Question Number: 20834

Kicks From The Penalty mark 2/10/2009

RE: Adult

Tony of Sydney, NSW Australia asks...

Panel,

I have another question regarding Kicks from the penalty mark to determine the outcome of a game. It is to do with that old chestnut 'reduce to equate'.

I know that in the US (as per the ATR)the position NOW is you reduce to equate at the end of the match after extra time - when the final whistle blows. The interpretation being that the kicks phase commences then.

I also know that in prior years the US position was you reduce to equate up until the kicks from the mark actually commence.

I have just read Julian Carosi's February newsletter from his website (I know you respect him)where at the end this question is asked and his answer is in line with the past US position ie you continue to reduce to equate up to when the kicks actually commence NOT at the end of the match and refers to page 128 of the laws of the game in the Interpretation of the laws of the game and guidelines for Referees for support. Which as we know is only new - in its second year.

From my point of view the fact that there is no mention of reducing to equate at the end of the match on page 128 of this section - a section designed to help clear up any ambiguity and provide interpretation suggests to me that the UK position may be correct.

If so there seems a major inconsistency here in how the law is applied in two major countries and the outcome it has on the game. This is exactly what FIFA are trying to avoid.

I raise this because there should not be such an inconsistency on something that can change the course of a match.

I know you will say that you are bound by the US Advice to Refs and if in the US you must follow it.

The US position/interpretation has changed only recently away from the UK on this isssue and I have not been able to identify any other key issue where they differ.

So my question is: Are you aware of this apparent inconsistency in interpretation of this part of the law in the US and the UK? How do we fix it i.e. get it made clearer in the next law update?
I know you have more influence than I.

Very interested to hear all of your comments as usual.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

You might be wound around the statement in ATR saying: 'Once kicks from the penalty mark have begun, there is no further application of the 'reduce to equate' principle.' I do too. When I asked the rest of the contributors to ATR what that meant the consensus was reduce to equate once and kicks have begun as soon as the match ends. This is unclear and I will still chirp about the need to offer a better statement. Suffice to say, no matter what ATR reads it says the same thing as the Laws of the Game page 128.

Another thing to account for is a player off the field with permission to correct something, change something, fix something or the like may return to the field and participate. If he is unable to return reduce to equate may become necessary.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Here's the entire paragraph on page 128;

If a player is injured or sent off during the taking of kicks from the penalty mark and the team has one player less, the referee should not reduce the number of players taking kicks for the other team.
An equal number of players from each team is required only at the start of the taking of kicks from the penalty mark

also from page 128

Procedure
? The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match

It's clear to me that FIFA is simply saying that once the kicks phase starts, you do NOT reduce to equate. This paragraph does not say WHEN you reduce only that when the kicks are actually taken, there must be an equal number of players. WHEN you reduce is found on page 51

? If, at the end of the match and before kicks start to be taken from the penalty mark, one team has a greater number of players than their opponents, they must reduce their numbers to equate with that of their opponents and the team captain must inform the referee of the name and number of each player excluded

? Before the start of kicks from the penalty mark, the referee must ensure that an equal number of players from each team remains within the
centre circle and they shall take the kicks.

It's clear to me that the reduction takes place when the end of the match occurs NOT at the actual taking of the kicks. This is based on page 51.

Here's what Advice says:

3.12 NUMBER OF PLAYERS DURING KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK
Only the players who were on the field at the end of the game (or temporarily off the field for treatment of injury or repair of equipment) may participate in kicks from the penalty mark. The kicks from the mark phase of the match begins at the moment regulation play ends (including any overtime periods of play.) All players who are not injured must take a kick before anyone on the same team takes a second kick. Only the goalkeeper may be substituted in the case of injury during the kicks phase and only if the team has a substitution remaining from its permitted maximum. If a player is removed from the field for misconduct or is unable to participate in the taking of kicks due to an injury, the contest continues without him or her. Under no circumstances will a team be required to "reduce to equate" if the opposing team loses one or more players due to misconduct or injury.

and from 19.1

Once kicks from the penalty mark have begun, there is no further application of the "reduce to equate" principle. If a player must leave through injury or misconduct, that player may not be replaced and the opposing team does not have to reduce its numbers.

and

For further information on "reduce to equate" and "order of kickers," see Advice 3.12, as well as the procedures outlined in the Laws of the Game under Law 14 and Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees.

I think it is clear that Advice and LOTG are in agreement. The kicks phase starts at the end of the match not at the actual taking of the kicks and that the reduce to equate requirement is done when the match ends. LOTG is clear that the kicks phase is not part of the match and that once the match ends reduce to equate takes place. This is exactly what the current Advice states.

As to what Mr. Carosi says in his newsletter, that is his opinion and the opinion of most of Europe. We at this site all have great respect for him but in my opinion, even if I agree with him that this is the way it SHOULD be, if he is saying you wait until the kicks actually start to reduce to equate, he is in disagreement with the LOTG.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

The question really is, 'When does Kicks From The Penalty Mark begin?' When USSF says kicks begin immediately at the final whistle, they really don't mean they commence exactly then. This would be a physical impossibility, because part of the procedure found in the Laws says, 'Before the start of kicks from the penalty mark, the referee must ensure that an equal number of players from each team remains within the centre circle and they shall take the kicks.' Taken literally, that means the referee, before blowing the final whistle, has to herd an equal number of players from each team into the center circle so they are there when the kicks begin. Or herd any unequal numbers out of the circle - in which case it would be the referee making the choice of who is reduced and excused. Um, nope.

