The mere presence of a goalkeeper affects the accuracy of penalty kicks

Abstract

Abstract The keeper-independent strategy, in which a football penalty kicker selects a target location in advance and ignores the goalkeeper's actions during the run-up, has been suggested to be the preferable strategy for taking a penalty kick. The current in-field experiment investigated the question of whether the goalkeeper can indeed be ignored. Ten intermediate-level football players were instructed to adopt a goalkeeper-independent strategy and to perform penalty kicks directed at one of two targets located in the upper corners of the goal under three conditions: without a goalkeeper, in the presence of a goalkeeper (who tried to save the ball), and in the presence of a goalkeeper who was informed by the penalty kickers where they intended to direct the ball. The mere presence of a goalkeeper impaired shot accuracy. The shots were more centralised, that is, biased toward the goalkeeper. The effects were enhanced for the condition in which the penalty kicker knew the goalkeeper was knowledgeable about ball direction. The findings were consistent with the response activation model that holds that aiming at a target can be biased toward salient visual non-targets. The implications for adopting and practising goalkeeper-independent strategies are discussed.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [USP University of Sao Paulo]
On: 25 February 2013, At: 14:26
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sports Sciences
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
The mere presence of a goalkeeper affects the
accuracy of penalty kicks
Martina Navarro
a
b
, John van der Kamp
b
c
, Ronald Ranvaud
a
& Geert J. P. Savelsbergh
b
d
a
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of
São Paulo, Brazil
b
Research Institute Move, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
c
Institute of Human Performance, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
d
Institute for Biomedical Research into Human Movement and Health, Manchester
Metropolitan University, Manchester
Version of record first published: 29 Jan 2013.
To cite this article: Martina Navarro , John van der Kamp , Ronald Ranvaud & Geert J. P. Savelsbergh
(2013): The mere presence of a goalkeeper affects the accuracy of penalty kicks, Journal of Sports Sciences,
DOI:10.1080/02640414.2012.762602
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.762602
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The mere presence of a goalkeeper affects the accuracy of penalty kicks
MARTINA NAVARRO
1,2
, JOHN VAN DER KAMP
2,3
, RONALD RANVAUD
1
, & GEERT J. P.
SAVELSBERGH
2,4
1
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil,
2
Research
Institute Move, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
3
Institute of Human
Performance, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, and
4
Institute for Biomedical Research into Human Movement and
Health, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester
(Accepted 20 December 2012)
Abstract
The keeper-independent strategy, in which a football penalty kicker selects a target location in advance and ignores the
goalkeeper’s actions during the run-up, has been suggested to be the preferable strategy for taking a penalty kick. The
current in-field experiment investigated the question of whether the goalkeeper can indeed be ignored. Ten intermediate-
level football players were instructed to adopt a goalkeeper-independent strategy and to perform penalty kicks directed at
one of two targets located in the upper corners of the goal under three conditions: without a goalkeeper, in the presence of a
goalkeeper (who tried to save the ball), and in the presence of a goalkeeper who was informed by the penalty kickers where
they intended to direct the ball. The mere presence of a goalkeeper impaired shot accuracy. The shots were more
centralised, that is, biased toward the goalkeeper. The effects were enhanced for the condition in which the penalty kicker
knew the goalkeeper was knowledgeable about ball direction. The findings were consistent with the response activation
model that holds that aiming at a target can be biased toward salient visual non-targets. The implications for adopting and
practising goalkeeper-independent strategies are discussed.
Keywords: penalty kicking, far aiming, keeper-independent strategy, response activation model, ironic effects
Introduction
The study of penalty kicks in football has become an
increasingly popular research topic that attracts
interest not only from areas that are directly sports-
related, such as biomechanics (Graham-Smith, Lees,
& Richardson, 1999; Lees & Owens, 2011) and
(sport-) psychology (Jordet, Hartman, & Vuijk,
2012; Navarro et al., 2012, Wood & Wilson,
2011), but also from areas as diverse as economics
(Bar-Eli, Azar, & Lurie, 2009; Bar-Eli, Azar, Ritov,
Keidar-Levin, & Schein, 2007; Coloma, 2007) and
mathematics (Vars, 2009). Since the outcomes of
important footba ll matches are progressively more
likely to be decided by penalty kicks (e.g., most
recently 2 out of 7 matches in the knock-out stage
of the Union of European Football Association
(UEFA) EURO 2012), many of these studies pri-
marily focus on delineating the most favourable
strategy for taking a penalty kick (van der Kamp,
2011; Wood & Wilson, 2011). Considering that
penalty kickers are supposed to have an overwhelm-
ing advantage over goalkeepers, adopting and train-
ing the more favourable strategy (or one that is
superior to the kicker’s current strategy) may signifi-
cantly improve success rate, which on average seems
conspicuously low (i.e., approximately 20–25% of
the shots are missed or saved, Jordet, Hartman,
Visscher, & Lemmink, 2007).
