Bradley Johnson and the Penalty Shoot-out

[duncanjwitham]

24 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said:

I think in the end common sense prevailed. I think all parties agreed that our keeper would take and their's wouldn't. I think Carson's penalty was a toe poke 

They clearly didn't agree to anything though, as they were still arguing about it when it came up to the 11th penalty.  I reckon the ref was expecting Johnson to come back out and take a penalty, but we sent Ince up for his second instead.  

Basically, he's managed to screw it up so badly that whichever team won, the other team could complain that the ref advantaged the other team - us because their keeper kept goal but didn't have to take a penalty, them because Johnson played out the game but wasn't forced to take a penalty.

[davenportram]

21 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

They clearly didn't agree to anything though, as they were still arguing about it when it came up to the 11th penalty.  I reckon the ref was expecting Johnson to come back out and take a penalty, but we sent Ince up for his second instead.  

Basically, he's managed to screw it up so badly that whichever team won, the other team could complain that the ref advantaged the other team - us because their keeper kept goal but didn't have to take a penalty, them because Johnson played out the game but wasn't forced to take a penalty.

A player is allowed to leave the field during the shoorout if injured and unable to take a penalty. The ref did not screw anything up at all. If Carlisle were arguing its because they didnt know that rule.

[Rambalin]

The only bit wrong was Carlisle should have nominated a player to drop out at the start of the spot kicks then he should have taken no part.It is all about how many players are on the pitch at the start of the shoot out.The fact he played the full game has no bearing if he is medically declared unfit.

It is one of those rare situations that causes all sorts of confusion for officials,players,managers and fans.Though us officials know the rules but these strange occurrences can  throw you.

 

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, davenportram said:

A player is allowed to leave the field during the shoorout if injured and unable to take a penalty. The ref did not screw anything up at all. If Carlisle were arguing its because they didnt know that rule.

Yes, but in that case the other team still carry on with 11 takers.  And if he's injured before the shootout, the other team nominate a player to miss out completely (including not being able to keep goal).  The ref did neither of those things, they only had 10 takers, but their keeper was also allowed to keep goal.

[Animal is a Ram]

Surely though, as their 'keeper didn't have to take one, that gives them an advantage?

I thought they were complaining more about Blackman's penalty.

[davenportram]

35 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Yes, but in that case the other team still carry on with 11 takers.  And if he's injured before the shootout, the other team nominate a player to miss out completely (including not being able to keep goal).  The ref did neither of those things, they only had 10 takers, but their keeper was also allowed to keep goal.

As mentioned earlier the rule changed in 2016 so the opposition only have 10 takers too, the keeper is always allowed to keep goal just not an eligable penalty taker.

[davenportram]

39 minutes ago, Beagle said:

The only bit wrong was Carlisle should have nominated a player to drop out at the start of the spot kicks then he should have taken no part.It is all about how many players are on the pitch at the start of the shoot out.The fact he played the full game has no bearing if he is medically declared unfit.

It is one of those rare situations that causes all sorts of confusion for officials,players,managers and fans.Though us officials know the rules but these strange occurrences can  throw you.

 

Unless at the start they thought with treatment he would beable to take one and was subsequently declared unfit, or actually he did injure himself after the shootour started.

[The_Sheriff]

4 hours ago, WystonRam said:

Carlisle should have deselcted a player from the line up to take penalties yesterday I think, as we only had 10 men on the pitch- according to the rules the deselcted penalty taker cannot play as goalkeeper-
 

@davenportram is the above true? If so their keeper shouldn't of been allowed to be the nominated player to not take a pen?

 

[rynny]

We need @Mafiabob to settle this one I think.

[davenportram]

6 minutes ago, Simsy said:

@davenportram is the above true? If so their keeper shouldn't of been allowed to be the nominated player to not take a pen?

 

Not seen that rule in my research this morning

[duncanjwitham]

22 minutes ago, davenportram said:

As mentioned earlier the rule changed in 2016 so the opposition only have 10 takers too, the keeper is always allowed to keep goal just not an eligable penalty taker.

