USSF. After the full game and 2 OT’s, game is still tied. Need a winner as it is a State Cup Play-in game. As we are going to take the kicks, the coach asks if he can switch keepers with a field player as she is better at stopping the PK’s. No problem since she was 1 of the 11 on the field when the 2nd OT ended. She was considerably smaller than the keeper during the game, like 4 shirt sizes smaller, and asks her coach if she can just put on a penny. Again, no problem with that. But, it did get me thinking is that even necessary? Could she have just worn her same field jersey that all her teammate are taking the kicks in? Does she still need to wear colors that distinguish herself from her teammates, when the rest of the 10 are in the center circle?
While it may not "matter" in a practical sense,* the Laws tell us that the standards of the game continue into KFTM. So yes, the GK is expected to wear a distinguishing shirt. *There is one way in whcih it can matter -- if the player is injured. Only the GK can be substituted, so ensuring that the GK is wearing the magic shirt makes sure you know who the GK is at any time (more fo an issue, of course, in youth games where they may change GKs multiple times during the kicks).
The most frustrating portion of this one, for referees, can be the part about the shin guards. Players--particularly keepers, I've noted--love to remove their guards at the end of extra time and sometimes really don't want to put them back on. It shouldn't be difficult to enforce this, but our case is not helped by the fact that it sometimes is ignored at the top levels. I have witnessed at least two World Cup matches where referees did not require players to keep their shin guards on during KFTM. Honestly, from a common sense perspective, there is no justifiable reason to make players keep their guards on during KFTM. The only reason is consistency: "the other team has to wear them, so you do, too." But if you started to carve out exceptions for tiny things like this, it quickly becomes a slippery slope.
Does this define the slope? "Unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game and International F.A. Board Decisions apply" We have "relevant" laws and "irrelevant" laws. Some are easy. Clearly irrelevant: 7,11,15,16,17 Simultaneously relevant and irrelevant (because of reduce to equate): 3 Clearly relevant: 1, 2, 5, parts of 12 covering misconduct But 4? By tradition, maybe.... But imagine a protest based on Law 4 being set aside by the referee during KFTM. Not likely to be upheld IMHO.
Interesting point, and I think you could make an argument that even parts of the laws you note as "clearly relevant" aren't covered. Half the field could be unplayable and you would still continue, right? You no longer have any scenario where you'd punish deliberate handling, correct? Never thought about the use of the word "relevant" here. It does, indeed, open up the slippery slope argument.
ATR: I guess I've always interpretted "relevant" as those which can be applied. Are there playrs involved? Then the LOTG regarding player uniform and equipment are relevant. Are there throw-ins? No, so the LOTG regarding throw-ins are not. Angels dancing on the head of a pin hypotehtical about handling during KFTM: . . . so, let's suppose, the kicker rockets the ball off the crossbar, where it bounces high, and the GK sprints straight away from the goal in celebration. The ball bounces outside the PA with sharp back spin such that you, the referee, believe it has a chance of bounding all the way back to the gaol, the GK, now outside the PA sees the spin and grabs the ball. Now what?
Thanks for the ATR language, socal lurker. I've recalled being instructed/reminded at high-level tournaments that Law 4 explicitly applied, so it's good to see that's where the language is. It's still an interesting philosophical debate regarding what should and shouldn't apply, though. Given that I've seen shin guards removed at the WC, I wonder if this Law 4 stipulation is just from the USSF or if it comes from FIFA and some referees are just lazy/unconcerned about it at the top levels.
Bigger fish to fry would be my guess when it comes to shinguards. I know that when I'm dealling with KFTM I have enough on mind that I'm sure as heck not checking for shin guards. (Trifling may be the right word, too.) But if a player is making a scene of untaping, etc, or a GK is delaying things to take them out, he has invited me to remind him that they need stay on. (Which may result in a reminder to everyone.) On the other hand, uniform shirts, shoes, and GK jersey are, IMHO, too visible and obvious to deem trifling, and I would insist on them staying.
He is -- his site is still up and he is still answering questions -- he just doesn't have the imprimatur of USSF on his answers now.
Keith Hackett weighed in this week in You Are The Ref. He says the kick must be retaken if the kicker had no shin pads. I'm a little hesitant about this approach. Why did the referee notice the missing shin pads only after the kick was taken? Was it because the opponents brought the matter to his attention (either directly or more subtly)? I don't like where that could lead -- teams quietly assembling lists of illegal equipment and other infractions, then bringing them up at "gotcha" moments. - QC
I'm trying to recall the other example I remember from the World Cup, but I've found video of one here (4:10-4:20): You'll see clearly that Barthez does not have his guards on for the final kick. He did not have them on for any of the kicks, in fact. Where would Hackett's instruction lead us if you didn't notice the shinguard removal until after the second or third or fourth kick? It's a recipe for disaster.
Hmm. It's the middle of the game. PK. Kicker scores. Defender points out he doesn't have shinguards on. Would we pull back the goal?!? I can't think of a basis in Law (and KH doesn't offer one) for undoing something that has happened on the basis of shinguards not being on --either in the game or during KFTM. Seems to me that when identified, the R tells the player to put them on, and that's it. Anyone see a basis in Law for the redo?
I think it's just a literal reading of: If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: the player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game: • the referee allows the kick to be taken • if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken It would seem more straightforward to apply this if the kicker stepped up with shinguards on, the CR signalled for the kick to be taken, then the shooter took his shinguards off, then shot.... Especially applying anything like this during KFTM seems more like lawyering than reffing. Sort of reminds me of the old situation where keepers switched at half-time, but didn't announce it to the CR. Then, when the new keeper touches the ball with his hands, the CR starts handing out yellows. Yuk. I think, especially during KFTM, once the CR allows the player to shoot, he is acknowledging that he is properly equipped (or that any offense is trifling).
Might I suggest and assert that Mr. Hackett is simply wrong. There is nothing in the LoTG to support a re-kick. "2) You're not going to be popular here, but you have to apply the laws fairly throughout. Disallow the goal, call the players back, order the kick-taker to put his shinpads on, and then allow a retake. David Homer wins the shirt." Well, he got the part in blue correct. The mistake Mr. Hackett is making is that the FIFA LoTG for violations of Law 14 are: "Infringements and sanctions If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: the player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game: the referee allows the kick to be taken if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place where the infringement occurred..." In Mr. Hackett's scenario, you as referee do not notice until afterthe kick is completed (and after the Kicks from the penalty mark procedure is completed as well...). For those who want to fall back on Law 4, ...nope. FIFA Law 4 violations are handled: "play need not be stopped the player at fault is instructed by the referee to leave the field of play to correct his equipment the player leaves the field of play when the ball next ceases to be in play, unless he has already corrected his equipment..." So from a Law(Law4, Law 14, Interpretation of Law 14) and practical perspective, what is the point in having the kicker leave the FoP to correct his shingards, when the game is over? Perhaps Mr. Hackett should have his posts reviewed by a referee.
This is going to sound very black and white but here is my thought: players are required to wear only 5 things, that's all the laws ask for. Shirt, Shorts, Socks, Shoes and Shinguards. There are a million things we ask for them not to wear but make exceptions because there is so much debate. For a player to not want to wear one of the only 5 things we do require is absurd at any point during participation in a match. Put your shinguards back on and shut up. I was about to do a dropped ball to a keeper in a game this weekend when I looked down he had no shinguards (tournament no check in) made him leave and be replaced. Luckily it was unlimited subs and the other team worked to get him back in before real play was resumed. Truly bone head move on his part though.
