Interesting, yet somewhat strange, "diary entry" from Earthquakes' goalkeeper Pat Onstad about penalty decisions: http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20040601&content_id=4156&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp
I enjoyed the article. As a referee, sometimes keeper and even once or twice a PK taker, it rang some familiar bells. How can a keeper not hate a PK, unless, of course, he has just saved one. To be a keeper, you have to border on the certifiable anyway. It's nice to see all the personal touches. I think there are a lot of US soccer players that need to suplement their incomes with some freelance writing. They're all a more insightfull than some of the professional 'SPORTS journalists.' Except, of course, Beau, Marc, Grant, Jeff, Greg, and a few others.
Oh, this article was VERY tongue-in-cheek. I really enjoyed the article. The discussion about the argument was very funny. Of course, all Onstad is doing when he argues with the ARs is to make the kicker think about the PK. It's just like icing the basketball shooter or field goal kicker.
I thought it was a good article. I am also a former GK and can relate to this experience fully. Though, unlike Onstadt, I always relished the spotlight of the PK and saw it as the ultimate test of my goal keeping abilities. A lot of the pressure is negated by the fact that no one really expects a GK to stop a PK. My favorite part of the "PK chain of events" is the arguing of someting that happened even five minutes ago, as if that is going to change the PK call. I had one player, who had committed a foul inside the 6 yd box, try to convince me that the foul "had obviously ocurred outside the box". That almost got a yellow card for the sheer audacity of the lie
I enjoyed the article, but I was disappointed that he felt that it was almost a required part of the PK to argue with the referee. For me, I have found that the more obvious the PK, the less arguing. In fact, I have been quite fortunate in not having many people argue. I guess this could mean that I had decent control or I only called the obvious PK's. If they want to put on a show, wouldn't it be nice if the players acted as if they were ranting and raving as they waived their arms and arched their backs in indignation, but what they actually said to the ref was something like, "That was a good call but you know I have to act like this for the fans," or "How's the wife and kids?" or "How was that restaurant last night?" The ref could play along and look stern and authoritative, but politely answer the player's questions. I know it would probably not really work, but still.... Just my opinion.
jc508 - if you have a rapport with the player, as the referee it can be effective to ask the players those questions when they are arguing