Kuhn (1988; see also Morya, Ranvau d, &
Machado-Pinheiro, 2003) was the first to investigate
the strategies that penalty kickers adopt. He distin-
guished two strategies that are now identified as the
‘keeper-independent’ (i.e., originally dubbed ‘open
loop’ by Kuhn) and ‘keeper-dependent’ (i.e., first
called ‘closed loop’) strategies (van der Kamp,
2006). In the former strategy, the penalty kicker
chooses where to aim the ball before the run-up
and holds to that choice during the run-up and
kick. Any action of the goalkeeper during the run-
up is ignored. Alternatively, in the second strategy,
the penalty kicker intends to kick the ball to the side
Correspondence: Martina Navarro, Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, USP Av. Prof Lineu Prestes, 1524, Cidade
Universitaria 05508-900, Sao Paulo/SP, Brazil. E-mail: martina.navarro@usp.br
Journal of Sports Sciences, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.762602
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

opposite to which the goalkeeper dives. To this end,
he or she tries to anticipate the direction of the goal-
keeper dive by obtaining information from the goal-
keeper’s action during the run-up.
At first gla nce, a shot to the side opposite to the
goalkeeper’s dive prevents the goalkeeper from inter-
cepting the ball and lessens the requirement for kick-
ing accuracy. After all, the ball is shot to the empty
half of the goal. Yet, research has indicated that the
keeper-dependent strategy can only be successful if
the information about the direction of the goal-
keeper’s dive can be picked up relatively early in
the run-up. Van der Kamp (2006, 2011; see also
Morya, Ranvaud, et al., 2003) showed that if goal-
keepers make their first move within approximately
400 ms prior to foot-ball contact, kickers are less
likely to succeed in placing the ball to the empty
half of the goal and furthermore kick accuracy
tends to be poor. In other words, penalty kickers
need a minimum amount of time to be able to
determine the side to whi ch to kick the ball and
accurately perform the kicking action. Navarro
et al. (2012) suggests that these effects are further
exacerbated under high-pressure. The keeper-
dependent strategy may also be challenging due to
constraints related to visual attention. It is well-
established that focusing on and fixating a target
prior to and during the m ovement is essential in far
aiming tasks in general (Vickers, 2007). Fixation not
only allows the pickup of visual information neces-
sary for accurate control of movement parameters
such as direction and force of the aiming action
(e.g., Vickers, 1996), but eye movements also
makes non-visual information available (e.g., efference
copy, or eye muscle propriocepsis) that can be
exploited for accurate spatial control of the aiming
action (Land & Hayhoe, 2001; Land, Mennie, &
Rusted, 1999; Wilson, Stephenson, Chattington, &
Marple-Horvat, 2007). In penalty kicking a focus on
(or eye movements toward) the goalkeeper rather
than the target area jeopardises accuracy (Bakker,
Oudejans, Binsch, & van der Kamp, 2006; Noël &
van der Kamp, 2012; van der Kamp, 2011; Wilson,
Wood, & Vine, 2009). Notwithstanding the risks
associated with the keeper-dependent strategy, it is
likely that penalty kickers at times adopt it, and
according to some authors more often than not
(Kuhn, 1988; Wood & Wilson, 2010a).
In contrast to the keeper-dependent strategy, the
keeper-independent strategy seems the more cau-
tious and powerful approach for taking penalty
kicks. First, descriptive analyses from international
competitions reveal that goalkeepers never saved
shots that are directed at one of the two upper corners
of the goal (Armatas, Yiannakos, Papadopoulou, &
Galazoulas, 2007; Morya, Bigatão, Lees, & Ranvaud,
2003), suggesting that aiming at these areas is
favourable for achieving success. Moreover, a few
biomechanical studies (Graham-Smith et al. 1999;
Kerwin & Bray, 2006) measu red the time that goal-
keepers take to dive and reach different areas of the
goal. Based on these measurements it is clear that if
penalty kickers choose to kick at one of the upper cor-
ners with moderate force (i.e., with a speed > 22 m· s
−1
),
then it would be impossible for a goalkeeper to
intercept the ball. This is true, even if the goal-
keeper anticipates the direction of the ball with a
movement onset as early as 300 ms before the
kicker’s foot-ball cont act. Finally, the goalkeeper
independent strategy permits a more adaptive pattern
of gaze fixations (Noël & van der Kamp, 2012;
Wood & Wilson, 2011), a prerequisite to be suc-
cessful in aiming tasks. Without focusing on the
goalkeeper, penalty kickers can direct their atten-
tional focus to areas that are more important for the
accurate execution of the kick, such as the target
and the ball (Noël & van der Kamp, 2012).
Although it seems clear that to adopt a keeper-
independent strategy is the more favourable choice,
it may be difficult for penalty kickers to completely
ignore the goalkeeper. Penalty kickers can be influ-
enced unwillingly by the actions (and possibly the
mere presence) of a goalkeeper, with performance
suffering as a consequence. Masters, van der Kamp,
and Jackson (2007) demonstrated that if goalkeepers
simply stand marginally off-centre, even if the penalty
kicker is not consciously aware of this, there may be
an influence on the kicker’s shot direction.
Furthermore, van der Kamp and Masters (2008)
demonstrated that a goalkeeper’s posture influences
the perception of their size, resulting in subtle influ-
ences on the location to which the penalty kicker
shoots the ball. Finally, Wood and Wilson (2010b)
showed that if a goalkeeper waves his arms, this
attracts visual attention of the penalty kicker, leading to
sub-optimal gaze patterns and impaired shot accuracy.
It may be that the mere presence of the goalkeeper
affects shot accuracy. An analogy can perhaps be
found in the literature on the role of visual non-
target objects (that are not necessarily physical obsta-
cles) in reaching and grasping tasks (Howard &
Tipper, 1997; Tipper, Howard, & Jackson, 1997;
Welsh, Elliott, & Weeks, 1999). These studies have
reported that visual non-target objects that surround
the target influence the trajectory of the target-directed
hand movement by either veering away from
(Howard & Tipper, 1997; Tipper et al., 1997) or
towards the visual non-target object (Welsh et al.,
1999; Welsh & Elliott, 2004). To explain these
effects, the response activation model (Welsh &
Elliott, 2004; for an alternative explanation, see
Howard & Tipper, 1997) proposes that prior to
the execution of an action attention is dis tributed
throughout the environment. As a result, both target
2 M. Navarro et al.
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

and non-target objects activate automatic indepen-
dent and parallel action response processes. Both
action response processes race toward activation
(see McGarry & Franks, 1997). It is the resulting
combined activation of these independent processes
that in the end determines the details of the action
response directed to a target object. Inhibitory pro-
cesses are responsible for eliminating competing
action responses to non-target objects. The influence
of the inhibitory processes is dependent on the
moment (relative to the onset of the action response)
that the visual non-target is presented and on its
salience. In the case of a visual non-target object that
is present very early and is indistinct, inhibitory
processes will result in negative activation, affecting
the combined activation such that the movement
veers away from the non-target object. However, the
response activation process for a visual non-target
object that is presented late and/or is very salient
is much more difficult to inhibit. The response
toward the non-target object will be incorporated
in the combined final action response, resulting in the
movement being attracted toward the non-target
object. In the penalty kick, if the kicker adopts a
goalkeeper-independent strategy, the goalkeeper
may be considered as a visual non-target object. In
this scenario, the response activation model predicts
that even the mere presence of the goalkeeper can
affect, unconsciously, the placement of the ball rela-
tive to the target (i.e., corner). The direction of this
effect (i.e., away from or closer to the goalkeeper)
will depend, in large part, on the degree of salience
of the goalkeeper (e.g., arm waving may make the
goalkeeper more salient, resulting in closer shots,
Wood & Wilson, 2010a). The mere presence of the
goalkeeper may affect ball placement, even when a
goalkeeper-independent strategy is adopted.
We examined whether penalty kickers are able to
adopt a strategy in which they totally ignore the goal-
keeper. Although previously researchers have shown
that this is the more favourable strategy, the question
of whether the simple presen ce of a goalkeeper may
jeopardise kic king accuracy and speed has not been
addressed. This effect may be present even though
kickers are fully aware that a goalkeeper is incapable
of intercepting a ball directed to one of the two
upper corners (at least when the kick is sufficiently
powerful). Thus, in the current study, participants
were required to shoo t the ball hard enough, aiming
at a specified area of the goal, located in the upper
corners, with and without the presence of a goal-
keeper. Comparing shot accuracies in these condi-
tions should uncover whether the presence of a
goalkeeper can be ignored (as is presumed with a
goalkeeper-independent strategy) or whether his or
her presence as a visual non-target object affects shot
placement along the lines suggested by the response
activation model. In addition, a third condition was
created to enhance any effect that might be present
by increasing the salience of the goalkeeper. To this
end, the kicker informed the goalkeeper of the
intended target before taking the kick. Knowing
that the goalkeeper is aware of the target location
should not be releva nt to the outcome, if kickers
shoot with sufficient accuracy and power, but it
may increase the goalkeeper’s salience or threat. On
the one hand, if a kicker can ignore the presence of
the goalkeeper, as is required for the goalkeeper-
independent strategy, then ball placement should
not depend on whether or not a goalkeeper is pre-
sent. This means that the number of target hits and
the distance between the target and where the ball
intersects the goalmouth should not differ across
conditions. On the other hand, if a kicker cannot
fully ignore the pr esence of the goalkeeper, that is,
if the presence of a goalkeeper functions as a visual
non-target object, then shots may be biased away or
towards the goalkeeper, depending on the goal-
keeper’s salience.
