Coombs two scenarios, both break the rules, one gets another shot the other doesn't.

Funny thing is the goalie breaks the rule on purpose to gain an advantage while the pen taker doesn't yet the latter is punished harsher than the other.

      Yellow for goalie would be a better balancer.
      Ultimately I think this is a one-off situation (an accidental double touch that results in the ball going in).
      I do think it points to one of the (many) general issues with VAR - the infraction needs to be clearly visible, or clearly and quickly established by the technology (as is the case for goal line and semi-automated offsides, also in-out in tennis, etc.) or else no call. Something where we're looking at the slow-mo and arguing about whether it can be seen or not is not what we want. But this particular case is unlikely to happen again.

      jones how does the goalie get an advantage? I don't think this line of reasoning makes any sense. Kicker should have to get it right, no retakes for their own fuckup. Goalie has their save ruled out and they've gotta face a near certain goal again. There is no advantage to a punishment.

          The relative advantage is the chance to correct his fuck-up that the shooter doesn't get.

            Coombs the goalie generally has an advantage committing as early as he can, if he overcommits his punishment is to simply go again. In relation to the taker's punishment on infraction that's definitely an advantage.

            Pen is just a 70% chance btw I think, in a shootout that probably drops even further.

                jones but the goalie gets punished with a penalty. The kicker can't get awarded another penalty for their own error.

                Maybe there should be different rules for shootouts, but I'm not convinced.

                    Coombs a normal penalty is usually the result of the defending team cheating to stop the attacking team. The attacking team should have a big advantage.

                        Qwiss a normal penalty is already an outsized advantage. Most of them go from nothing situations to a 75% chance of scoring a goal. Contrast with a normal shot that is 10-15% chance.

                          Qwiss see the discussion with @Burnwinter above. The balance is already with the attacker, and combined with the increased athleticism and efficacy of compact defending, the risk is that teams play for the set piece too much.

                              Qwiss awarding a penalty in favor of attackers who mess up their spot kick makes even less sense.

                                Coombs he doesn't get punished with a penalty, he already faced one and tried to circumvent the normal distance he should keep between him and ball.

                                It's just a repeat compared to a guy slipping who gets his attempt chalked off it's a very mild punishment, moral hazard even when you consider that a skied pen + goalie too early off the line is not punished either.

                                  Write a Reply...