2014 World Cup

[DannyInvincible]

Here are the rules on penalty kicks: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290872.html

I assume whichever of those rules are applicable also govern shoot-out situations.

The Independent article above features this video of Vlaar's penalty:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0qArCmZmFc

The touch of his shoulder is even clearer in that one yet they invite the viewer to "judge for yourself whether Vlaar touched it or not"...

[DannyInvincible]

Law 14 currently states:


When a penalty kick is taken during the normal course of play, or time has been extended at half-time or full time to allow a penalty kick to be taken or retaken, a goal is awarded if, before passing between the goalposts and under the crossbar:


the ball touches either or both of the goalposts and/or the crossbar and/or the goalkeeper



That would imply the ball can move away from goal before going in again and that the penalty is not complete until the ball stops moving (or until the ref deems it complete, as is also stated). It explicitly covers (and allows for) instances where the ball might rebound off a post away from goal, hit the keeper's back and bounce back into the net behind him.

Was the rule different in 1986? According to this, FIFA clarified the rule after the Bellone controversy: http://web.orange.co.uk/article/gaffer/Penalty-shoot-out-laws

How reliable that is, I'm not sure, but, if they clarified it rather than amended it, it would suggest the rule was always intended to be as is stated above.

Edit: A bit from Balls.ie on it: http://balls.ie/football/rule-clarified-would-ron-vlaars-penalty-have-counted/


...

In the 1986 World Cup, during the France-Brazil penalty shoot-out, a penalty from France’s Bruno Bellone was awarded when hit the post, came out, banged off the goalkeeper and nestled in the corner. Brazilian captain Zico complained and was booked. The following year the law was clarified in support of the referee’s decision.

John Ward, the FAI’s National Referee’s Co-ordinator has further clarified the issue.


Had it spun back in, it would have counted. The penalty would be deemed to be complete had the ball gone had clearly moved away from the goal or had it gone wide, or ended up with a save. But in that case I’ve seen it and had it gone over the line, in my view it would have counted.

There are directives around this. The ball is saved, spins out, up in the air, spins back. It’s one continuous motion almost, rolls along the ground and I would say had that gone in, the goal would have been allowed.

Now, the question here is whether that hit the player and obviously that would rule it out completely.

Ward discounts the ‘forward motion’ argument.


It would have counted because the ball can hit the crossbar, come out and hit the crossbar and go back in.

The FIFA ruling states:


A kick is successful if, having been touched once by the kicker, the ball crosses the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar, without touching any player, official, or outside agent other than the defending goalkeeper.

The ball may touch the goalkeeper, goal posts, or crossbar any number of times before going into the goal as long as the referee believes the ball’s motion is the result of the initial kick.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nhvqIjgQ04

Bellone's penalty is at 3:50.

[Stuttgart88]

Danny, would you award this goal?

My little fella is the goalkeeper.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fB4jKwhxU7A&feature=youtu.be

[Stuttgart88]

Law 14 currently states:



That would imply the ball can move away from goal before going in again and that the penalty is not complete until the ball stops moving (or until the ref deems it complete, as is also stated). It explicitly covers (and allows for) instances where the ball might rebound off a post away from goal, hit the keeper's back and bounce back into the net behind him.

Was the rule different in 1986? According to this, FIFA clarified the rule after the Bellone controversy: http://web.orange.co.uk/article/gaffer/Penalty-shoot-out-laws

How reliable that is, I'm not sure, but, if they clarified it rather than amended it, it would suggest the rule was always intended to be as is stated above.

Edit: A bit from Balls.ie on it: http://balls.ie/football/rule-clarified-would-ron-vlaars-penalty-have-counted/



Bellone's penalty is at 3:50.yep, my recollection is that the rev awarded the goal during the shoutout but at the time the rule was pretty much as soon as the shot had missed it was a miss. So, back then it shouldn't have been a goal.

I think there was a natural justice in the outcome though as France had a certain goal prevented by a professional foul during normal time, enforce the automatic red card rule was introduced too.

My memory is hazy though. Even those of us with autism can forget things.

[BonnieShels]

I would per Law 14.

But I dunno. I'm a bit concerned that the goalposts in question aren't really regulation. I would say Danny has more truck with that as an issue.

[Charlie Darwin]

Danny, would you award this goal?

My little fella is the goalkeeper.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fB4jKwhxU7A&feature=youtu.be
I'd award it over on an amortised basis over the course of five penalties :)

[BonnieShels]

I'd award it over on an amortised basis over the course of five penalties :)

That's too simple. The issue was compounded by the fact that it hit the 'keeper.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Definitely a goal!

And pens are still rank. The only thing the US ever got right was that rushing thing from the halfway line, with 5 seconds to shoot...

The best idea is still extra time and taking a player off every 5 minutes, eventually you get a winner in open play...

[NeverFeltBetter]

Weren't the MLS penalty's dropped after they caused too many injuries or something? I could have sworn I read that somewhere, that goalies were just flinging themselves at the attackers.

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, would you award this goal?

My little fella is the goalkeeper.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fB4jKwhxU7A&feature=youtu.be

*desperately goes in search of rules mentioning tree trunks and buckets*

Hehe, I'd have to give it. That'll teach him not to step off his line early! :p


yep, my recollection is that the rev awarded the goal during the shoutout but at the time the rule was pretty much as soon as the shot had missed it was a miss. So, back then it shouldn't have been a goal.

I'm not sure what the wording of the rule was back in 1986, but if it mentioned something along those lines, one could surely argue simultaneously that so long as the ball proceeded in a continuous motion caused by the taker's kick, the shot was still in process. What could be certain was that the shot going wide would constitute a miss, as would the ball, or shot, coming to a stop.

If the case was that the shot was deemed a miss as soon as the ball's trajectory was diverted from its initial line, what about penalties going in off the post or in off, say, the keeper's outstretched fingertips without having gone backwards? Should they have been discounted too? If you argue that those examples should still have counted, why should an instance where the ball might simply have hit a different part of the post and changed course but still ended up in the net by virtue of a rebound off the keeper's back or heavy back-spin on the ball not also have counted? When would the shot have been deemed a miss in those instances? I can't see how distinction could have been made unless the rule specifically mentioned that a penalty ceased to be in process once the ball was no longer moving forward towards the goal. If it did, then the referee would have been one hundred per cent in the wrong to award Bellone the goal. I have a feeling the rule wouldn't have been so clear-cut though.

[osarusan]

I can't see how distinction could have been made unless the rule specifically mentioned that a penalty ceased to be in process once the ball was no longer moving forward towards the goal. If it did, then the referee would have been one hundred per cent in the wrong to award Bellone the goal. I have a feeling the rule wouldn't have been so clear-cut though.
Laws of the game from 1986, I hope.

http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~david.oshea/FIFA_LOTG_1986_e.pdf

Doesn't specifically mention penalty shootouts though.

The Giuardian had an article on this and they interpreted Rule 14 to support the referee's decision at the time, but Rule 14 deals with penalties in normal play, rather than in shootouts.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/jul/05/worldcup2006.sport1

DOES THAT COUNT?

"I was watching an old video of the France/Brazil classic at Mexico 86 the other day, when Bruno Bellone's penalty in the shoot-out hit the post, flew off the back of the keeper and went in. Surely it shouldn't have counted? In a shoot-out, isn't the ball dead the moment it hits the post and moves away from the goal?" asks Paul Roper.

Not exactly, Paul: after having a solid sniff through Fifa's official laws of the game, it seems Bellone's penalty was indeed perfectly legit. Here's Law 14: "When a penalty kick is taken ... a goal is awarded if, before passing between the goalposts and under the crossbar, the ball touches either or both of the goalposts and/or the crossbar and/or the goalkeeper." So there you go.

The issue of when the penalty is considered missed/ball is considered dead must be defined somewhere.

[centre mid]

IIRC the law was clarified after the 86' World Cup specifically because of Bellone's penalty. I'm damned if I can find it anywhere though, I think as long as the referee is happy that there has been no additional touch by the player who takes the penalty then it can hit the post/keeper etc.

[DannyInvincible]

Laws of the game from 1986, I hope.

http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~david.oshea/FIFA_LOTG_1986_e.pdf

Doesn't specifically mention penalty shootouts though.

Aye, had noticed that with the contemporary law 14 too. On the face of it, law 14 would seem to govern (only?) normal in-play penalties. However, it does specify that the referee can decide when the penalty situation is complete. Would that imply it might also cover a shoot-out situation where the need to make such a call might be more commonplace or usual than in a normal in-play situation where the ball will either go out of play or remain in play? Perhaps the relevant sections of the rule (whatever a ref/FIFA might deem them to be) cover shoot-out situations also? Maybe not, and we shouldn't necessarily assume in the absence of evidence or instruction.

OK, just having a further look around as I type and I see shoot-outs are specifically mentioned elsewhere in guideline-style documents. I can find 'Procedures to determine the winner of a match of home-and-away: Kicks from the penalty mark' (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290880.html), for example, which states in specific relation to shoot-out kicks:


Unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game and International F.A. Board Decisions apply when kicks from the penalty mark are being taken

Seems the relevant aspects of law 14 do apply to shoot-outs then.

In terms of the 1986 penalty procedure, the rule-book then stated:


The player taking the kick must kick the ball forward; he shall not play the ball a second time until it has been touched or played by another player. The ball shall be deemed in play directly it is kicked, i.e. when it has traveled the distance of its circumference, and a goal may be scored directly from a penalty-kick. If the ball touches the goalkeeper before passing between the posts, when a penalty-kick is being taken at or after the expiration of half-time or full-time, it does not nullify a goal.

The ball must first have been kicked forward but it doesn't state that it must always have been travelling in a forward motion towards the goal nor does it say that it was deemed a miss once it travelled in a motion back away from goal. It even specifies that contact with the goalkeeper would not have nullified the penalty (although it mentions nothing about goal posts or rebounding off them and in off the keeper), so you'd have to assume (if that rule on the procedure of the kick also covered shoot-outs) that Bellone's goal was perfectly legitimate after all.

Edit: I'm trying to find the official source of these paragraphs quoted by Ball.ie:


A kick is successful if, having been touched once by the kicker, the ball crosses the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar, without touching any player, official, or outside agent other than the defending goalkeeper.

The ball may touch the goalkeeper, goal posts, or crossbar any number of times before going into the goal as long as the referee believes the ball’s motion is the result of the initial kick.

They feature in numerous recent articles and forum threads around the internet relating to Vlaar's penalty, but I can't see them mentioned at all in any FIFA document. It seems they featured on this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)) but have since been edited out due to alleged lack of supporting sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penalty_shoot-out_%28association_football%29&diff=616589566&oldid=616527131).

[DannyInvincible]

Some further info from Wikipedian jnestorius posted on the penalty shoot-out talk-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)#Rebound.2FSaved.2FGoal. 3F) in response to a question about the amusing Moroccan shoot-out incident mentioned on the last page of this thread:


Does anyone know what the correct procedure is for this penalty shoot-out situation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNC-gvoZEFM

Should this actually be a goal, as it has at that point rebounded off the keeper, and it appears at this point the kick should be over. there is nothing in the current article that actually covers it. Auto98uk (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