Methods
Participants
Twenty-seven male skilled university footballers,
who played competitively in Du tch amateur leagues,
volunteered to take part. The pretest consisted of 20
shots aimed at a 1 m by 1 m target straight in front of
them, placed on a wall at a distance of 11 m. The
pretest was conducted to ascertain that the partici-
pants were sufficiently skilled to aim the ball in one
of the two top corners during the main experiment.
The first 10 participants (mean age = 19.1 years,
s = 1.9) who hit the target at least 18 times (i.e.,
90% success) were selected to participa te in the main
study. In addition, two amateur goalkeepers (26 and
29 years in age) participated in the experiment. The
approval of the local ethical committee was obtained
before the experiments were carried out, and parti-
cipants provided informed cons ent prior to testing.
Apparatus
Participants took penalty kicks on an official grass
pitch. The size of the goal, the distance of the penalty
spot from the goal and the ball were all in accor-
dance with FIFA laws. Two pieces of orange PVC
canvas measuring 1.8 m in width and 1.6 m in heigh t
were attached between the crossbar and each goal-
post, indicating the two target areas (Figure 1). The
size and locati on of these target areas were chosen
based on descriptive analyses from international
competitions, showing that in these areas it is very
difficult if not impossible for goalkeepers to save a
Goalkeeper affects the accuracy of penalty kicks 3
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

penalty. At the centre of each PVC canvas, there was
a target, consisting of black circle 22 cm in diameter
(i.e., the same as the ball diameter). Participants
were explicitly instructed to aim for the circle
(although all kicks landing within the target area
were counted as a success, see below). The place-
ment of the target was to preserve the difficulty for
the goalkeeper to defend the shot, but reduce the risk
of missing the goal altogether. The centre of the
target areas (i.e., at 0.8 m from the crossbar and
0.9 m from the goalpost) was considered optimal
for aiming a penalty kick: it is beyond a goalkeeper’s
reach, but reasonably safely wi thin the goalmouth in
the where case kicking accuracy is somewhat
jeopardised.
A CREATIVE VADO digital video camera
(25 Hz) was positioned 1 m behind and 1 m to the
side of the penalty mark, and recorded the goal-
mouth. The video recordings were analysed off-line
for shot accuracy. To measure ball flight times, a
pinhead microphone was placed 50 cm to the right
of the ball to register the foot-ball contact, while two
microphones were attached to the PVC canvas to
register the impact of the ball. The continuous sig-
nals of the microphones were amplified and fed into
a computer (1000 Hz). A LabVIEW software pack-
age was used to synchronise the signals of the
microphones.
Design
A repeated measures design was used. Participants
took six blocks of penalty kicks in three conditions:
without the presence of a goalkeeper (‘no goal-
keeper’ condition), with the presence of a goalkeeper
who was unaware of the direction of the shot (‘goal-
keeper’ condition), and in the presence of a goal-
keeper who was informed by the kicker before taking
the penalty kick to which side the ball would be
placed (‘knowledgeable goalkeeper’ condition).
Participants performed 20 kicks per condition in
two blocks of 10. For each condition there was an
equal number of shots to the right and left target
areas. The sequence of these shots was randomised.
The three first blocks always belonged to different
conditions and their order was counterbalanced
across participants. The sequence of blocks four to
six was identical to the first three blocks. This design
allowed for taking any effects of fatigue or learning
during the last blocks into account. However, no
differences were observed betwe en the first three
blocks and the last three blocks, which indicated
that participants did not get fatigued or were other-
wise affected in the course of the experiment.
Procedure
After providing informed consent, participants
were informed about the characteristics of a keeper-
independent strategy, particularly the importance of
disregarding the goalkeepers’ actions when taking
the penalty kick, since it would in any case be impos-
sible for the goalkeeper to defend a well-placed ball.
Immediately before the start of the experiment, par-
ticipants were instructed to aim for the centre of the
target with enough powe r (i.e., ball speed at least
approximately 22 m · s
−1
). It was emphasised that
with these requirements met, it would be impossible
for the goalkeeper to save the ball (Graham-Smith
et al., 1999), even if they would correctly anticipate
the direction of the kick and dive to the same side
that the ball went. Furthermore, participants were
instructed that they should ignore the goalkeeper’s
actions (whenever the goalkeeper was present) and
simply kick the ball to the designated target area with
enough force. Before each penalty kick, they were
told which target area to aim towards (i.e., left or
right side of the goal).
