I know you could be tempted to say that the player must be sent-off, but Law 12 says the following (Law 12.3):

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:(...) receiving a second caution in the same match

The point is, kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match. This was written quite clearly in the old Laws of the Game (from the 2012 LoTG):

The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match

But this is actually still true even if the same passage is worded differently in the current Laws (Law 10.3):

Kicks from the penalty mark are taken after the match has ended

Therefore, according to the rules, the player cannot be sent off because he has not received more than one yellow card during the same match. Does it mean the referee will only be able to show the player a yellow card and report the misconduct to the appropriate authorities, but without being able to actually send him off?


A semantic reading suggests this is the case, however one should not interpret the Laws of the Game in a manner that produces an absurd result.

Practical Guidelines for Match Officials [pdf], p. 2:

Referees are expected to use common sense and to apply the ‘spirit of the game’ when applying the Laws of the Game

Interpreting the word in as during, rather than before, during and after in the sending-off offence receiving a second caution in the same match could produce a number of strange results:

  • A player receiving a second caution for dissent when the referee is leaving the field of play could not be sent-off (and receive a subsequent suspension for being sent-off).
  • In your example and hypothetical interpretation, the player commits a second cautionable offence and isn't sent-off. If this was the case, what's to stop them continually committing cautionable offences with no consequences - e.g. goading opponents, dissenting decisions, being generally uncooperative?
  • Related to the above point, if a goalkeeper infringement causes a penalty kick to be retaken, the goalkeeper is cautioned for unsporting behaviour (in the past this caution would occur after persistent offences only). If goalkeepers weren't sent-off for a second caution on this point, this would create a perverse incentive for goalkeepers to infringe without consequence.
| improve this answer | |

The second caution is a red card, and they are then suspended for the remainder of the match.

They then complete the kicks using one less player, and the opponent chooses one player to remove from their lineup, to ensure the teams have the same number of players throughout the kicks.

The answer to Q2 in the FAQ for Law 10 explains the IFAB thinking - to ensure fairness throughout the kicks, not just before them.

| improve this answer | |
  • I have no idea why this answer has been downvoted. This is a valid answer to the questions, based on the Laws of the Game. Can the downvoter leave a comment? – Reinstate Monica 2331977 Feb 1 '19 at 5:41
  • Almost guarantee it's about the personal rather than the post @studro several over the past few months. Probably related to someone disliking the critique they've received on answers that are entirely wrong or irrelevant. – Nij Feb 1 '19 at 7:07
  • If that's the case, that's very poor. You're one of the stronger contributors on the site in the football and rules tags. – Reinstate Monica 2331977 Feb 2 '19 at 8:03
  • Please, forgive me for not commenting here sooner: I don't get any notifications for comments under other people's answers, so I only happened to read them today by pure chance. I was the one downvoting @Niji's answer, but I swear it wasn't personal: I downvoted it because the answer is (in my opinion) completely off-topic. The first sentence simply states that getting a second caution is a red card, but it doesn't address why this should hold during KFTPM as well. Then what comes next is totally unrelated (the equal-number-of-players-etc. fact, which is totally irrelevant to the question). – Labba Feb 9 '19 at 16:46
  • And I don't think that this is "a valid answer to the questions, based on the Laws of the Game" as @studro says, because the Laws actually suggest otherwise if they're read literally, as studro himself points out in his answer (which I upvoted). It's as if I asked 'We all know that we can do X while Y, but can we also do X while Z?", and the answer I got was "Yes, you can do X while Y". – Labba Feb 9 '19 at 16:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.