I know what you mean, but a penalty is about the keeper as much as the kicker.

If the keeper fails to hold the ball or deflect it out of harm's way, then he is culpable. The same in open play and I regret to say we've seen Guaita attempt a few fisted clearances with dire consequences.

A penalty shootout is a whole different matter with a unique set of rules and whilst it seems odd, both players should know what they need to do.

Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled.

I understand why people see it that way, but respectfully disagree. Play should continue, just as it would following a free kick, which is basically what a penalty kick is. The game is still in progress at that stage.

In a penalty shootout though, the ball becomes dead as soon as it stops its forward motion. Play can't be continued to allow any rebounds as the match itself will have already ended in that instance.

With regard to the Arsenal v Villa match though, I half-listened to the game on the radio and it sounded as if play continued after the initial penalty incident for a short time, maybe close to a minute or so before the half-time whistle was blown.

Surely any part of the game that took place between the moment the foul occurred and the intervention by VAR a moment later should have been replayed. Plus, I believe, a further 30 seconds to account for the goal that was scored.

However, there was only enough time given for the penalty, the goal, and the restart, which was hardly any time at all. Enough to allow Arsenal to score, but nothing else. It wouldn't have amounted to much, but the proper length of added time (as I would see it) might have allowed Villa one last attack before the break.

Maybe I'm wrong and the correct time was accounted for, but it didn't seem like it from what I could hear. As for penalty kicks, I'm happy for play to continue if a kick is saved but can see how others might feel differently.

I've just looked it up and it seems that may well be correct, as long as the ball's motion is deemed to have come from the initial kick.

This is from Wikipedia on penalty shootouts. I remember the Bellone incident and had it in mind in my earlier post.

"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. This was clarified after an incident in the 1986 World Cup shoot-out between Brazil and France. Bruno Bellone's kick rebounded out off the post, hit goalkeeper Carlos's back, and subsequently bounced into the goal. Referee Ioan Igna gave the goal to France, and Brazil captain Edinho was booked for protesting that the kick should have been considered a miss as soon as it rebounded off the post. In 1987, the International Football Association Board clarified Law 14, covering penalty kicks, to support Igna's decision."

[Link]

Found it

Edited by cryrst (24 Oct 2021 3.15am)

In short, Yes.

If the ball hits the post without the keeper saving/touching it, and the attacking side puts the rebound in the net, no goal, indirect free-kick to defending side. The ball must touch an opposing player 1st, unless, of course, the penalty kick is cleanly executed.

Many years ago, I was reffing a game, awarded a pen & the attacking captain asked me, do they HAVE to kick directly at goal? All the law stated, was the ball must 'move it's own circumference in a forward motion'. The kicker ran up, touched the ball forwards & to the right & another player came through & scored, cue pandemonium. Perfectly legal as the scorer had not encroached into the box at the point of initial contact.

This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise.