A&H

KFTPM - bizarre situation

Does anyone have access to the ROC that are alluded to as saying the match must be replayed?

The LOTG say that KFTM take place after a match is over, which would suggest that, absent a ROC, either the KFTM would be picked up where they left off or just the KFTM would be done over.
 
The Referee Store
socal lurker said:
Does anyone have access to the ROC that are alluded to as saying the match must be replayed?

The LOTG say that KFTM take place after a match is over, which would suggest that, absent a ROC, either the KFTM would be picked up where they left off or just the KFTM would be done over.
Click to expand...
In England if there is a mistake in law, or the game is abandoned for reasons that neither team is at fault, the entire game is replayed. Don't know where it is written down, but I don't think there has ever been a game restarted from when it was abandoned, it has always been from the start.
 
Stop this Keeper takes the 11th penalty thought-process nonsence. Our's took our 4th last night (then saved againt his former team to seal it).

Goalkeepers CAN kick a ball, tbh.
 
RustyRef said:
In England if there is a mistake in law, or the game is abandoned for reasons that neither team is at fault, the entire game is replayed. Don't know where it is written down, but I don't think there has ever been a game restarted from when it was abandoned, it has always been from the start.
Click to expand...
But the point is that, per the Laws, the match is over before KFTM start. The KFTM are a separate thing. I’m not surprised by the match being replayed (good grief, who wants to go out for just KFTM!), but curious what the ROC say.
 
This problem with the Laws for KFTPM is one I have been expecting for quite some time. If a player is injured the Law is clear: they are excluded and the opposition reduce to equate. Usually the injury is obvious before the kicks begin and this causes no problems. In this present case the injury was only apparent after 10 kicks each. What should now happen is that team A (with injured player) exclude them, and can pick any of their ten remaining players (who have all now taken kicks) to take next penalty. If team B exclude player number 11 (who has not kicked yet) all fine and dandy...they now do exactly the same. But if they decide to exclude a player who has already had a kick, this causes headaches. Nothing in the Laws lets you scrub their earlier kick, so you get left with the situation of the teams are out of sync: team B will still be on last player in their list while team A are already on first player of a new rotation. Not impossible to work out, but ref needs to keep a clear head.
 
If their goalkeeper was the 11th penalty take for arguments sake, and they were to exclude him, can he still stay in goal? Or would they have to change him?
 
JamesL said:
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!!
Click to expand...
JamesL said:
Was kick number 21 scored or missed?
Click to expand...

We know the OP now and this wouldn't apply. But it can still be a ruse applied within the LOTG (previously discussed on some threads here). And it makes no difference if kick 21 is missed or scored. If 21 is missed you do it to win the game. If kick 21 is scored you do it not to lose it.

A similar situation could have happened if the goal keeper had to be replaced but IFAB has fixed that now.
 
socal lurker said:
Does anyone have access to the ROC that are alluded to as saying the match must be replayed?

The LOTG say that KFTM take place after a match is over, which would suggest that, absent a ROC, either the KFTM would be picked up where they left off or just the KFTM would be done over.
Click to expand...
 
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...
As far as I can tell, the 22nd kick shouldn’t have happened.
But I don’t see that law then accommodates what happens next in this situation, ie the only remained kicker is a goalkeeper.
 
Yampy said:
As far as I can tell, the 22nd kick shouldn’t have happened.
But I don’t see that law then accommodates what happens next in this situation, ie the only remained kicker is a goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
It should never have gotten to the point it did.
Bit of digging and found the player that was injured was injured and left FOP during 90 mins.

Ignoring what actually happened and presuming he was injured during the course of KFTPM:

I agree, the law is mega sketchy on what happens. All we know is that the opposition must exclude A player. They either exclude the keeper and he takes no further part, and they have to chuck a player in goal. OR they exclude a player that has already taken a kick and then it's kicker 11 v any one else from the opposition, essentially changing the order and gaining potential advantage in the process.
 
