Question Number: 31213

Kicks From The Penalty mark 1/30/2017

RE: Rec Adult

Simon from of Collingwood Park, queensland Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31201

In the answer by Referee Dawson, he provided additional information to the initial question and as such no other ref from the panel spoke of it, so I want to confirm he meant to say this.

"¦ or the two players who left one could return to replace him as a legal player if no substitutions options were available."

With the same initial scenario, but the red team HAS used ALL its substitutes. The advice offered was the team could still replace the GK (who is injured) by ANY ONE of those who were on the field at the end of the game, INCLUDING from those who were excluded to reduce the number of kickers to the same number as the opposition.

This seems an extension of my previous understanding, and what appears to be the effect of the 4 dot points on this page (p.73), so want the basis for it.
Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Simon,
I think I can see what you mean - the wording on page 73 could be read to mean that the use of an excluded player is also only allowed if the team has not used all its substitutes. This would appear to be (another) example where a part of the law is poorly written and does not clearly convey the IFAB's intention.

It is however clear from the FAQ section on Law 10 (found on the IFAB's website) what is really meant. The wording here is:

''The goalkeeper can be replaced at any time. The replacement can be one of the players who is allowed to take a kick, a substitute (if the team has not used its maximum number of substitutes) or a player who was excluded from KFPM''

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Simon
Reduce to equate used to only happen once in Kicks from the Penalty Mark, at the start and after that there was no equating. That has now all changed. It now happens throughout the kicks
In the case of a goalkeeper we know that he can be replaced by a substitute at any time provided there are substitutions still available to the team. If there is none then one of the outfield players on the field of play at the end of the game must take his place. If a team has had to reduce to equate then that team may use one of the excluded players to equate the numbers.
If there is no requirement to reduce to equate and no substitutions then an outfield player takes over the role.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Simon,
indeed I did. I hold the opinion the excluded players are entitled to replace an injured keeper because they were on the FOP at the match end and permitted to take part. The only reason for their exclusion was to even up the sides (not to prevent them from participating) which if you think about it is why one could return to do the same! What might be a conundrum is if either of them had left the pitch or park? Say angry at being the ones excluded. If they were not there the ONLY workable solution would be to reduce to equate. Again imagine the conundrum if after 10 shots each all but one of the opposition had shot and the injured keeper was going to be the other teams 11th shooter? Could any player could be chosen to leave if there was one who had not shot or as the other 11th shooter is he forced to leave? Could you imagine Then if the excluded players who left the FOP were to be treated as missing and their shot which would be taken in replacing the keeper declared a miss? Nah neither could I lol
Cheers