Question Number: 16144

Kicks From The Penalty mark 7/27/2007

sonnyj of san francisco, usa asks...

This question is a follow up to question 16091

Seems all that was required was a simple I stand by initial answer or woooops i was wrong and reduce to equate does not apply rather than the tome and changes to initial question that was in the relies.


The ATR if very clear about this,
ATR 3.12 -- The Kicks from the mark phase of the match begins at the moment regulation play ends (including any overtime periods)

19.1 Once kicks from the penalty mark has begun, there is not further application of the "reduce to equate principle.If a player must leave the through injury or misconduct, that player may not be replaced and the opposing team does not have to reduce its numbers. (A goal keeper who is injured may be replaced, but only if the team has substitutes remaining.)

Seems pretty clear and straight forward

Let me respond to some of the very very unusual suggestions the experts mentioned.

1) as soon as game ends AR/Ref realize one player had received 2 yellow cards and should have been sent off.

You consider this to have happened during the match even though not discovered until after whistle (another issue) and would apply reduce to equate.

This is different from player who says or does something after match finishes earning him a send off. That clearly happened after match ended so do not reduce to equate.

Jim Allen does mention situation where ref sees misconduct that would earn send off just before whistle blows to end match. In that case he agrees that reduce to equate applies since violation happened during match

Player with heat exaustion that shows up after final whistle - Here I guess ref could determine that "injury" did happen during match so reduce to equate applies.

However, after whistle player is running up field or celebrating with teammate and trips - injures self and can't continue . This happened after whistle so no reduce to equate.

FIFA Q&A When asked if KFTPM is part of the match answers NO

If I remember correctly 14004 asks about player injured or sent off after final whistle but before first kick from the penalty mark.

In that case it seem very clear from the ATR sections I quoted that reduce to equate DOES NOT APPLY. All the rationale, strange situations, changes to the initial question the experts throw in rather than admit they were incorrect.

Let me ask this. Match ends, immediately after final whistle player on team A curses at ref and is sent off. This happened after whistle but before first KFTPM - Does reduce to equate apply with team B having to drop a player???

A yes or no response is adequate.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Sonny you just don't seem to understand, do you. The answers given were not incorrect and because is is a repetitive question asked throughout the world of football we thought it prudent to verify our responses with US Soccer. San Francisco, CA is still part of America so you must abide by the decisions of US Soccer when refereeing a match played in America under the Laws of the Game.

In lieu of another shot at a one word answer I offer this:

First, the reason 16091 took so long to answer is Jim Allen was on vacation and he didn't return until yesterday.

Second, he was consulted before we answered 14004.

Third, there are divergent opinions, within US Soccer, regarding whether or not the injured player, in a case such as this, may be excluded and have reduce to equate apply.

Fourth, the answers given to 14004 are consistent with Mr. Allen's interpretation.

Fifth, during the past few days there have been ongoing discussions between the panelists of this site and those people listed as authors of and the substantial contributors to Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.

It is my opinion ATR is insufficient in its guidance regarding this subject and needs to be reworded. I am discussing that very thing with the other members of the ATR panel. The members of my panel offered their opinions regarding this subject and we have discussed it at length internally and with US Soccer. I gave you the best answer that US Soccer has at this time. Discussing it as a "chat" is not something this forum was intended to do, I leave chats to other sites where participants are, usually, not identifiable, but write as they are great authorities on the Game of Association Football.

For your, and everyone Else's, information two panelists are represent countries other than the USA and three of the current USA panelists are on the panel who that to the correctness of US Soccer's Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game. We know there is a problem regarding understanding this subject and are trying to correct it.

Now if you have read this far Sonny brace yourself. I have read your comments on the other website.

--URL follows--
http://www.nexwebsites.com/Members/mb/Corsham/messages/1640.html

It is my opinion you have your mind made up about the how we and US Soccer should have answered, so be it. It is your right to disagree but if you ever are faced with the situation brought fourth in 14004 you had better do exactly as what was said there or run the risk of having your match overturned on protest. If the match is being assessed and I am the assessor dig deep mate, for you will have to spend the money for two more assessments, unless you want to be an 08 or 09. The answer to your question is simply there was no error found in 14004. The question is still being discussed at US Soccer and it will be resolved in one way or another. I am still learning how the politics work at the policy writing level, however it doesn't approach the I'm always right and you're always wrong position taken by some folks...

You continue stating our response to 14004 was incorrect on the Corsham Referee chat room. Why is that? What you should be saying is YOU do not agree with US Soccer and their [Jim Allen's] direction that the referee may take reasonable action to put something right. The argument continues...

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

These kind of questions are the reason many of us became panel members. We enjoy digesting a meaty meal of Laws and Memos and Advice. When we come across an apparent contridition or a situation where it seems that the literal application of the Laws is unfair, it irritates us like a fishbone stuck in our throat.

A simple yes/no answer can be given to simple situations. 14004 and the ongoing discussion didn't fall into the simple category.

To answer your specific question about the bonehead that gets himself sent off between the time of the last whistle and the first kick: No. (I really want to expound, but you asked for yes/no.)

Thanks again for bringing this to our collective attentions.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

For the record.
My colleagues' answers to 14004 could be correct if the referee accepts the injury was in fact a match injury not a trip while walking across the pitch after or a queasy stomach by the pressure of the kick by the kicker after the whistle . By USSF standards the response, although you neither care to appreciate it as you indicate you know everything is NO!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jon Sommer

Refereeing isn't about yes/no answers. There is no such thing in the profession that I love, and I wouldn't be in the profession if there were. If you don't understand that then this is the wrong place for you. Sometimes things need to be worked out deeper than the surface, and you will not find a better place, with more experienced referees.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Hell, I'll answer it.No

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.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 16166