Goalkeepers were instructed to try to save the
penalty kick as they would normally do. However,
they were instructed not to start their dive during the
early portion of the run-up. More specifically, they
were told not to start moving until the kicker started
his last step (which is approximately at 250 ms
before kicker foot-ball contact, see Franks &
Harvey, 1997 ; Lees & Owens, 2011). In addition,
goalkeepers were required to standardise their pos-
ture at the beginning of each trial by standing
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the experimental set-up showing a front view of the goal with a PVC canvas in the goalmouth with the
two target areas.
4 M. Navarro et al.
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

directly in the centre of the goal with knees bent,
arms by their side and hand s in front of their body
before each shot (van der Kamp & Masters, 2008).
After instructions, participants warmed up by
taking six practice kicks aiming at the target area
(three shots to each side) without the goalkeeper.
Subsequently, partici pants started a first block of
10 kicks in one of the experimental conditions, fol-
lowed by the remaining five blocks.
Data analysis
Penalty-taking performance was assessed from the
video recordings. First, each penalty kick was cate-
gorised as either a hit (i.e., the ball hit the 1.8 m by
1.6 m target area), a miss (i.e., the ball was shot
inside the goal, but missed the target area) or a fail-
ure (i.e., the ball was shot wide of the posts or over
the crossbar). In addition, shots for the ‘goalk eeper’
and ‘knowledgeable goalkeeper’ conditions were
categorised as either saved (i.e., the ball was totally
blocked by the goalkeeper) or not saved. The fre-
quency of hits, misses and failures per condition, and
the frequency of saved shots were submitted to sepa-
rate chi-square tests. The frequencies of hits and
misses saved by the goalkeeper were counted and
categorised relative to the criterion speed (equal or
above versus below 22 m · s
−1
). The frequencies for
these categories were submitted to a chi-square test.
Subsequently, screenshots were made for the
moment that the ball passed the goal line or was
blocked by the goalkeeper. Kinovea Motion
Analysis software was used to determine absolute
and variable errors (in cm) for the distance between
the ball landing location and the centre of the target
area as well as the distance between ball landing
location and the centre of the goal. Shots that com-
pletely missed the goal were not included in this
analysis. Ball flight times were determined measur-
ing the interval between the moment of foot-ball
contact and the moment of ball-canvas impact, as
indicated by sound signals from the microphones.
Differences in distance the ball travelled to reach
points in the goalmouth were taken into account,
and ball speed was calculated dividing this distance
by the flight time. The individual absolute error, the
variable error and the average ball speed were
submitted to separate repeated measures analyses
of variance (RM-ANOVA) with condition as within
factor. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were con-
ducted using the Bonferroni correction procedure
and partial eta square d (η
2
p
) was used as the mea-
sure of effect size. Finally, the individual correlations
between ball speed and absolute error across condi-
tions were calculated to check for speed-accuracy
trade-offs.
Results
Initial perusal of the data showed that of 600 shots
taken (200 shots in each condition), there were 295
hits, 171 misses and 134 failures. Of the 400 shots in
the two goalkeeper conditions, 83 were saved.
Notice that hits, misses and failures refer to where
the ball entered (or would have entered) the goal-
mouth, irrespective of whether or not the goalkeeper
blocked or saved the ball.
Performance
Table I shows the total number of hits, misses and
failures for each of three conditions. Chi-square
testing revealed that the number of hits, misses
and failures were differently distributed across con-
dition, χ
2
(4, N = 600) = 26.64, P < 0.001. Post hoc
comparisons indicated that in the ‘no goalkeeper’
condition the number of hits was significantly
higher and the number of misses was significantly
lower than in the ‘goalkeeper’ and ‘knowledgeable
goalkeeper’ conditions. The number of failures did
not differ across conditions. In sum, the presence of
the goalkeeper negatively affected the accuracy of
the kicks.
Table II shows the number of saves in the two
goalkeeper conditions. Chi-square testing revealed
that the number of saves differed by condition, χ
2
(1, N = 400) = 23.76, P <0.001. In the ‘knowledge-
able goalkeeper’ condition more shots were saved. In
addition, chi-square testing revealed that the number
of saved shots for misses (i.e., shots outside the
target area) was significantly higher than for hits, χ
2
(1, 400) = 54.95, P < 0.001. Table II reports the
number of hits and misses for penalty kicks that were
saved by the goalkeeper as a function of ball speed
Table I. Number of hits, misses and failures, and average ball speed (standard deviation) as a function of condition.
No Goalkeeper Goalkeeper Knowledgeable Goalkeeper
Hits 127
a
89
b
79
b
Misses 37
a
69
b
65
b
Failures 36
a
42
a
56
a
Ball speed (m · s
−1
) 17.5 (2.2) 18.8 (1.5) 18.8 (1.8)
Note: superscripts denote significant effects for condition (
a
P < 0.01,
b
P <0.05).
Goalkeeper affects the accuracy of penalty kicks 5
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

(i.e., speeds equal or above versus below 22 m · s
−1
).
For kicks outside the target areas (i.e., misses – but
not failures) saves occurred irrespective of ball
speed. The chi-square for these kicks revealed a
marginally significant difference for saves when ball
speed was below 22 m · s
−1
, χ
2
(1, N = 68) = 3.71,
P = 0.054. Importantly, for the shots within the
target area, only kicks with speeds below 22 m · s
−1
were saved; for kicks with higher speeds no intercep-
tions were made.
Accuracy. As can be seen in Table III, with the goal-
keeper present kicks were shot farther from the
centre of the target and closer to the centre of the
goal (i.e., more centralised). This was con firmed by
a significant effect for absolute error relat ive to target
centre F(2,18) = 7.87, P <0.01, η
p
2
= 0.49. Post hoc
comparisons revealed a larger absolute error for the
‘knowledgeable goalkeeper’ compared to the ‘goal-
keeper’ and ‘no goalkeeper’ conditions, while the
latter two conditions did not differ significantly. A
significant effect for condition was found for the
distance to the goal centre F(2,18) = 14.68,
P < 0.001, η
p
2
= 0.65. Post hoc comparisons
revealed significant differences between conditions,
with the ‘knowledgeable goalkeeper’ condition
resulting in the most centralised and the ‘no goal-
keeper’ condition resulting in the least centra lised
shots.
Variable error. Analyses revealed no effect for condi-
tion for variable error relative to target centre,
F(2,18) = 1.08, P > 0.05, η
p
2
= 0.19, or for the
variable error relative to goal centre,
F(2,18) = 2.34, P > 0.05, η
p
2
= 0.22 (Table III).
Ball speed
The RM-ANOVA on ball speed revealed main
effects for condition F(2,18) = 5.42, P <0.05,
η
p
2
= 0.40 (Table I). Post hoc comparisons revealed
that shots were faster for both goalkeeper conditions
in comparison to the ‘no goalkeeper’ condition.
However, correlations between ball speed and abso-
lute error relative to the target area and goal centre
were not significant for any participant (all r
2
< 0.15,
all P > 0.05).
Discussion
The risks and limitations associated with the adop-
tion of the keeper-dependent strategy in penalty
kicks seem quite substantial (van der Kamp, 2011;
for an overview, see Savelsbergh, Versloot, Masters,
& van der Kamp, 2010). By contrast, the kee per-
independent strategy seems to be the more favour-
able for scoring a goal. Yet, it is unclear whether
penalty kickers are actually able to ignore the goal-
keeper, as this is one of the requirements for fully
adopting the keeper-independent strategy. We set
out to investigate penalty kickers’ performances
with and without the presence of a goalkeeper. We
fully informed amateur footballers about the benefits
and requirements of the keeper-independent
approach. They were then instructed to adopt the
keeper-independent strategy, particularly to aim for
the indicated target areas with enough force and to
ignore the goalkeeper (if present).
Our results indicate that the kickers’ performance
is affected by the presence of the goalkeeper, and
even more so when the kickers are aware that the
goalkeeper is informed about where the ball would
go. Penalty kickers hit the target significantly less
often when the goalkeeper was present compared to
an empty goal. In fact, with the goalkeeper present,
not only did the number of hits drop, but the shots
were more centralised (i.e., closer to the goalkeeper).
Although balls were shot more powerfully with the
goalkeeper present, the decrement in spatial
accuracy was not due to a trade-off between speed
and accuracy. Apparently, the presence of the goal-
keeper affected ball placement and ball speed
Table III. Mean (and standard deviation) for absolute and variable errors (cm) relative to target centre and goal centre as a function
of condition.
No Goalkeeper Goalkeeper Knowledgeable Goalkeeper
Target centre
Absolute error 125 149 164
Variable error 27 23 24
Goal centre
Absolute error 249 227 209
Variable error 66 84 86
Table II. Total number of saved shots among target hits and
misses for ball speeds above and below 22 m · s
−1
.