JamesL said:
It should never have gotten to the point it did.
Bit of digging and found the player that was injured was injured and left FOP during 90 mins.

Ignoring what actually happened and presuming he was injured during the course of KFTPM:

I agree, the law is mega sketchy on what happens. All we know is that the opposition must exclude A player. They either exclude the keeper and he takes no further part, and they have to chuck a player in goal. OR they exclude a player that has already taken a kick and then it's kicker 11 v any one else from the opposition, essentially changing the order and gaining potential advantage in the process.
Click to expand...
I was AR on an FA Trophy match last season which went to KFTPM. After 80 minutes, an Away player left the field injured and didn’t return with the team playing on with 10.
No one told us if this player was returning and the referee didn’t seem concerned (nor did he know what should happen) and started the kicks regardless.
I’m thankful this didn’t go past the best of five stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Yampy said:
AFAIK, the order doesn’t have to be the same if players are taking a second kick (other than keeping the alternate sequence).
Click to expand...
Just to clarify what I meant.
Until kicker 11 has taken a kick then no one else on his team can take another one.
So you could have a scenario of kicker 11 (their worst) for team A Vs kicker 1 for Team B (their best).
 
JamesL said:
It should never have gotten to the point it did.
Bit of digging and found the player that was injured was injured and left FOP during 90 mins.

Ignoring what actually happened and presuming he was injured during the course of KFTPM:

I agree, the law is mega sketchy on what happens. All we know is that the opposition must exclude A player. They either exclude the keeper and he takes no further part, and they have to chuck a player in goal. OR they exclude a player that has already taken a kick and then it's kicker 11 v any one else from the opposition, essentially changing the order and gaining potential advantage in the process.
Click to expand...
As law says before or during, I don't think it really matters when the player was injured - the club could easily argue their physio had been treating him in the meantime, in the hope that he would be able to take a kick.

If Team B's 11th kicker is their GK then it disadvantages them, as either they have to lose their keeper, or have him up against Team A's best kicker. If Team B's 11th kicker isn't their GK then they can exclude their worst kicker and no-one really loses or gains anything.
 
ARF said:
As law says before or during, I don't think it really matters when the player was injured - the club could easily argue their physio had been treating him in the meantime, in the hope that he would be able to take a kick.

If Team B's 11th kicker is their GK then it disadvantages them, as either they have to lose their keeper, or have him up against Team A's best kicker. If Team B's 11th kicker isn't their GK then they can exclude their worst kicker and no-one really loses or gains anything.
Click to expand...
Which makes it ripe for teams abusing the system, really needs a rewording.
 
ARF said:
As law says before or during, I don't think it really matters when the player was injured - the club could easily argue their physio had been treating him in the meantime, in the hope that he would be able to take a kick.

If Team B's 11th kicker is their GK then it disadvantages them, as either they have to lose their keeper, or have him up against Team A's best kicker. If Team B's 11th kicker isn't their GK then they can exclude their worst kicker and no-one really loses or gains anything.
Click to expand...

The OP actually causes a stalemate if the player taken off from team B is not the goalkeeper. Laws of the game require all eligible players (regardless of team) to take a kick before any player takes a second kick. Once the injured player from team A is taken off, and it is team A's turn to take a kick, a player from team A has to take a second kick while a player from team B has not taken any kicks. This is not allowed.

Having said that, if any situation calls for "spirit of the law" because laws can not cover all rare situations, this would be it. What should happen within spirit of the law is that, after kick 20, the injured player from team A is taken off, team B reduces numbers and regardless of which player from team B is taken off, the order and which player from each team takes the next kick is completely reset. That is, any player from team A can take kick 21 and any player from team B can take kick 22.

EDIT: Note this situation is not limited to it happening on the last kick. If at anytime during KFTPM a team has to reduce to equate and of the two players removed one has taken a kick and the other hasn't, if KFTPM get to the end of the round, we can have an stalemate. Laws have fixed this for some but not all situations if the first player being take off is the goalkeeper (my head hurts thinking abut all scenarios here :( ).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top