View Full Version : Penalties.
howard
26-03-2006, 06:18 PM
After seeing Gabors efforts yesterday, it got me thinking(anything is possible!). When a team is awarded a penalty, it basically has two bites at the cherry. If, as happened at Derby, the keeper saves the inicial shot, the attacking side can attempt to score from any rebound. However, during a penalty shoot-out, the penalty taker is given only once chance.
Why the difference? Do you think the rules should be the same for either?
BaldEagle96
26-03-2006, 06:24 PM
If the rules were the same there would be far too many problems. After all you would then have to allow all the other players back around the penalty area leading to encroachments, sledging and the like. The keeper saves it and then there is a massive bundle but in theory the only person able to score from the save is the penatly taker or is anyone then allowed to score????
Just leave it as it is. If the shot is not good enough to beat the goalie then so be it.
I imagine the difference is that in a shoot out, the game is over. Could you imagine the confusion in a playoff, if the ball hit the post or bar(and not the goalkeeper) and bounced back to the taker who scores? In normal play that is offside. Also, what if the goalie saves the kick in a shoot out and the ball rebounds 50 yards away, would the taker be able to chase the ball down and try and score? What happens if the goalkeeper saves it again and again, if some circumstances this would lengthen the game even further. I think the current rule, one kick is fine.
howard
26-03-2006, 06:27 PM
I was thinking that the rule for the shoot-out should apply during normal game time. If the keeper makes a save from the shot, thats it.
TN16_Eagle
26-03-2006, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by howard
I was thinking that the rule for the shoot-out should apply during normal game time. If the keeper makes a save from the shot, thats it.
That in my view makes much more sense, give the goalies a better chance, the odds will still be stacked in favour of the penalty taker.
BaldEagle96
26-03-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by howard
I was thinking that the rule for the shoot-out should apply during normal game time. If the keeper makes a save from the shot, thats it.
Why though - what is wrong with the rules as they are? Why should the team who give away the penalty suddenly get the advantage? After all they are the ones in the wrong who have stopped a goal scoring opportunity....
howard
26-03-2006, 06:54 PM
That's right, A goal scoring oportunity, not two. After all, if the striker completely misses, he is not given another chance so, why should he be, of the keeper makes a save?
eddieskyclad
26-03-2006, 07:26 PM
In a game as soon as the penalty has been taken the ball is in open play... if it comes back to the taker then fair play to him.
What next if Beckham's freekick canons back off the post should we stop play and give possession to the defending team?
BaldEagle96
26-03-2006, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by howard
That's right, A goal scoring oportunity, not two. After all, if the striker completely misses, he is not given another chance so, why should he be, of the keeper makes a save?
Well he has every chance to score again from open play if it rebounds of the keeper - just the same as for a penalty!
Hedgehog
27-03-2006, 02:00 AM
As an aside.... As someone else said.... Where the •••• were the Palace players when Derby were taking the penalty? No wonder they got to the rebound first.
http://www.cpfc.org/g2/v/Palace+vs+Derby+25_3_2006/DSCF2566.JPG.html?
Psyatika
27-03-2006, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by howard
After seeing Gabors efforts yesterday, it got me thinking(anything is possible!). When a team is awarded a penalty, it basically has two bites at the cherry. If, as happened at Derby, the keeper saves the inicial shot, the attacking side can attempt to score from any rebound. However, during a penalty shoot-out, the penalty taker is given only once chance.
Why the difference? Do you think the rules should be the same for either? The most fundamental difference is that the Kicks from the Penalty Mark (KFTPM) are not a part of the match, so the standard laws that apply during a match no longer apply. That's given in the Questions and Answers on the Laws of the Game, page 38:
a) Does taking kicks from the penalty mark to determine the winner
of a match form part of the match?
No.
So during a normal match, once the ball is kicked it is in play for everyone, which is why a team could end up taking an additional shot on goal after taking a penalty kick. During the KFTPM, however, there needs to be a end to the kick so that the next kick can take place. Once the ball crosses the goal line, or it becomes clear that the ball will not cross the goal line (on a goalkeeper save for example), the kick is over and the next kicker takes his kick.
Try to keep in mind the reason for the KFTPM and the reason for a penalty kick. KFTPM are used solely to determine the winner of a match when the final result is a draw. Neither team is being punished in this case.
In a penalty kick, however, one team committed an offense against another team in their own penalty area. The penalty kick is intended to be a punishment, and any subsequent rebound may appear to be unfair, but try to keep in mind the unfair foul that led to the penalty kick in the first place.