The ref was right, the keeper was foolish. The Madrid Rule paragraph is relevant; bouncing off the keeper and/or woodwork does not mean the kick is "over". Although the initial kick must be taken forwards, the ball's subsequent direction of movement is immaterial. The Madrid Rule is in fact part of Law 14 (for the penalty kick) rather than specific to the shootout; the shootout rules use Law 14 by default but obviously override much of it (where other players stand, etc). In Law 14, deciding when a penalty kick is "over" becomes relevant only in the rare case that the penalty is the last kick of the half. Obviously the funny incident in the youtube clip is far less likely in ordinary play. The final get-out clause is that the ref decides when a penalty kick is over. The match apparently (yahoo.fr (http://fr.sports.yahoo.com/10092010/79/le-penalty-le-plus-dingue-de-l-histoire_1.html)) was in the 2010 Coupe du Trône eighth-finals; FAR Rabat keeper was Khalid Askri. Maghreb Fez kicker's name is Mohamed Ali Benaamar according to this fansite (http://www.massawi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:les-tigres-ecartent-les-far-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=62#comments), though I don't know which player on Wikipedia's team roster that corresponds to. jnestorius(talk) 18:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)



Thanks for the reply & clarification Auto98uk (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He mentions a "Madrid rule", which, upon further investigation, appears to be a popular term applied to the post-1986 change/clarification.

I think that's about as much info/clarification as there is available on this matter.

We know that Bellone's 1986 penalty would definitely have been a goal under current rules and I don't see why it shouldn't have counted in 1986 either (assuming the rule quoted above would have applied). As for Vlaar's penalty (had it not rebounded off his shoulder and had it crossed the line), the situation isn't as clear-cut, but I would have to assume it would have counted as I'm not sure how you could otherwise argue that the motion of the ball caused by the initial kick had come to a stop. (Unless, of course, the referee decided to intervene and deem the kick complete.) Surely it's self-evident that a penalty would still in process so long as the ball is still in travelling in a continuous motion caused by the kick? If the keeper firmly caught a kick (taking control of the ball) and, for whatever reason, dropped the ball or even threw it back into the net, for example, that certainly wouldn't count in my book as it would be fair to assume the ball crossing the line would not have been caused by a continuous motion from the initial kick.

[DannyInvincible]

I see Ángel di María has been nominated for the Golden Ball award along with a number of other (more worthy) players: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28274011


Argentina have three nominees in Angel Di Maria, Javier Mascherano and Lionel Messi, while their opponents in Sunday's final, Germany, have four.

Mats Hummels, Toni Kroos, Phillip Lahm and Thomas Muller are the players nominated from Joachim Low's side.

Colombia's James Rodriguez, Brazil's Neymar and Arjen Robben of Netherlands complete the 10-man shortlist.

Fifa has also announced the nominees for the Golden Glove competition, awarded to the best goalkeeper at the World Cup.

Costa Rica's Keylor Navas, Germany's Manuel Neuer and Argentina's Sergio Romero will compete for the prize.

Meanwhile, Netherlands' Memphis Depay and Paul Pogba and Raphael Varane of France have been nominated for the best young player at the tournament.

The winners of each competition are to be announced after Sunday's final.

That's a bit of a surprise. Di María's had a pretty poor tournament, hasn't he? In spite of his goal, he was downright awful against Switzerland. In fact, Argentina haven't impressed me at all, yet the fact they've made the final, by just about doing enough along the way, now means you see a third of their team receiving undue recognition as potential best-player-of-the-tournament candidates. Well, OK, Messi and Mascherano I can allow, but their keeper hasn't done a huge deal to stand out. I'd give the out-field award to Thomas Müller for his goals and endeavour. There'll be another goal or two in him at least.

For sentiment's sake, it would be nice to see Navas win the keeper award as he was just so crucial to Costa Rica's impressive progression through to the quarter-finals, but I can't see FIFA not awarding it to the supremely impressive, as ever, Neuer, unless he has an absolute stinker tomorrow evening. Algeria's keeper M'Bolhi and Mexico's Ochoa also impressed me, but I suppose it would be difficult to justify nominating players who went home early, so they've instead elevated the fairly quiet Sergio Romero (besides his semi-final penalty shoot-out heroics) to potential goalkeeper-of-the-tournament status.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't think Di Maria's had a poor tournament but I wouldn't have said he was a star either, especially when it looks like he might miss three of the seven games. Lahm's inclusion is far more baffling.

[bennocelt]

Id actually give player of the tournament to Neuer. Brilliant goalkeeping, forward passing and one of the best defenders in the tournament.

[davidatrb]

Can someone tell me if Germany get to keep the trophy outright if they win it this year. It will be their third time winning the new fifa trophy. The last trophy was given to Brazil in 1970 when they won it three times. Will fifa design a new trophy?

[pineapple stu]

Wikipedia says it can't be won outright.

Brazil got to keep it in 1970 because the trophy was fully engraved, and as either they or Italy (their opponents) would win it the third time, it seemed fitting to let them keep it.

The current trophy will need replacing for the 2030 World Cup.

[tetsujin1979]

Italy didn't get to keep it in 1982 after winning it for the third time, so I don't think so

[BonnieShels]

Italy didn't get to keep it in 1982 after winning it for the third time, so I don't think so

Italy's win in 1982 was only their first win of the new trophy though.

[pineapple stu]

More favouritism for the refs to Brazil; how that wasn't a red is beyond me.

(Though in fairness, maybe it wasn't a penalty but a free on the edge)

Will Brazil implode again? Wouldn't put it past them. Holland certainly won't fear them like Colombia or Chile might have.

[DannyInvincible]

Bad start for Brazil. Another rout on the cards then?... Silva's initial pull was definitely outside the box, but he's lucky to remain on the pitch as that was the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

[DannyInvincible]

This is going to be painful viewing.

[pineapple stu]

De Guzman was offside for that pass down the line.

Makes it what - 15-1 for bad refereeing decisions in Brazil's favour?

Mourinho must be laughing his head off with his £50m. Brazil are like a schoolboy team.

[BonnieShels]

YUP!

But thankfully the din has been quelled somewhat with that Blind goal. Worse than a vuvuzela.

[DannyInvincible]

Blind had all day long inside the box to stick it in. David Luiz very much to blame once again.

The atmosphere is totally dead now.

I didn't see the bench line-ups at the beginning but I see Neymar in the dug-out all kitted out and wearing a bib. Is he actually fit enough for a return to action or is he trying to provide spiritual guidance of some sort to his mere mortal team-mates?

[Charlie Darwin]

Comment of the year goes to the guy on twitter who asked if anyone's ever finished fifth after the 3rd/4th place playoff.

edit: no, Neymar can't play, he can barely walk. He'd still be their best player, mind.

[pineapple stu]

I think 16 is the most amount of goals a team has ever conceded at a World Cup (South Korea in 1954)

Brazil are on 13.

Did Oscar mean to trip himself up there? That's a novel way of diving if so. A suitable Brazilian novelty for this tournament.

[Stuttgart88]

I agree with MON on itv's analysis. So what if Silva's foul was technically outside the box. It was a penalty.

The rule isn't there to say a foul 17 yards 11 inches from goal is penalised by a near certain goal but a foul 2 inches further out is a near certain non-goal.

If that was rugby it was a penalty try.

Penalty was fair decision.

Technically it was a red card too but again it was the right call only to award the penalty. I know the rules but still, a penalty is typically a sufficient punishment.

I think it was osarusan back in the spring who came up with the definitive rule of thumb in this situation.

[pineapple stu]

Pfft. ITV analysis. Tonight is RTÉ and Apres Match all the way! Always enjoy this bit.

Watching Brazil is like seeing how the 1970 team would defend in the modern game.

*Runs*

[Charlie Darwin]

You're getting into morality again Stutts. It's Robben all over again.

[Stuttgart88]

I don't have RTE in North West London.

ITV commentator talking about the problems facing Brazil and how only now are they starting to think about it. They don't have a strong league. The public don't relate to the well paid overseas players. The public only gets behind the team when they're successful (prior to Confed cup they weren't popular), best players leave the country before 15.

My god, we're just like Brazil.

Not to mention incompetent and corrupt state and NGB.

[BonnieShels]

I have it in Central Ottawa. RTE.ie and unblock-us.com

[pineapple stu]

This ref is having a shocker. Doesn't matter that Oscar started a bit of a dive before being clattered; that's a penalty.

Brazil could be down to nine men with some of the challenges they're putting in (allowing a red in the first minute)

[Stuttgart88]

Omg, that was a nailed on penalty.

What was I saying about bone to bone. Bloody hurts. This time it was the fouler though. Surely the ref must be seeing Blind stretchered off after an alleged dive by his opponent and thinks, oh oh.

[BonnieShels]

It never gets old this Brazil losing lark.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Forget Apres Match, Alkin and Kerr were in fine form tonight. Obviously no longer gave a toss about the competition, spent half the night cracking awful jokes about the two teams, with Kerr keeping up his "Namedrop Irish club football" streak.

[BonnieShels]

That's the proper way to treat such a non-event of a game.

[Crosby87]

Anyone looking forward to this or has this tourney taken such a boring path that its sucked out all of your enthusiasm?
And how are fans of the game who happen to be Jewish rooting? Where the nazis lived and worked, then where they retired to.

[NeverFeltBetter]

That's the proper way to treat such a non-event of a game.

3rd Place Play-Off has had the benefit of having some decent enough games over the last few tournaments - I still think Germany/Uruguay was the best game of the tournament in 2010 - but when its stinker like this you really do start to question why its still played.

[BonnieShels]

That's GER-URU game was a rarity. Especially considering that it was bonus territory for both teams.

This time round the two teams didn't want to be there. The Dutch though showed their professionalism.

[Stuttgart88]

Anyone looking forward to this or has this tourney taken such a boring path that its sucked out all of your enthusiasm?
And how are fans of the game who happen to be Jewish rooting? Where the nazis lived and worked, then where they retired to.
Crozzer, by all means bring your quirky wit to these pages but if you have lost interest in the tournament, which you clearly did a while back, maybe just sit out this section of the forum?

[Crosby87]

I was curious what you guys felt about it. Apologies. Im down on sports. I mean this baseball season is widely regarded as awful but I still watch the mets.
But this is a pretty good match so far I guess.

[BonnieShels]

That it is. Best final in a long while.

I still think that Germany left a lot out there against Brazil.

[osarusan]

Thought it was pretty poor stuff myself. Very few chances created, apart from two that the Germans handed to the Argentinians. Very well taken goal from Goetze though.

Germany are worthy winners of the tournament, but that final wasn't great at all.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Not a really brilliant final. Very tense alright, and watchable. But long boring stretches, especially in the second. Germany the better side, big time. Delighted this squad has won a trophy. Argentina lucky to finish with 11, which annoyed me.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Messi winning the Golden Ball is a disgraceful decision, pure and simple.

[Stuttgart88]

I'm glad the final was won by a truly great goal. The game itself had all the makings of a taut tense classic, but like the Dutch / Argentina game it needed a good final phase to be considered a great game rather than a dull sluggfest.

I think it was an important outcome for football generally. What'd be the point of a really fun tournament with lots of goals and, in most cases, good contests played by teams looking to win and in a generally fair manner, if a team tuned up to draw 0-0 twice in a row and win on pens?

Germany weren't perfect but they deserved it. Great outcome for football - our sport / my sport and lifelong passion - and, importantly, Ordoliberalism.

(Look it up)

Shame about Rovers today though :(

[Charlie Darwin]

I thought that was a really good game. Lots of mistakes by both sides but lots of quality too and lots of heart and commitment. The big players all played well.