There's some apples-oranges going on -- I'm not sure you and I are actually saying anything different, at least at this point. The retake discussion began with a dual-infraction, and the apparent suggestion that there was a better chance on making the retake if the first had been missed. If we are assuming, in advance of the first kick, that there will be two attempts, then I comletely agree that (on the fallacious assumption the events are problabilistically independent events), the chance of conversting one of the two is 96%. (But that is a bit of an odd way to start looking, because we never know in advnace that there will be a defensive violation on the first kick. But I guess what you're really saying is that in situations in which the R recognizes a violation by the defense that he would be willing to enforce [i.e. non triifling], the odds of success are 96% for the kicking team. [I think you've also built into that an assumption that the violation by the defense had no impact on the probability of the kicker converting . . . which may not be entirely consistent with the conclusion that the violation was non-trifling . . .]) Once the kick is ordered retaken, the chance of converting the second kick remains 80%, regardless of what happened on the first kick. (Just as, in your coin flip scenario, once the first flip has come up tails, the odds of a head is 50% on the second flip.) This has really digressed from referee topicsc. . . .
Yes, we are agreeing. My first post was not well worded which is what caused the apparent disagreement. The point is that the chance of a goal being scored at all when the defense commits a non-trifling infringement are higher than when the defense does not infringe because a goal will be score the vast majority of the first kick and a vast majority of the second kick. I would agree that the conversion percentage for both the first kick and the second kick are likely lower than the overall conversion percentage due to the infringement and the difficulty of a second straight penalty kick.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this discussion about statistics. What matters is the fact that an infringement occurred that shouldn't have been considered "trifling" (or maybe it was just missed). Statistics doesn't include the mind games that go into missing the first penalty kick. Math can only go so far. We should be focusing on how to avoid this problem, and how to handle this type of infringement.
OW, ENCROACHMENT THAT WAS SO OBVIOUS. WHY WOULD CHICO STAND THERE. IT DOESNT LOOK PRETTY. WHAT IF THE KEEPER SAVES THE BALL AND IT COMES BACK OUT IN CHICO'S DIRECTION. WE ALL HAVE BAD DAYS. SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED BACK FOR A RETAKE DUE TO BOTH TEAMS ENCROACHING
This reminds me of the guy from a month or so ago who got pissed off when someone used an alternate font. The difference here is that all-caps really is inappropriate and annoying.
I will accept the yellow/orange card for inappropriate use of capital letters. I can blame it on lack of sleep and just getting home from a tournament out of town. I will avoid any future bookings and keep it small