That rule has been in place for a while now, but it's very vague as to whether the goalie has to be among the named takers or not.  You could honestly read the rules and come to either conclusion.  What is interesting is this (from that current IFAB rules http://theifab.com/#!/laws/determining-the-outcome-of-a-match/chapters/kicks-from-the-penalty-mark):

"With the exception of a substitute for an injured goalkeeper, only players who are on the field of play or are temporarily off the field of play (injury, adjusting equipment etc.) at the end of the match are eligible to take kicks"

"Each kick is taken by a different player and all eligible players must take a kick before any player can take a second kick"

"Kicks from the penalty mark must not be delayed for a player who leaves the field of play. The player’s kick will be forfeited (not scored) if the player does not return in time to take a kick"

By my reading of those 3 rules, Johnson was on the field when the game finished, and therefore is eligible.  All eligible players must take a kick. Johnson didn't return to the field, so the kick should have been forfeited.

[dcfc the 1 4me]

Johnsons injury happened right in front of us , he seemed to twist his  left ankle and looked to be in some discomfort, so he couldn't have taken one if he'd wanted to. I thought Carlisle would have had to drop an outfield penalty taker and use their goalie to make it an equal contest but obviously not, as we saw. 

[Carl Sagan]

Curle rightly not happy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37174262

The problem with players going off down the tunnel after they've completed the match is that any team with a poor penalty taker left on the pitch can simply claim he's injured and unable to take one. As I said above, Derby should have withdrawn him in the last few seconds before the shootout so he was no longer on the field of play and eligible.

[WystonRam]

3 hours ago, Simsy said:

So the ref has messed up? Their keeper had to be one of the 10?

Yes, the goalkeeper cannot take part if he is not a nominated taker, if the teams are not equal in numbers.

[Premier ram]

whos bothered , we won , and well done Bradley last night , more like your old self , bring on the red dogs next round

[LazloW]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

Curle rightly not happy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37174262

The problem with players going off down the tunnel after they've completed the match is that any team with a poor penalty taker left on the pitch can simply claim he's injured and unable to take one. As I said above, Derby should have withdrawn him in the last few seconds before the shootout so he was no longer on the field of play and eligible.

Do I detect a little dig in the crowd's direction over the booing at halftime? 

[The_Sheriff]

1 hour ago, WystonRam said:

Yes, the goalkeeper cannot take part if he is not a nominated taker, if the teams are not equal in numbers.

In all fairness he did not take part in 12 of our penalties.

[Carl Sagan]

21 minutes ago, LazloW said:

Do I detect a little dig in the crowd's direction over the booing at halftime? 

Baffled by this comment.

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

That rule has been in place for a while now, but it's very vague as to whether the goalie has to be among the named takers or not.  You could honestly read the rules and come to either conclusion.  What is interesting is this (from that current IFAB rules http://theifab.com/#!/laws/determining-the-outcome-of-a-match/chapters/kicks-from-the-penalty-mark):

"With the exception of a substitute for an injured goalkeeper, only players who are on the field of play or are temporarily off the field of play (injury, adjusting equipment etc.) at the end of the match are eligible to take kicks"

"Each kick is taken by a different player and all eligible players must take a kick before any player can take a second kick"

"Kicks from the penalty mark must not be delayed for a player who leaves the field of play. The player’s kick will be forfeited (not scored) if the player does not return in time to take a kick"

By my reading of those 3 rules, Johnson was on the field when the game finished, and therefore is eligible.  All eligible players must take a kick. Johnson didn't return to the field, so the kick should have been forfeited.

So by that logic then, a player could injure himself between the last whistle of extra time and the penalties being taken for example twist and break his ankle. He is still expected to take a penalty, I don't think so. 

[LazloW]

20 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Baffled by this comment.

Sorry, I should've made it clearer. There is a comment from NP in the article referred to in your message which mentions something about yardsticks, performances and booing. Hope that clarifies things... 'Twas merely a musing about the quote not a comment on your comment.