2014 World Cup

[DannyInvincible]

An interesting dissection of last night's penalty shoot-out by London School of Economics professor and "definitive penalty expert" Ignacio Palacios-Huerta: http://www.thescore.ie/argentina-hol...64101-Jul2014/

A most important aspect was van Persie being brought off. Afterwards, Van Gaal said that he would have introduced Tim Krul had he more subs left. I’m not sure it’s entirely ‘correct’ to put Ron Vlaar first. If you construct an index of ‘penalty kick importance’, it looks like a U-shape – that is the most important penalties are the first and the last. This is why I thought Van Gaal had Van Persie take the first kick against Costa Rica. Perhaps Van Gaal thought that Vlaar, who had an excellent game, was in the right psychological frame of mind and was the best possible choice. But Argentina chose Messi as their first taker!

...

With Vlaar missing and Messi scoring, Holland’s initial 60-40 advantage quickly turned into a 31-69 disadvantage. But why didn’t Cillessen stop Messi’s kick? Last season, Messi put 5 kicks to the right and 4 to the left. 1 goalkeeper dived to the right and 8 to the left. Surely Messi was thinking that the right side was working very well for him. Did Cillessen know this? If he did, did he remember this?

...

Indeed, Van Gaal did state that he'd asked Vlaar to go up first because he "thought he was the best player on the pitch so should have confidence". I'm not sure how that apparent expression of faith in hindsight corresponded with him supposedly having also asked two refuseniks to take the first penalty before resorting to asking Vlaar, though...

[CraftyToePoke]

Netherlands coach Louis van Gaal says two of his players refused to take the first penalty in their World Cup semi-final shootout defeat by Argentina. Defender Ron Vlaar stepped up but Sergio Romero saved his kick. Argentina went on to win the shootout 4-2 and will face Germany in Sunday's final.

They don't call it, needing Dutch courage, for nothing.

[geysir]

An interesting dissection of last night's penalty shoot-out by London School of Economics professor and "definitive penalty expert" Ignacio Palacios-Huerta: http://www.thescore.ie/argentina-hol...64101-Jul2014/



Indeed, Van Gaal did state that he'd asked Vlaar to go up first because he "thought he was the best player on the pitch so should have confidence". I'm not sure how that apparent expression of faith in hindsight corresponded with him supposedly having also asked two refuseniks to take the first penalty before resorting to asking Vlaar, though...

It's par for the course from Van Gaal. He's the clear winner of the WC 2014 self-grandiosment award

In the qf shoot out, the Dutch were excellent, a focussed group and confidently scored all their efforts. Van Gaal steps up to receive the praise for his intervention, a masterstroke, a genius a brave decision etc Van Gall basked in his glory for a few days.
For the SF shoot out, it was the players who bottled it, not Van Gaal.

[Stuttgart88]

I love how there are experts in the science of penalties. Ben Littleton (?) has just written a book on it.

Yesterday I was picking my son up from summer football camp. I was early. I took about 20 penalises into an open goal while I was waiting for him. I was trying to score "good" penalties, firm and close to the posts. About ten were just as I wanted them. About 5 were awful, if the keeper had guessed right he'd have saved them easily. About 5 were ok. Even a good guess and it was touch and go. I hit an early one over so I went low the rest of the time!

There was no science in it at all!

[achillrover]

for anyone thats fancying having a nibble on Germany on Sunday, you can get them here at 3/1 if you have a PP account

Available to first 400 paddy power account holders- old and new. Just follow the link and input your paddy power acc details to get the enhancement.


http://cob.uy/6d0c7f

[Stuttgart88]

See the link embedded in this article, suggesting backspin nearly led to Vlaar's penalty going in.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/g...g-9600224.html


Here's another angle

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2AfxFelj4

[Stuttgart88]

I enjoyed this contribution by Mark Steel in today's Indy

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-9598686.html

[DannyInvincible]

See the link embedded in this article, suggesting backspin nearly led to Vlaar's penalty going in.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/g...g-9600224.html


Here's another angle

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2AfxFelj4

The footage from closer up shows Vlaar flicked the ball ever so slightly with his shoulder after it came back to him. It was very slight - it pretty much skimmed off him - but it was definitely enough to interrupt the ball's trajectory away from goal and possibly increase the back-spin on it.



I don't know why some media outlets are still making out as if there is any debate over whether or not he touched it/it touched him. Well, it's saturation coverage, isn't it? It's pretty clear there was contact though. Besides, the ball stopped on the line as it returned back towards goal, so much ado about nothing really.

[pineapple stu]

Is the old rule about a shoot-out penalty being dead once the ball stops going forward gone?

(Thinking Bruno Bellone in 1982, which shouldn't have stood)

[DannyInvincible]

Is the old rule about a shoot-out penalty being dead once the ball stops going forward gone?

(Thinking Bruno Bellone in 1982, which shouldn't have stood)

It must be. Are you sure the rule wasn't/isn't simply that the ball must be kicked forward? This one was given in a Moroccan fixture between FAR Rabat and Maghreb Fez in 2010 despite the ball going back from goal due to the keeper's save before backspin took it back in and over the line:

[DannyInvincible]

Here are the rules on penalty kicks: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footba...d=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:



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/gaff...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-clarif...-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.

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=fB4jKw...ature=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/gaff...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-clarif...-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=fB4jKw...ature=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=fB4jKw...ature=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!

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.