Question Number: 16104

Kicks From The Penalty mark 7/24/2007

RE: AYSO Advanced High School

Mark of LA, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 14004

A related question cam up on another board about kicks from the penalty mark so I would like to get some clarification here.

If a player is sent off after the final whistle or decides at the end of the match that he is too injured to continue with kicks from the mark, your collective advice was to reduce to equate.

This appears to be supported in the FIFA LOTG (even in the new 2007-2008 edition)on p.56 which states that:

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 first bullet addresses the case where a team finished the match shorthanded (shortfooted?). The second appears to address the issue about something happening before the kicks actually start - the teams must be in the center circle, etc BEFORE the kicks from the mark start. In other words, the kicks from the penalty marks do not start until there is an equal number of players on each team in the center circle.

However, the USSF ATR seems to have other information on this and state the following:

3.12...The kicks from the marks phase begins at the moment regulation play ends...

and

...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....

SO, if the 'kicks phase' begins at the final whistle, then there would not be a reduce to equate action.

Just to muddle things further, there is this:

USSF answer (May 22, 2007):
There is no standard procedure for conducting kicks from the penalty mark. Referees use common sense in preparing for this contingency. The amount of time between the end of regular play and the beginning of the kicks is set by the competition authority.

If there is indeed an amount of time between the end of play and the start of kicks from the mark, then it again looks as if that second bullet from the LOTG should take precedence.

In addition to all of the verbiage, it seems that if 'reduce-to-equate' is meant to allow the team with more players to take away their weaker kickers, it should apply to the point that the first kick is taken.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Mark,
this question is under discussion but there are several errors in your assumptions. The match is over when the time has expired. So any decision based on the events AFTER that time there is no reduce to equate. Now if the team was down to 7 to 10 be they sent off or simply short handed due to no shows or even injuries the reduce to equate goes into effect IMMEDIATELY upon the end of the match.

What we have here is a special circumstance where a player is claiming to be so injured just at the match ended as unable to participate in the shoot out.

The key point is he was ON the field at the final whistle.

Now he can not be subbed but he could circumvent the deal by assuming keeper position then claim to be injured and a keeper is a legal switch EVEN during a shoot out provided the maximum number of subs has not yet been exceeded!

In MY opinion only if the referee ACCEPTED the injury occurred in the final seconds during the match and NOT in the time after the match he could STILL reduce to equate. Lets say there was a collision seen by the referee on a contested ball and then the referee allowed play but blew for full time just after.

Now the defender has dislocated his ankle in that final exchange. It is OBVIOUS he can not participate so WHY should reduce to equate not be done? If the referee had stopped play for the injury and time expired we could reduce to equate or allow a last sub then end the match. The purpose of reduce to equate was to make it a fair contest. Now if a team of 11 has 4 players suddenly pulls up lame we are likely suspicious and some serious USB.

If the referee blows for full time and the player was running to get some water and then tripped and dislocated his ankle as it obviously occurred AFTER the match ended no reduce to equate is required.

What we are debating is it ethical not to or does the law as it is written allow no recourse? If we take into account why reduce to equate was instituted I FAIL to understand why if one team has a legitimate injury the opposing team can not be granted a reduce to equate if they desire it.
WHY was the law changed to allow this if NOT to be fair?
I grant you at present perhaps the law restricts this option but if so it is flawed and an update could be included in future editions! Cheers

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

There has been a discussion traveling around the Internet concerning possible incorrect advice offered by our question number 14004 of 1 October 2006. We have taken the time to verify what we said, after consulting US Soccer, nearly a year ago. Because this question deals with a particular phase of the match in which the referee needs to choose a goal where KFTPM will be taken and reduce to equate, if necessary there is a period of time when reasonable action may be taken. We have always believed KFTPM have NOT yet begun when the full time whistle sounds. We have always questioned the statement KFTPM begin when the final whistle sounds. It has been our contention that the match has entered another phase and that phase is KFTPM. Further we have believed, and still believe, I might add, that until the first kick is taken the instructions given by FIFA and US Soccer are sufficiently nebulous that the referee may make an educated decision based on what he discovers in the period of time from the full time whistle until the first kick.

There has been no error made in the advice given. The advice given is essentially a statement of US Soccer policy and, though it comes from an unofficial source, it was then and remains today correct as stated. Those still believing KFTPM begin at the full time whistle need only read the Laws of the Game and see there can be no reduce to equate after KFTPM begin. It has been and remains our contention that this is a Catch 22. We are told to do something that is impossible to do under the Laws of the Game. To successfully reduce to equate there must be some period of time in which it?s done. That period of time is between the end of the match and the first kick.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

30 July 2007. Following discussions at the highest levels of US Soccer it has been determined by Alfred Kleinaitis, Manager of Referee Development and Education, the fact a player has been injured during a competition and is unable to carry on during kicks from the penalty mark does not enter into reduce to equate. The injured player may leave the field so his injury may be tended to but the kicks from the mark will proceed with an unequal number of players. Ed.