MATCHWATCH : Rotherham United (h)

[RoyalBlue]

Totally agree, I'm thinking along the lines that some players who have good technique and ability might not fancy taking a penalty, whereas a centre-half who doesn't score loads might back himself instead.

Obviously some players are bad at pens regardless, and better players more often than not still take pens in the shootout and score, but I do think that if you don't fancy it, it kind of doesn't matter how good you are.

I like the way Savage stands on the spot with the ball, takes all of the so-called "mind games" from the keeper, then hands the ball to Knibbs at the last minute. I think that's very smart. They've done it twice so it's clearly planned out in advance.

It's definitely clever because getting in the face of the taker has become a big part of the penalty taking process, ex-Royal Martinez is well known for it. So Savage taking it all then letting Knibbs or whoever take the ball with a clear head is simple yet brilliant at the same time.

Do other clubs do this?

Yes, I can't remember which, but I suspect we picked it up from one of them. I think it's also an idea that has been floated by sports psychologists.

[Crusader Royal]

I'm guessing if we were breaking the law the league would have already deducted us a points or something

I'd imagine that until Chas puts the ball on the spot nobody is being identified as the taker

Fairly certain there has never been a points deduction for an on field infringement. The indirect free kick would be sufficient.
The point of my post was the law is really vague. There is no mention of it being related to the ball being placed on the spot and if it’s Savage placing it that’s an obvious possible way of identifying the kicker. The point of the law is to prevent a team getting an unfair advantage by having a dummy kicker to distract the keeper.

There is a distinct moment when the penalty is ready to be taken, as indicated by the referee. Don't suppose you can change after that. But if the goalkeeper is still standing by the penalty spot, the box isn't fully vacated to the referee's satisfaction and they have taken up their place, a change of taker is OK.

Sounds reasonable, it’s just not stated in the laws !
I doubt we’re doing anything wrong and it would be the most minor thing for a ref to penalise but a smart opposition could look to counter by someone stepping out as the taker starts his run and composing that they thought Savage was taking it. Would be disruptive and a reasonable shout even if the ref rejected it.
More a talking point than anything but it’s a badly drafted piece of the law.

[Crusader Royal]

I like the way Savage stands on the spot with the ball, takes all of the so-called "mind games" from the keeper, then hands the ball to Knibbs at the last minute. I think that's very smart. They've done it twice so it's clearly planned out in advance.

It's definitely clever because getting in the face of the taker has become a big part of the penalty taking process, ex-Royal Martinez is well known for it. So Savage taking it all then letting Knibbs or whoever take the ball with a clear head is simple yet brilliant at the same time.

Do other clubs do this?

Yes, I can't remember which, but I suspect we picked it up from one of them. I think it's also an idea that has been floated by sports psychologists.

Why would they recommend putting someone else in the firing line ? The taker could just stand away from the area going through their mental prep without being in direct conflict with the keeper. No need for another player to be there and the keeper probably has the mind games as part of their routine. Throw them a curveball by having no one to target.

[Snowflake Royal]

I've not seen anyone else do it but when I tongue in cheekily suggested we'd invented it on twitter someone told me we weren't alone in doing it. I do wonder if we thought about doing it years ago but haven't had the chance to test it out until the Bolton game. Also, if other teams suss it out will we see the keeper make himself look daft as he goes to get in an apparently uninvolved Knibbs' face while Charles stands on the penalty spot?

Trouble is it’s possible illegal.
The laws state the taker of a penalty kick must be clearly identified.
Trouble is it doesn’t say who they must be identified to or when ! It’s also not clear how they should be identified or whether you can change them once identified.
So a ref could consider that Savage had identified himself as the kicker by taking the ball and standing in a position near the spot. That would make anyone else actually taking the kick the incorrect kicker with sanction of a caution and an indirect free kick against us.
Interesting one to get a top level opinion on but you’d hope we would have run it past a ref before hand.

I'm guessing if we were breaking the law the league would have already deducted us a points or something

I'd imagine that until Chas puts the ball on the spot nobody is being identified as the taker

For all we know someone is already quietly talking to the ref to let them know who our taker is, separate to everything else.

Would seem an easy way round it.

[katweslowski]

Why would they recommend putting someone else in the firing line ? The taker could just stand away from the area going through their mental prep without being in direct conflict with the keeper. No need for another player to be there and the keeper probably has the mind games as part of their routine. Throw them a curveball by having no one to target.

It's probably more effective having an identifiable player to pretend to step up

Goalkeeper then starts thinking about what foot they strike with, what way they may go, mentally focusing on them. Potentially may not happen at our level I know

[Crusader Royal]

Trouble is it’s possible illegal.
The laws state the taker of a penalty kick must be clearly identified.
Trouble is it doesn’t say who they must be identified to or when ! It’s also not clear how they should be identified or whether you can change them once identified.
So a ref could consider that Savage had identified himself as the kicker by taking the ball and standing in a position near the spot. That would make anyone else actually taking the kick the incorrect kicker with sanction of a caution and an indirect free kick against us.
Interesting one to get a top level opinion on but you’d hope we would have run it past a ref before hand.