1fdb
Psyatika
27-03-2006, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by BaldEagle96
The keeper saves it and then there is a massive bundle but in theory the only person able to score from the save is the penatly taker or is anyone then allowed to score???? Anyone is allowed to play the ball once the penalty kick has been taken. There is one exception:
If the ball rebounds off the post without touching the goalkeeper, and the original penalty taker gets to the ball first, and he touches the ball again without anyone else touching the ball, he is guilty of a "double touch" and the referee gives an indirect free kick from the spot of the second touch for the defence.
So not only is anyone allowed to score once the kick is taken, but the only exception is one which PREVENTS the original kicker from scoring the goal!
Psyatika
27-03-2006, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by AJ
Could you imagine the confusion in a playoff, if the ball hit the post or bar(and not the goalkeeper) and bounced back to the taker who scores? In normal play that is offside. OH MY GOD NO!
Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but that is just plain wrong.
For a player to be offside, they have to receive the ball FROM A TEAMMATE. You are not your own teammate, so you can't possibly be offside on your own shot on goal.
Further, no other player on the attacking team could possibly be offside on a penalty kick, because every player is required to be behind the ball when the kick is taken. You can NEVER be offside if you were behind the ball when it was last kicked by a teammate. However, the player could be guilty of a second touch (see the post above). The confusion you have encountered might stem from the fact that the restart for offside is the same as the restart for a double touch (indirect free kick).
Laws of the Game, Law 11:
A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second last opponent
A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the field of play or
• he is level with the second last opponent
• he is level with the last two opponents
Not picking you out specifically, but it really is amazing what people know (or think they know!) about the Laws of the Game!
Hedgehog
27-03-2006, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Psyatika
OH MY GOD NO!
Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but that is just plain wrong.
For a player to be offside, they have to receive the ball FROM A TEAMMATE. You are not your own teammate, so you can't possibly be offside on your own shot on goal.
Agreed, but isn't there something about someone else touching the ball before you (the taker) can touch the ball again, as would happen if it came off the post or bar?
Maybe this is what AJ was talking about. The term offside maybe wrong, but I'm not sure what else you would call it.
Psyatika
27-03-2006, 03:27 AM
I've edited my post. Have a look :)
Hedgehog
27-03-2006, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Psyatika
The confusion you have encountered might stem from the fact that the restart for offside is the same as the restart for a double touch (indirect free kick).
Is that the bit you mean? If so I again agree.
BaldEagle96
27-03-2006, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Psyatika
Anyone is allowed to play the ball once the penalty kick has been taken.
I know that - my point was that under the scenario being discussed the nominated Penalty Taker should then be the only one allowed to score as he is the one taking that particular spot kick.
Anyway the whole idea is unworkable and will never happen.
Psyatika
27-03-2006, 05:08 PM
He is the only one allowed to score on the penalty kick. The Law says that once the kicker is nominated, he is the only one who can take the kick. If someone else runs up and takes the kick, the referee punishes him for encroachment, shows him a yellow card for unsporting behaviour, and restarts with an indirect free kick from the spot of the encroachment.
As for after the kick, both teams have players 10 metres away from the kicker, so they both have equal chance to get to the ball on the rebound. Both teams also have a player standing in the penalty area: the offence has the original kicker, and the defence has the goalkeeper, who is even allowed to touch the ball with his hands! And you think the defence deserves MORE rights at the penalty kick?
I think your opinion is based solely on the Crystal Palace result. Understandable, but if you think about it without any team bias, you'll see that the defence has the same opportunity to clear the ball on a save that the attack has to score on the rebound. Granted, any subsequent kick by the attack will end up going into the goal, but keep in mind that any subsequent kick by the defence will pretty much erase the goal scoring opportunity. Throw in the fact that a penalty kick is meant to be a severe punishment; missing a penalty kick is considered a let-off for the defence, and saving a penalty kick is considered lucky. The defence doesn't deserve any special privledges, even if they happen to be be wearing red and blue.
As for the idea itself (i know you said it is unworkable, but anyway), would should happen in this scenario: kicker takes the penalty, it rebounds hard off the crossbar and bounces outside the penalty area. Only the original kick is allowed the second shot, but he can't touch the ball again because no one else has touched it. The goalkeeper refuses to go near the ball because it is outside the penalty area. The defence doesn't want to touch the ball because there are three minutes left in the match and they only need a draw to go through to the next round (the score is 1-1). Do we rely on the offense to intentionally get themselves called for an infringement? Do we let the ball just sit there? Does the referee stop play for no reason whatsoever?
Grim Reaper
29-03-2006, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by AJ
Also, what if the goalie saves the kick in a shoot out and the ball rebounds 50 yards away,
Now a 50 yard rebound is something I'd like to see!! :eek: ;)
howard
29-03-2006, 09:52 PM
Not picking you out specifically, but it really is amazing what people know (or think they know!) about the Laws of the Game! [/B][/QUOTE]
I do know the laws & perhaps I didn't explain myself properly at the start.
