Shootout Rules - subs

[Wreave]

OK, I've checked the LOTG and Q&A, but can't find this addressed. Help me out. "Reduce to equate" applies before the kicks start. No subs are permitted except for an injured goalkeeper. Here are my questions:

1. MUST the goalkeeper participate in the kicks if all other players have kicked and the score is still tied? "Each kick is taken by a different player and all eligible players must take a kick before any player can take a second kick." Knowing that the keeper MAY participate in the first five kicks, if desired, MUST the keeper participate? I assume YES.

2. If a player becomes injured beyond the ability to take his kick, or is sent off, what happens when it is his turn to kick? Does the next player in line kick, or is his "slot" recorded as a missed kick?

If a player removed after the start of kicks may simply be replaced by the next kicker, that would seem to lead to serious gamesmanship. Example: teams are tied after the first five kicks, and remain tied through ten kicks. Team A's 11th kicker misses his kick. Team B's 11th kicker, who is 11th for a reason, approaches the ball, and suddenly collapses prior to kicking with an apparently agonizing hamstring pull. If he is simply allowed to pull out, and kicks continue, then Team B's first kicker, who presumably is also first for a reason, gets the chance to win the game against the miss by Team A's 11th kicker. It would seem more fair for Team B to have to take a miss if their 11th kicker cannot kick (or, if he gets sent off after kicks begin).

First, does anyone know an official position of USSF or FIFA on this? I have checked the 2005 Q&A, as well as the 2003 ATR (knowing its limitations). Jim Allen's site isn't searchable.

Second, in the absence of definitive information, I would welcome opinions.

[IASocFan]

From the laws of the Game:

"- A goalkeeper who is injured while kicks are being taken from the penalty mark and is unable to continue as goalkeeper may be replaced by a named substitute provided his team has not used the maximum number of substitutes permitted under the competition rules.

- When a team finishes the match with a greater number of players than their opponents, they shall reduce their numbers to equate with that of their opponents and inform the referee of the name and number of each player excluded. The team captain has this responsibility.

- Before the start of kicks from the penalty mark the referee shall ensure that only an equal number of players from each team remain within the centre circle and they shall take the kicks."

The rules don't allow for other injured players. I'd assume that if one player is injured while running up to take his kick from the mark, that it's his problem - no substitute. If a player is injured before time for kicks from the mark, he probably needs to make sure he's not one of the eleven on the field at the end of time or that his teammates can win before it gets to his turn. :rolleyes:

[chrisrun]

Look at the USSF Position papers on this topic:

http://dps.twiihosting.net/USSF/doc/content/doc_6_131.pdf
http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/position_papers/reduce.pdf


"Under no circumstances will a team be required to “reduce to equate” if the opposing team loses one or more players due to injury or misconduct occurring during the kicks phase of the match."

"Until a result is produced, both teams must continue to use their eligible players without duplication until all (including the goalkeeper) have kicked, at which time players who have already kicked may kick again. If one team has fewer players than the other, it will need to begin using again its players who have already kicked sooner than will the opposing team."

[Wreave]

Look at the USSF Position papers on this topic:

"Until a result is produced, both teams must continue to use their eligible players without duplication until all (including the goalkeeper) have kicked, at which time players who have already kicked may kick again. If one team has fewer players than the other, it will need to begin using again its players who have already kicked sooner than will the opposing team."

That's what I was looking for! So, the gamesmanship example I posted could indeed happen, and a team could either fake an injury, or use a send-off to its own advantage, by removing a weaker player AFTER the reduce-to-equate had already occured.

Doesn't seem fair, but, I suppose it's also not really fair if the player truly is injured.

[BC_Ref]

That's what I was looking for! So, the gamesmanship example I posted could indeed happen, and a team could either fake an injury, or use a send-off to its own advantage, by removing a weaker player AFTER the reduce-to-equate had already occured.

Doesn't seem fair, but, I suppose it's also not really fair if the player truly is injured.

If the ref suspects a faked injury or drawing a red to "help the team", this should get reported to the competition authority.

[billf]

The purpose of the kicks is to determine which team will advance. Every elligible player must participate. You're a referee, not a doctor. If a player says he's hurt and can't go, that's enough. The kicks will continue and the other team does not have to reduce to equate. If you think something funny was going on, mention it in the match report and let the competition authority deal with it.

