick is scrubbed from the record and team A have to exclude kicker 11 from KTPM.

Now going to scour law 10.
Click to expand...

Yeah mh thoughts as well...but...team a kicker is the keeper??

That's a hypothetical, not necessarily what happened here
 
Ok. So this isn't really covered at all.
I feel like this could be a trick to allow your star penalty taker to take the 22nd kick which could potentially be the winner!!
 
es1 said:
Yeah mh thoughts as well...but...team a kicker is the keeper??

That's a hypothetical, not necessarily what happened here
Click to expand...
He would have to be replaced by an eligible player (providing we are continuing). 1 of the other or a sub.
If is a sub then I would say the sub is eligible to kick the 22nd kick.
 
Reports say Team B player was injured, unable to take his kick, so after some delay it was forfeited.
Team B should have declared the injury earlier, reducing both teams to 10 players.
 
Ok. Problem solved.
What happened here was the injured player was kick 21. And then kick 22 was scored after forfeiture of kick 21.
Wrong in law. Match replayed.

Source - Chester FC

"On to penalties, and the score was locked at 7-7 with ten kicks apiece taken. Fylde’s 11th taker, visibly injured, was unable to take his penalty – and after a lengthy delay forefitted his kick.

This enabled Blues stopper Joe Beswick to blast home the winning spot kick and send the Seals through."
 
es1 said:
Why is forfeiture of the kick wrong though?
Click to expand...
• 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)
 
JamesL said:
• 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)
Click to expand...
Yep, fair shout. Cheers
 
JamesL said:
Ok. Problem solved.
What happened here was the injured player was kick 21. And then kick 22 was scored after forfeiture of kick 21.
Wrong in law. Match replayed.

Source - Chester FC

"On to penalties, and the score was locked at 7-7 with ten kicks apiece taken. Fylde’s 11th taker, visibly injured, was unable to take his penalty – and after a lengthy delay forefitted his kick.

This enabled Blues stopper Joe Beswick to blast home the winning spot kick and send the Seals through."
Click to expand...
Confusing situation but does that mean Chester would have had to give a number of a player to the ref and if he had already taken a penalty, it would be scrubbed off the record?
 
OK, another query...

The final player to take from team B is the keeper. Who can team B nominate to remove? Anyone or must it be the keeper?
 
Josh the referee said:
Confusing situation but does that mean Chester would have had to give a number of a player to the ref and if he had already taken a penalty, it would be scrubbed off the record?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think a kick taken by an eligible player at the time the kick is taken can be scrubbed off.
es1 said:
OK, another query...

The final player to take from team B is the keeper. Who can team B nominate to remove? Anyone or must it be the keeper?
Click to expand...
As law is written, anyone. How that works, I don't know. Does the keeper then not take a kick in that round of kicks or does the order of kickers change? It totally messes up the procedure.
 
JamesL said:
No, I don't think a kick taken by an eligible player at the time the kick is taken can be scrubbed off.

As law is written, anyone. How that works, I don't know. Does the keeper then not take a kick in that round of kicks or does the order of kickers change? It totally messes up the procedure.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this
 
I'd be saying kicker 11 is kicker 11 for a reason, fancy tossing him? And hopefully they agree 🤣
 
Feel for the referee, but he will be about to start a three week break from refereeing unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top