Goalkeeper Knowledgeable Goalkeeper
Hits Misses Hits Misses
Total 5 18 10 50
Below 5 11 10 39
Above 0 7 0 11
6 M. Navarro et al.
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

independently. Moreover, the finding that variable
errors were not influenced by goalkeeper presence
indicates that the more centralised ball placement is
not a by-p roduct of the kicks being less precise, but
rather refl ects a genuine bias in ai ming. These data
point to decrements in shot accuracy with the ball
directed more centrally (i.e., closer to the goal-
keeper). In sum, this shows that even when
instructed to aim for a predefined target, penalty
kickers are not able to fully ignore the goalkeeper;
instead they show a tendency to kick the ball closer
to the goalkeeper (not unlike previous findings for
the goalkeeper-dependent strategy; Noël & van der
Kamp, 2012; Wood & Wilson, 2010a, 2010b).
These findings are in accordance with the predic-
tions of the response activation model (Welsh &
Elliot, 2004) for situations in which the visual non-
target object is relatively salient. During a penalty
kick with the goalkeeper present, two independent
parallel action response processes are activated: one
for the actual target location in the corner of
the goal, and one for the non-target goalkeeper. In
fact, Welsh and Elliott (2004) observed with neutral
stimuli that if the visual non-target object was pre-
sent before the onset of action, the inhibitory pro-
cesses had sufficient time to de-activate the
associated action response processes. In the current
experiment, the goalkeeper is presented well before
the kicker’s run-up, however, in all likelihood the
goalkeeper is a salient rather than a neutral visual
stimulus. Consequ ently, the action response process
toward the non-target goalkeeper is difficult to inhi-
bit entirely, and hence, it is incorporated in the
resulting combined action response. As a result,
shots are attracted toward the goalkeeper (i.e.,
further from the target and more centralised).
Apparently, salience of the goalkeeper further
increased when the kicker had to inform goalkeepers
about the intended shot direction. Consequently, the
tendency for a more centralised shot was even
further enhanced.
Although the response activation model describes
the differences in participants’ kicking accuracy
according to goalkeeper presence rather fittingly, it
is not necessarily the only possible account for the
present findings. In particular, ironic processing may
have enhanc ed the salience of the goalkeeper.
Wegner (1994) claimed that a deliberate attempt to
ignore a thought or action may enhance the inclina-
tion to exactly the opposite: engage in the very
thought or action. Accordingly, Bakker et al. (2006;
see also Binsch, Oudejans, Bakker, Hoozemans, &
Savelsbergh, 2010; Binsch, Oudejans, Bakker, &
Savelsbergh, 2010; cf. Beilock, Afremow, Rabe, &
Carr, 2001) required participants to score a goal in
lab-based penalty kick task, but using different word-
ings to convey the same instruction. It was found
that a negatively worded instruction not to shoot the
ball within goalkeepers’ reach, resulted, opposite to
what was intended, in more centralised shots (i.e.,
closer to the goalkeeper) than an instruction that told
the participants to aim for the empty space. Because
the negatively worded instruction was accompanied
with increased fixation of the goalkeeper, Bakker
et al. (2006) argued that the negative instruction to
avoid the goalkeeper ironically increased visual
attention to the goalkeeper. This effect was accom-
panied by a shorter final fi xation for the empty goal
space (Binsch, Oudejans, Bakker, & Savelsbergh,
2010). In other words, the negative wording (or
even simply making reference to the goalkeeper, see
Binsch, Oudejans, Bakker, Hoozemans, et al., 2010)
may have enhanced the goalkeeper’s salience.
Clearly, it cannot be ruled out that in the present
study a similar ironic effect contributed to a ten-
dency to produce more centralised kicks with the
presence of a goalkeeper. The present instruction
not only contained a positively worded phrase (i.e.,
try to hit the target area), but was partly expressed
negatively (i.e., ignore goalkeepers’ actions).
Perhaps, the latter part (ironicall y) increased the
goalkeeper’s saliency, making it more difficult to
(re-)direct visual attention to the target or ball
(Bakker et al., 2006; Binsch, Oudejans, Bakker, &
Savelsbergh, 2010). Future work should involve
visual search measures to scrutinise this alternative
(or additional) account. Moreover, the degree to
which instructions regarding the goalkeeper-inde-
pendent strategy that solely emphasise the advantages
of attending to the target and ball or only stress the
disadvantages of not ignoring the goalkeeper would
lead to differences in kicking accuracy should be
examined. Finally, the goalkeeper may be salient
because she or he is perceived by the penalty taker
to present a ‘threat’. The perceived threat is pro-
voked by the awareness that a weak shot ca n be
saved by the goalkeeper. Consistent with predictions
from attentional control theory (Eysenck,
Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007; Nieuwenhuys
& Oudejans, in press), recent work by Wilson et al.