The red card issue IMO is a straw man unless this is a tournament final at a level where this is definitely the last game players will play under an organization. For instance, a team playing for the McGuire cup final. The problem I see with this tactic being applied in most cases is that it leaves you with valuable players inelligible for the next match. If you're on the field at the end of 120 minutes, you're a valuable member of your team. There's no way you'd be on the field otherwise. Even if you're a terrible shooter, your team is likely better off with one of its best 11 available in the next match.

[chrisrun]

Jim Allen's site isn't searchable.

Just as an aside, if you want to search Jim Allen's site, you can use google and add "site:www.drix.net" to the search parameters. This will limit the google search to his site only.

[Wreave]

How should we have handled this one?

One of my referee colleagues was officiating a rec GU12 that went to PKs. I was AR.
Since I just wrote up the end of season guidelines for handling tiebreakers (thus my earlier question), the CR thought of me as the expert on these things, and I helped him get the shootout underway. The teams started out even; one team had one sub on the sideline.

There was no winner after five kicks, so the kicks continued one for one. Then, one of the players on the field had to leave. I saw her disappearing into the parking lot - not sure how much advance notice the CR or her coach got of her departure, but I'm sure it was driven by her parents. The worst part was, that player had not yet kicked.

So, we got to the very situation I was worried about when I started this thread. The last player on the team that kicked first was kicking against the first player of the team that kicked second.

The CR consulted me on how to handle the situation. I told him, the laws do not allow subs except in the case of an injury to the goalkeeper, but that the laws didn't really address the situation where a player's parent made that player leave, and that within the spirit of the game, if he wanted to allow the player on the sideline to come in to keep the teams even and take the kick instead of cycling back to the first player, that I could support that. That's what he chose to do.

It helped, of course, that both coaches thought that was the right thing to do. If the coach had stood his ground (especially after we had emphatically refused to even allow the player in question to join her teammates in the center circle), I guess it could have been harder.

I do think, in this rec setting, we did the right thing. It would have been to the advantage of the team that lost the player to allow their first kicker to come back up. I suppose, in a higher-level game, if we were really ornery, we could have carded the player in abstentia for leaving without permission, then set up her kick, and when she did not take it, red carded her for delay/second caution. That seems silly though, and doesn't accomplish much.

If I had been closer (e.g. the CR or the center circle AR), and I knew she was leaving, I would have suggested to the coach that she shoot before leaving. Again, I don't know if there was enough notice to allow that to happen or not.

I suppose you could also just allow the kicks to continue, without the sub, and tough cookies for the team that didn't have anyone who suddenly had to leave.

Thoughts?

[refmike]

You already got the answers from the others that the player cannot be replaced after the kicks have started and it is OK for there to be an uneven number of kickers in this case.

We cannot consider who is a strong or weak PK taker. That is up to the coach before the game goes into the PK phase. Just know the laws as you now do and stick to them. You did not do the official thing but since both coaches agreed, I think there was no harm done. Just don't do it again :)

[Gary V]

One of my referee colleagues was officiating a rec GU12 that went to PKs. I was AR.
//snip//
I suppose you could also just allow the kicks to continue, without the sub, and tough cookies for the team that didn't have anyone who suddenly had to leave.

Thoughts?Well, of course the book answer when a player will not partcipate in KFTPM is to abandon the game. Glad you didn't have to do that in a U12. Allowing the sub seems reasonable. Perhaps the player had to leave with her parents because they were taking her to treat her "injury"? You had subs left (no max), so ...

[billf]

How should we have handled this one?

One of my referee colleagues was officiating a rec GU12 that went to PKs. I was AR.
Since I just wrote up the end of season guidelines for handling tiebreakers (thus my earlier question), the CR thought of me as the expert on these things, and I helped him get the shootout underway. The teams started out even; one team had one sub on the sideline.

There was no winner after five kicks, so the kicks continued one for one. Then, one of the players on the field had to leave. I saw her disappearing into the parking lot - not sure how much advance notice the CR or her coach got of her departure, but I'm sure it was driven by her parents. The worst part was, that player had not yet kicked.

So, we got to the very situation I was worried about when I started this thread. The last player on the team that kicked first was kicking against the first player of the team that kicked second.

The CR consulted me on how to handle the situation. I told him, the laws do not allow subs except in the case of an injury to the goalkeeper, but that the laws didn't really address the situation where a player's parent made that player leave, and that within the spirit of the game, if he wanted to allow the player on the sideline to come in to keep the teams even and take the kick instead of cycling back to the first player, that I could support that. That's what he chose to do.

