KFTPM - bizarre situation
- Thread starter es1
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
The point in law is not specific to single teams (nor it should). If an injured player is taken off, then there remain 21 eligible players on the field. If team B equates then there remain 20 eligible players on the field. No one in those 20 can take a kick twice until all 20 have taken at least one kick.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
Common sense? A player who is actually injured shouldn't have to be forced take a kick and if he can't then it be recorded as a miss.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Unlikely, but it can certainly happen. A player could think he can kick through a muscle injury, but after being inactive through 20 kicks, things tighten up and he can barely walk. or a player with a chronic back issue starts getting back spasms After coolojng down and trying to reactivate. Or a realy bad leg cramp. All are even less likely at high levels of play.
At the end of the day, the Laws are simply inadequate when we get to weird situations on the 11th kick and don’t always give a right answer. (Though what happened in the game that kicked this off is clearly wrong.) but it doesn’t seem to be a high priority as KFTM so rarely get to the 11th kick that complex events surrounding them are extraordinarily rare. So it’s only going to get fixed if a federation cares enough to spend the time to make. Detailed proposal to fix and submit to IFAB. But I suspect most have higher priorities about things they would like to see fixed.
one
RefChat Addict
It doesn't have to be an injury though. A send off during the KFTPM can trigger the same situation if the kicks go through a whole round.
I think the bigger take away is know the laws of the game.
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
So you basically just remove the opportunity of the 11th kicker of other team, regardless of who they are and then start back round at kicker 1.. is that correct
Last edited:
Yes.
IFAB confirmed to me by email that would be the case if at the 11th kick the kicker was unable to continue. (@one I know the law is not explicit this would happen but feels right in spirit of game)
Can exclude anyone, kicks 21 and 22 would start a fresh round of kicks and original kick 22 would not have to take one, although he could because it is a new round, he then could not take one until the next round of it went that far!
Hope that makes sense.
I know it's procedure etc but surely not on this occasion. A group o experienced referees has struggled.through this one on this forum and we all have time to think and research unlike the ref at the game.
If I was suspended for this it would be my last game.
It is black and white though, his error has caused an FA competition game to be replayed. As I said, I feel for him, but I can't see them changing their stance and approach.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I disagree about the nature of the error. While exactly what should have happened may be debatable (and has been here), what did happen was clearly incorrect. For all the flaws in the drafting, there is no way that an injured player unable to take a kick can become an automatic miss. That was a very big miss (no pun intended) by the crew that should absolutely not have happened.
If they had made a mistake as to how to handle "reduce to equate," then you could have me convinced. Whether anything would have been a true mistake would be debatable, as the Law is not clear enough on what happens in that truly quirky context.
Now, as a separate matter, whether referees should be "suspended" for a mistake of Law is a wholly different question.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think it is unclear (nor unreasonable), but it is utterly unsupportable by the actual language of Law 10, which unequivocally says that no player can take a second kick until all eligible players have taken a kick.
(As I recall, these unlikely scenarios were thrown around as unsolvable when IFAB added "during" to reduce to equate a few years back. It's a pity they didn't clarify before a big mess like this. On the plus side, it could have been worse if it occurred during a WC.)
Fully understand that. But mistakes happen and this is one that many, many referees would make. Inflexible stances like that are just nonsense imo. Yes a game has to be replayed, yes it's a costly mistake, but how does a suspension help in any way? It serves no purpose other than punishing someone for the sake of it.
Because there is an understanding, rightly or wrongly, that referees should know laws off by heart and therefore incorrect in law decisions should simply never be happening, certainly not at these kinds of levels. I agree with @socal lurker that if he'd made a mistake in one team reducing numbers I could kind of understand, but to say that the injured player's kick should be forfeited is clearly wrong.
It has been said time and time again, but as a referee you have to be prepared for every possible eventuality no matter how bizarre, and even more so once you let to L4 and above.
I understand that. But what purpose does a 3 week suspension serve? How does it rectify the situation? How does it benefit the referee or indeed the clubs?
3 week suspension. Why? Its the same ban as violent conduct (assuming 1 game a week). Where does the period of 3 weeks come from? It just seems to cause more problems
Because that's what the FA brought in many years ago, and I believe it came from clubs complaining. At semi-pro level a rearranged game costs in the region of £500 to £1000, and it wasn't deemed fair that referees could make those type of errors without getting any kind of sanction when they were getting hammered financially. And to be clear, this isn't about referees making mistakes, this is referees not knowing the laws and that makes it extremely difficult to defend them.
Difficult to find comparisons, but to give it a go, if a fund manager makes a mistake that loses his clients money he just faces losing money, if he does something that is against financial services regulations he will face serious sanctions and potentially even be disqualified. That's because he is expected to know the regulations off by heart, and like it or not the same is applied to referees. And you can apply the same to a plumber that causes an incident through not following current standards, an electrician that causes someone to be electrocuted because he hasn't followed electrical standards, and so on, if you are the qualified person providing a service you are held to higher standards.
Is it possible to see the exact text of IFAB's email?