There has to be a set time for when the count of eligible players is made. In my opinion, USSF decided that cutpoint is at the final whistle. This makes good logical sense - else, we'd be dithering around for 20 minutes trying to decide who was and who wasn't eligible. Shenanigans ensue!

Aside from the rare case of a player who falls into a previously unseen gopher hole and sprains his ankle on the way to the center circle, this interpretation covers players who were up and moving. It covers teams who have had player(s) sent off, or who didn't field the full contingent of players in the first place. It doesn't specifically cover the status of a player who was off the field of play with an injury; presumably under a literal interpretation that player would have to declare himself unfit to take kicks before the whistle was blown. But using just a little bit of common sense, the ref simply asks, 'Is #8 coming back for kicks?' Yes or no, and it's settled.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

This is simply a poorly crafted piece of policy on the part of FIFA.
The right to reduce to equate was created to make takings KFTPM fair. The match ends with ANY send offs or exclusions of numbers that occur PRIOR to this affecting the number of players eligible to take the kicks should be equal.

We have misconduct which could occur AFTER the match and a decision whether there was or was not a player on or off the pitch possibly injured as the two basic premises for deciding if to reduce to equate can accommodate these two concepts. There are a few extraordinary complicated circumstances that can cause us some headaches IF we do not have a BASIS for a CLEAR decision!

Before you think these are made up I assure you all but one is 100% true to my personal knowledge. The decision to reduce to equate requires a time frame for the match to end and the pks to begin. Since it can ONLY occur once the match has ENDED it is reasonable to assume that amount of players at that moment is the pool upon which we base a decision. We have a delay only because the reality of time to hear a question, get an answer and get into position takes a few moments/minutes. So if stuff happens, can we make another or a different decision?

(a)Does an injury before the match end need to be identified as a unable to participate before the final whistle?

(b)Does an 11th player who comes in to ten man squad only as a match is ending count as a player off with permission rather than someone who was never on the field and cannot participate? Could all 11 opponents plus the 10 players and the new player be allowed to take the kftpm?

(c)Not everyone WANTS to be denied a right to participate and if those designated to do so are involved on or off the field in misconduct that changes the circumstances of the kicking order is it fair to change the decisions?


Lets put scenarios up on the board with various circumstances that might occur and see if the application of reduce to equate could or should apply differently.
In my opinion only, reduce to equate as a principle of fair play should be available whenever it becomes neccessary DEPENDING on the circumstances that could occur. At present this is not the case!


(a)Number one; the match ends even but blue player #3 on the field is nursing a groin pull and says after the final whistle I cannot take a kick I am in too much pain!
(a)Number two; the match ends even but blue player #3 is off the field nursing a groin pull as the final whistle ends the match.
He wants to take a kick but the pain proves too much and falters when his turn arrives saying I can not do it!
(a)Number three; the match even ends but blue player #3 is off the field nursing a groin pull as the final whistle ends the match. He looks over at the referee and shakes his head, "I do not want to continue I am in too much pain!"

Reduce to equate 10 versus ten?

(b) Number one; A traveling team is forced to play with only 10 players as one car with 4 rostered players listed on the game sheet on its way ran into trouble. They manage to tie and the match is forced into KFTPM. In between the time the first kick starts and the end of the match the 4 lost players arrive
(b) Number two; A traveling team is forced to play with only 10 players as one car with 4 rostered players listed on the game sheet on its way ran into trouble. The lost car of 4 players shows up just prior to the match ending in a tie. The coach sends the four to the AR to get on the field, the AR checks them but does not allow them him on wanting to wait for a stoppage the match ends before this occurs.
(b)Number three; A traveling team is forced to play with only 10 players as one car with 4 rostered players listed on the game sheet on its way ran into trouble. The lost car of 4 players shows up just prior to the match ending in a tie. The coach sends the four to the AR to get on the field the AR checks them and is willing to allow only one to enter right away as the referee instructed him it was ok if they showed up to make 11 and the rest will substitute next stoppage only the match ends before any of this occurs.

No need to reduce to equate, add one to even instead of take one away?


(c) Number one; the match ends with blue having 10 players as 1 was sent off earlier and red having 11.
Red must reduce but an argument erupts and a fight breaks out between two red players as to who gets chopped. The referee has to send off the two red players fighting each other, so now red has only 9 players to blues 10.
(c) Number two; the match ends with blue having 10 players as 1 was sent off earlier and red having 11. The red captain had said to referee that # 15 red would not be participating. An argument erupts and a fight breaks out on the field between a blue player and a red player. Guess who the red fighter is? Yup #15 red
(c) Number three; the match ends with blue having 10 players as 1 was sent off earlier and red having 11. Red must reduce and one player is chosen
Before the 1st kick a red player throws up onto the pitch and can not partake so they call back the 1st red player chosen not to participate and switch him

Why is the right to participate allowed to be taken away and if misconduct on his or her part contributes to a further reduction of players why can this not be fairly decided?


Cheers