It helped, of course, that both coaches thought that was the right thing to do. If the coach had stood his ground (especially after we had emphatically refused to even allow the player in question to join her teammates in the center circle), I guess it could have been harder.

I do think, in this rec setting, we did the right thing. It would have been to the advantage of the team that lost the player to allow their first kicker to come back up. I suppose, in a higher-level game, if we were really ornery, we could have carded the player in abstentia for leaving without permission, then set up her kick, and when she did not take it, red carded her for delay/second caution. That seems silly though, and doesn't accomplish much.

If I had been closer (e.g. the CR or the center circle AR), and I knew she was leaving, I would have suggested to the coach that she shoot before leaving. Again, I don't know if there was enough notice to allow that to happen or not.

I suppose you could also just allow the kicks to continue, without the sub, and tough cookies for the team that didn't have anyone who suddenly had to leave.

Thoughts?

From a purely technical standpoint, what you did was 100% wrong. If a player can't participate after the tiebreaker starts, there can be no substitution, the team with 11 does not HAVE to reduce so kicker 1a would go against 11b. Its not fair in some cases but correct and the team with 11 has the option of removing a player. Remember, there's nothing in the laws about a shooting order. It just says that every elligible player must kick before a player kicks again. There's nothing wrong with player 10a kicking against 10b and then in the next round against 11b if team a has only 10 players now. The order need not stay the same.

That said, in a rec situation you can get away with it. In a more competitive environment, this move creates a vaild portest and a likely replay. Make sure that the referee from this match knows the distiction and doesn't do this in the state cup or something.

[Wreave]

Obviously, the LOTG only allow subs for an injured keeper. For this situation, in GU12 rec, with both coaches in agreement, we had no issues. I was just curious for feedback.

I was not the CR - I was the AR by the goal, and the parking lot was on the other side of the field. I guess if I were the center circle AR, or the CR, I would have tried to get the player to take her kick prior to leaving. Surely her parents could have waited another minute or two.

The game abandonment "solution" is an interesting one, as is calling the player injured in order to allow kicks to continue. I would hope in a more competitive environment, the player would be able to stay. However, I supposed it's possible in any game there may be something so important that a player simply has to leave, especially if their parents tell them, "Come now or we'll miss our flight to Aruba."

Just another reason why KFTPM are such a poor way to decide a winner.

[MassachusettsRef]

The game abandonment "solution" is an interesting oneIt's a terrible one. NOBODY will be happy with you; not either set of players, not the coaches, not the spectators, not the league authorities and not your assignor. You will have effectively played 120 minutes, in a cup or knockout environment, for nothing. And everyone will be forced to start over fresh or reconvene just for KFTPM again--and at that point, will anyone have the proper record of which 22 people are on the field? And all this because the referee couldn't come up with a proper way to proceed. BillF's got it right, there's nothing wrong with kicker 11a matching up against 1b.

Also, remember that KFTPM are NOT part of the match proper--they are a tiebreaker to decide who progresses in a tournament or who wins the trophy; they do not decide who wins the match, as the match has officially ended in a draw. As such, there is no requirement that each team have a minimum of 7 players on the field. Theoretically, you could play KFTPM 1 v 1. Effectively, once KFTPM start, there's no valid reason--short of lightning or some other dangerous environment--to abandon or terminate, unless an entire team leaves and refuses to participate.

[chrisrun]

Its not fair in some cases but correct and the team with 11 has the option of removing a player.

I'm not sure they have that option. The quote from the latest position paper is:

"If a player is required to leave the field during kicks from the penalty mark (due to injury or misconduct), the opposing team will not remove players to equal the reduced number of opponents."

[IASocFan]

...Also, remember that KFTPM are NOT part of the match proper--they are a tiebreaker to decide who progresses in a tournament or who wins the trophy; they do not decide who wins the match, as the match has officially ended in a draw. As such, there is no requirement that each team have a minimum of 7 players on the field. Theoretically, you could play KFTPM 1 v 1. Effectively, once KFTPM start, there's no valid reason--short of lightning or some other dangerous environment--to abandon or terminate, unless an entire team leaves and refuses to participate.

This sounds like a potential problem if one coach decides that only 5 or some other number smaller than his number of players currently in the game are able to take penalty kicks. I know I would definitely rather have my best PK taker up than my 11th best.