I'm guessing if we were breaking the law the league would have already deducted us a points or something

I'd imagine that until Chas puts the ball on the spot nobody is being identified as the taker

For all we know someone is already quietly talking to the ref to let them know who our taker is, separate to everything else.

Would seem an easy way round it.

Not if they are required to be identifiable to the opposition, which is what I believe the law is intended to deal with.
Again, it’s lack of clarity in the law. Us guessing on work arounds when we don’t know what the law is doesn’t help.

[Crusader Royal]

Why would they recommend putting someone else in the firing line ? The taker could just stand away from the area going through their mental prep without being in direct conflict with the keeper. No need for another player to be there and the keeper probably has the mind games as part of their routine. Throw them a curveball by having no one to target.

It's probably more effective having an identifiable player to pretend to step up

Goalkeeper then starts thinking about what foot they strike with, what way they may go, mentally focusing on them. Potentially may not happen at our level I know

You mean you don’t think keepers at this level prepare for penalties ? Of course they do ! Happens a lot lower down as well.

[katweslowski]

Why would they recommend putting someone else in the firing line ? The taker could just stand away from the area going through their mental prep without being in direct conflict with the keeper. No need for another player to be there and the keeper probably has the mind games as part of their routine. Throw them a curveball by having no one to target.

It's probably more effective having an identifiable player to pretend to step up

Goalkeeper then starts thinking about what foot they strike with, what way they may go, mentally focusing on them. Potentially may not happen at our level I know

You mean you don’t think keepers at this level prepare for penalties ? Of course they do ! Happens a lot lower down as well.

Ok then, they do. So you've answered your own question then haven't you?

[Crusader Royal]

It's probably more effective having an identifiable player to pretend to step up

Goalkeeper then starts thinking about what foot they strike with, what way they may go, mentally focusing on them. Potentially may not happen at our level I know

You mean you don’t think keepers at this level prepare for penalties ? Of course they do ! Happens a lot lower down as well.

Ok then, they do. So you've answered your own question then haven't you?

It was your question !
Not really got much to do with whether having a random player front up to the keeper is better than just not engaging. Personally I’d favour not engaging but was just interested in the thinking from the psychologists as mentioned by RB.

[leon]

[WestYorksRoyal]

It’s possible the crappest cliche in football. Just about the only thing guaranteed is that you’ll be either up or down to some extent over a season - very rarely even.

The second most dumb cliche is that penalty shoot outs are a lottery. Such lazy punditry and completely wrong. Whichever team shows greater penalty skills will win.

I'd like to humbly disagree with your penalty shootout assertion. I agree it's not a lottery by any means, but in my opinion it's all psychological.

You can be not great at pens, but if you're not affected by the pressure you're more likely to score than someone with loads of ability who can't handle pressure well.

I'd argue being able to take a penalty under pressure is a fundamental skill of taking a penalty.

Technique and confidence under pressure are linked though. If you're confident you can find the corner with power from 12 yards, you'll handle the pressure.

[Snowflake Royal]

I'm guessing if we were breaking the law the league would have already deducted us a points or something

I'd imagine that until Chas puts the ball on the spot nobody is being identified as the taker

For all we know someone is already quietly talking to the ref to let them know who our taker is, separate to everything else.

Would seem an easy way round it.

Not if they are required to be identifiable to the opposition, which is what I believe the law is intended to deal with.
Again, it’s lack of clarity in the law. Us guessing on work arounds when we don’t know what the law is doesn’t help.

If the law is ambiguous its not enforceable.

If it doesn't specify when or to whom in detail, then we're not breaking it, because we can point to the stage it is clear who is taking it and say that meets the requirements.

[Crusader Royal]

For all we know someone is already quietly talking to the ref to let them know who our taker is, separate to everything else.

Would seem an easy way round it.

Not if they are required to be identifiable to the opposition, which is what I believe the law is intended to deal with.
Again, it’s lack of clarity in the law. Us guessing on work arounds when we don’t know what the law is doesn’t help.

If the law is ambiguous its not enforceable.

If it doesn't specify when or to whom in detail, then we're not breaking it, because we can point to the stage it is clear who is taking it and say that meets the requirements.

Clearly it is enforceable. There is a catch all statement in the laws that states the referee is the judge of fact and the law. If he decides we have done something he feels is not in line with the laws he can penalise it. There is no court of appeal, it’s his opinion that matters. There is no option for us to say ‘it meets the requirements’.
As I said ages ago I’d hope we’ve had conversations with referees to find out their interpretation.

[leon]

Not if they are required to be identifiable to the opposition, which is what I believe the law is intended to deal with.
Again, it’s lack of clarity in the law. Us guessing on work arounds when we don’t know what the law is doesn’t help.

If the law is ambiguous its not enforceable.

If it doesn't specify when or to whom in detail, then we're not breaking it, because we can point to the stage it is clear who is taking it and say that meets the requirements.

Clearly it is enforceable. There is a catch all statement in the laws that states the referee is the judge of fact and the law. If he decides we have done something he feels is not in line with the laws he can penalise it. There is no court of appeal, it’s his opinion that matters. There is no option for us to say ‘it meets the requirements’.
As I said ages ago I’d hope we’ve had conversations with referees to find out their interpretation.