All I meant to ask was, do you think that the rules for penalties should be the same during the game, as they are for the shoot-out scenario, ie, one shot, hit or miss.
It was just a thought, sometimes I wished I hadn't bothered:D :( :bash:
1966
GrayP41ace
30-03-2006, 04:18 PM
As a penalty is awarded for denying 'a' (just 1) goalscoring opportunity (it's still 50/50 whether he scores or misses) then why should they be given a 2nd opportunity to score if they miss the penalty? It does seem a bit unjust. The ref awards you with a penalty to give you the chance to score which you just lost, if you miss, then it should be a miss, no second chance, no rebounds, just like a shoot out.
Also the bit about only the original kicker not being able to follow in the rebound if it hits the bar, I recall (I think :D) Okocha heading in his rebound from the penalty spot after it hit the bar and the goal stood!!
What is that scenario about BTW? Only the kicker can follow up a penalty if it rebounds off of the bar or post out of the box?? Bit confused about this.
elliott
30-03-2006, 04:29 PM
I think the whole point is that a penalty is the same as a normal freekick. Where do we go next? Any freekick within 30 yards, you are only allowed one shot on goal?
smileysmith
30-03-2006, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by TN16_Eagle
the odds will still be stacked in favour of the penalty taker. Thats the point of a penalty.
Psyatika
31-03-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by GrayP41ace
Also the bit about only the original kicker not being able to follow in the rebound if it hits the bar, I recall (I think :D) Okocha heading in his rebound from the penalty spot after it hit the bar and the goal stood!!
What is that scenario about BTW? Only the kicker can follow up a penalty if it rebounds off of the bar or post out of the box?? Bit confused about this. In that case, the referee unfortunately got it wrong. It's just like any other free kick. The original kicker can't touch the ball until it is touched by someone else, so if it goes off the post but doesn't touch the keeper, the original kicker is stuck and can't take the rebound. If ay any point the ball so much as grazes the keeper, however, the original kicker is free to take his rebound.
Strictly speaking, a penalty kick is not 50/50. It is intended to punish the defence for playing unfairly in a critical area of the pitch, namely, the area where most goals are scored. It's not meant to randomly give a goal 50% of the time. Statistically speaking, attackers have about a 90% chance of scoring on a penalty kick (which goes up or down based on skill level).
Originally posted by elliott
I think the whole point is that a penalty is the same as a normal freekick. Where do we go next? Any freekick within 30 yards, you are only allowed one shot on goal? This, frankly, is an excellent point. The Laws of the Game are intended to promote attacking football whenever possible, and giving arbitrary advantages to the defending team undermines the intentions of the lawmakers.
That's not to say that things like offside or goalkeeper immunity within the penalty area should be abolished. But whenever possible, the attackers should be given the benefit of the interpretation of the laws, as long as they are not outright cheating (as is the case when you stray offside or interfere with the goalkeeper).
eddieskyclad
31-03-2006, 08:04 PM
How does he feel after the Dougie penalty against Watford?
howard
31-03-2006, 10:42 PM
'He' feels no different thanks, it was the exact replica of the Derby pen, all the Watford defenders stood still & Palace attacked the ball. Did Dougie deserve a second bite after the keeper saved, that is my point. Now the own goals, that's a different story, thanks Watford!
Psyatika
31-03-2006, 10:45 PM
Of course he deserved to take a rebound of his own shot. It's not a second bite, the same way any other goalkeeper spill is not a second bite. A second bite would be taking a shot on goal after being fouled, and getting the penalty call if you happen to miss. That is wrong. This is not. The goalkeeper should have done a better job parrying the ball. Freedman took his penalty, and once the ball is kicked, the penalty kick is over and all players on the field are free to enter the penalty area and get the ball. Freedman was the most alert. Why you think that should be held against him is beyond me.
Bottom line, Watford in this game and Palace v. Derby committed a foul in the one place where you should be especially cautious, and deserved to concede a goal. Who cares if the goalkeeper manages to get his hands on the first shot, and why should he have any favours done for him if he doesn't have the skill/luck to stop the second?
StudentEagle
01-04-2006, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by GrayP41ace
As a penalty is awarded for denying 'a' (just 1) goalscoring opportunity (it's still 50/50 whether he scores or misses) then why should they be given a 2nd opportunity to score if they miss the penalty? It does seem a bit unjust. The ref awards you with a penalty to give you the chance to score which you just lost, if you miss, then it should be a miss, no second chance, no rebounds, just like a shoot out.
But surely in the goalscoring opportunity that was denied, the keeper could have saved it only for a rebound to be tucked in, just like with a penalty? Its not unjust at all.
vBulletin v3.5.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0