[MassachusettsRef]

This sounds like a potential problem if one coach decides that only 5 or some other number smaller than his number of players currently in the game are able to take penalty kicks. I know I would definitely rather have my best PK taker up than my 11th best.The KFTPM procedures are not written well and there are many loopholes. For example, since an injured goal keeper can be replaced, and the referee cannot stop players from exchanging positions with the goalkeeper, any injured player can subsequently don the goalkeeper's jersey and then be legally substituted.

One recourse that we do have as referees, however (that we should absolutely use if we think this is a tactic--I don't advocate showing a yellow card to the little girl that has to go home early), is to caution players for leaving the field without permission. If they already have a yellow, then they just made a stupid move. Even if they don't, collecting multiple cautions for pulling a stunt like this is probably not something a team or coach had in mind.

Ultimately though, if a coach was inclined to employ such a tactic and was willing to take 10 yellow cards on his players, there's nothing as referees that we can do to legally stop him from sending one guy out there to kick (and play goalkeeper).

[Gary V]

OK, you guys made me look it up. Here it is from Jim Allen:

KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK/REDUCE TO EQUATE
Your question:
In a tournament last year I was refereeing the Þnal match between a team from california and texas. We Þnished all of regulation including extra time. At this time one player from the california team took her bag and left because she was worried she would miss her flight. Now she Þnished the game so there were 11 on both sides but they did not now have 11 for the penalty kicks. We reduced to equate that game but after reading the position papers from 2002 and 2004, i am not sure if i was to reduce since they were not down players do to injury, misconduct or just having fewer players.

Question: were we correct to reduce or not in this case???

USSF answer (August 9, 2005):
The reduce to equate principle applies only to the number of players actually on the Þeld at the end of the game (including any who may be off temporarily with permission of the referee). The ³reduce to equate² principle does not apply in this case. However, the referee need not take any special note of the player¹s absence unless the kicks from the penalty mark proceed to the point where it is time for the eleventh player (now missing) to take a kick. If the procedure never reaches this point because the outcome is decided as a result of 10 or fewer pairs of kicks, the player¹s absence made no difference and nothing further needs to draw the referee¹s attention. If the teams remain tied through 10 pairs of kicks and it now comes time for the still missing eleventh player to take her turn, the referee must abandon the match with no result and report all details to the competition authority. No eligible player can avoid taking a kick if it becomes necessary.

(Sorry about the funky characters which are supposed to represent the "fi" ligature and quotation/apostrophe marks.)

[MassachusettsRef]

Wow.

I suppose that, from a strict legal sense, Allen is basing his instruction on the following clause:

Each kick is taken by a different player and all eligible players must take a kick before any player can take a second kick

That being said, I still think it's a terrible, terrible idea to abandon the match. I mean, we're delving into the crazy hypothetical realm here, but there are ways to handle this. Cautions for leaving the field aren't working? Fine, resort to second cautions (and reds) for dissent (not returning to the field when instructed can be construed as dissent by action). Besides, who's to say that these players in question aren't all "injured"? Do we make that determination?

Allen is, I'll admit now, technically correct. But it still doesn't change my opinion that a match that has made it all the way to KFTPM should NEVER actually be abandoned (again, short of weather or another dangerous situation). There are other, more desirable (though perhaps, creative) ways to work through a situation like this.

[billf]

I'm not sure they have that option. The quote from the latest position paper is:

"If a player is required to leave the field during kicks from the penalty mark (due to injury or misconduct), the opposing team will not remove players to equal the reduced number of opponents."

What's to stop the opponent from just having a player come down with a severe cramp? Nothing porevents this.

"The game abandonment "solution" is an interesting one"

The bottom line is that you're there to decide a winner. If it gets to the point where you have two goalkeepers exchanging kicks 1v.1 don't abandon the match. Let the competition make the decision afterwards what should happen. The assessor will decide if you handled the situation properly or effectively. Its not the referee's job to decide if tactics were employed fairly during the tiebreaker. The competition can review the report and make that determination. Abandoning a knockout match without a team advancing is going to cause more problems because then the match HAS to be replayed.

[billf]

My question to Jim would be this: If the player isn't available, how can that player be elligible? It seems to me common sense should prevail here. The player left after the match out of a fear that she'd miss a flight. This is a tournament. Why abandon a match that can't be replayed? If its an issue, then the team with 11 can have its 10th player develop a severe cramp or cough to keep the game going. Abandoning on a techinicality doesn't leave anyone happy.