I'm going to report these posts on the grounds of gross tedium.

[mikey_1871]

Not if they are required to be identifiable to the opposition, which is what I believe the law is intended to deal with.
Again, it’s lack of clarity in the law. Us guessing on work arounds when we don’t know what the law is doesn’t help.

If the law is ambiguous its not enforceable.

If it doesn't specify when or to whom in detail, then we're not breaking it, because we can point to the stage it is clear who is taking it and say that meets the requirements.

Clearly it is enforceable. There is a catch all statement in the laws that states the referee is the judge of fact and the law. If he decides we have done something he feels is not in line with the laws he can penalise it. There is no court of appeal, it’s his opinion that matters. There is no option for us to say ‘it meets the requirements’.
As I said ages ago I’d hope we’ve had conversations with referees to find out their interpretation.

Given that we've done the exact same thing recently in the Bolton and Rotherham games - with no dissent from anyone with regards this tactic - I really don't think it's anything to be concerned about.

[Pepe the Horseman]

I've not seen anyone else do it but when I tongue in cheekily suggested we'd invented it on twitter someone told me we weren't alone in doing it. I do wonder if we thought about doing it years ago but haven't had the chance to test it out until the Bolton game. Also, if other teams suss it out will we see the keeper make himself look daft as he goes to get in an apparently uninvolved Knibbs' face while Charles stands on the penalty spot?

Trouble is it’s possible illegal.
The laws state the taker of a penalty kick must be clearly identified.
Trouble is it doesn’t say who they must be identified to or when ! It’s also not clear how they should be identified or whether you can change them once identified.
So a ref could consider that Savage had identified himself as the kicker by taking the ball and standing in a position near the spot. That would make anyone else actually taking the kick the incorrect kicker with sanction of a caution and an indirect free kick against us.
Interesting one to get a top level opinion on but you’d hope we would have run it past a ref before hand.

When I played youth football we used to do that corner routine where someone would place the ball down, roll it slightly then call over someone else to take it instead, who would then run in towards goal an usually in our case make the wrong decision and lose the ball.

One week, when our manager told the ref to be on the lookout for it, he unbeknownst to us told the opponents who nicked the ball from our first corner, and scored on the break. Comical.

Samesies. Did you play for Twyford Comets?

[windermereROYAL]

Seeing fat boy and their fans whinging about injustices really is quite funny.

These things have an uncanny habit of turning full circle, One of their players had no problem of getting aggressive against a 16 year old full back up at their place resulting in Kelvin getting a red.

Remind us what the fat cunt said after that.

Fuck them, moan all you like, we don`t care.

[JedMaxwell]

Trouble is it’s possible illegal.
The laws state the taker of a penalty kick must be clearly identified.
Trouble is it doesn’t say who they must be identified to or when ! It’s also not clear how they should be identified or whether you can change them once identified.
So a ref could consider that Savage had identified himself as the kicker by taking the ball and standing in a position near the spot. That would make anyone else actually taking the kick the incorrect kicker with sanction of a caution and an indirect free kick against us.
Interesting one to get a top level opinion on but you’d hope we would have run it past a ref before hand.

When I played youth football we used to do that corner routine where someone would place the ball down, roll it slightly then call over someone else to take it instead, who would then run in towards goal an usually in our case make the wrong decision and lose the ball.

One week, when our manager told the ref to be on the lookout for it, he unbeknownst to us told the opponents who nicked the ball from our first corner, and scored on the break. Comical.

Samesies. Did you play for Twyford Comets?

I did not, but I have a feeling that kind of caper went on a lot back in the day.

[Snowflake Royal]

Seeing fat boy and their fans whinging about injustices really is quite funny.

These things have an uncanny habit of turning full circle, One of their players had no problem of getting aggressive against a 16 year old full back up at their place resulting in Kelvin getting a red.

Remind us what the fat cunt said after that.

Fuck them, moan all you like, we don`t care.

It's not like any of the decisions were actually wrong

[Armadillo Roadkill]

Seeing fat boy and their fans whinging about injustices really is quite funny.

These things have an uncanny habit of turning full circle, One of their players had no problem of getting aggressive against a 16 year old full back up at their place resulting in Kelvin getting a red.

Remind us what the fat cunt said after that.

Fuck them, moan all you like, we don`t care.

It's not like any of the decisions were actually wrong

Having carefully analysed the two main incidents I thought were wrong, I now tend to agree with you.

Hugill on Bindon - right at the last minute there seems to be a pull on his shirt around the shoulder. Without that there wasn't enough for him to go to ground. With it, it's a foul so no goal. Not entirely cut and dried, but not an obvious refereeing mistake either.

The "offside goal." Yes, Mbengue puts it in the net. But the Rotherham player is close enough to the keeper to be considered interfering with play. There wouldn't have been a riot had it stood, but again, no a howler.

Both penalties were penalties.

Still curious about the two-footed lunge on Mbengue that ended in a free kick to them, a really obvious handball right in front of the SJM that the assistant didn't flag.