(2009; Wood & Wilson, 2010b; but see Noël &
van der Kamp, 2012) reported that increases in per-
ceived threat (induced by high anxiety) enhanced
penalty kickers’ visual attention to the goalkeeper at
the expense of the target or the ball. This resulted in
more centralised shots. Accordingly, scrutinising
whether the mere presence of the goalkeeper invokes
increments in perceived threat and/or anxiety is an
important task for future research, just as it is to
assess whe ther this is further exacerbated when the
penalty kicker knows that the goalkeeper knows
where the ball will be placed.
In sum, the present consensus is that the advan-
tages for the keeper-independent strategy outweigh
Goalkeeper affects the accuracy of penalty kicks
7
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

its drawbacks, and relative to the goalkeeper-depen-
dent strategy, it is considered the more secure
choice. An impo rtant premise is that, by ignoring
the goalkeeper, attention can be fully dedicated
toward the target and ball, thus allowing for optimal
kicking accuracy. Yet, the current study shows that
the kicker cannot easily ignore a goalkeeper; even the
mere presence of the goalkeeper is likely to adversely
affect kicking accuracy. Hence, before adopting the
keeper-independent strategy, it seems wise to require
penalty kickers not only to automatise the execution
of the kick (as they usually do for free and corner
kicks, for example ), but to further stabilise kicking
accuracy in the presence of a goalkeeper (or any
other threat-inducing visual non-target). Practice
regimes that optimise gaze control should be consid-
ered (e.g., quiet eye training, Vickers, 2007; Wood &
Wilson, 2011). This should allow penalty takers to
learn to direct gaze at the intended target location
and at the ball before and during the execution of the
shot, rather than looking at the goalkeeper (Wood &
Wilson, 2011). Possibly, penalty kicker s may benefit
from waiting longer before actually performing the
shot, providing them more time to inhi bit the
response process toward the goalkeeper (Furley,
Dicks, & Stendtke, 2012). In agreement with this
contention, Jordet, Hartman, and Sigmundstad
(2009) repor ted, based on fi eld observations, that
penalty kickers who took penalties very soon after
the referee’s whistle were less likely to score. By
contrast, kickers that waited longer wer e more often
successful. In other words, the goalkeeper-indepen-
dent strategy may still be preferable over a goal-
keeper-dependent strategy, but prospective penalty
kickers should pr actice kicking the ball to one of
upper corners with sufficient force as well as control-
ling visual attention.
Acknowledgements
Remco Koopmeiners and Jose Antonio Navia
Manzano are thanked for help in carrying out the
experiment. Hogeschool van Amsterdam is acknowl-
edged for providing accommodation. This work was
supported by Nation al Counsel of Technological
and Scientific Development (CNPq) (140765/
2008-5 and 480996/2009) and Coordination for the
Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES)
(3024/10-5) grants. The editor and reviewers are
acknowledged for their valuable comments on an
earlier version of the paper.
References
Armatas, V., Yiannakos, A., Papadopoulou, S., & Galazoulas, C.
(2007, October). Analysis of the set-plays in the 18th football
World Cup in Germany. Physical Training. Retrieved from
http://ejmas.com/pt/2007pt/ptart_galazoulas_0710.html.
Bakker, F. C., Oudejans, R. R. D., Binsch, O., & van der Kamp,
J. (2006). Penalty shooting and gaze behavior: Unwanted
effects of the wish not to miss. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 37, 265–280.
Bar-Eli, M., Azar, O. H., & Lurie, Y. (2009). (Ir)rationality in
action: Do soccer players and goalkeepers fail to learn how to
best perform during a penalty kick? Progress in Brain Research,
174, 97–108.
Bar-Eli, M., Azar, O., Ritov, I., Keidar-Levin, Y., & Schein, G.
(2007). Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The case of
penalty kicks. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 606–621.
Beilock, S., Afremow, J. A., Rabe, A. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001).
‘‘Don’t miss!” the debilitating effects of suppressive imagery on
golf putting performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 23, 200–221.
Binsch, O., Oudejans, R. R. D., Bakker, F. C., Hoozemans,
M. M., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2010). Ironic effects in a
simulated penalty sh ooting task: Is the negative wording in
the instruct ion essential? International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 41, 118–133.
Binsch, O., Oudejans, R. R. D., Bakker, F. C., & Savelsbergh, G.
J. P. (2010). Ironic effects and final target fixation in a penalty
shooting task. Human Movement Science, 29, 277–288.
Coloma, G. (2007). Penalty kicks in soccer: An alternative meth-
odology for testing mixed-strategy equilibria. Journal of Sports
Economics, 8, 530–545.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G.
(2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control
theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.
Franks, I. M., & Harvey, T. (1997). Cues for goalkeepers: High-
tech methods used to measure penalty shot response. Soccer
Journal, 42, 30–38.
Furley, P., Dicks, M., & Stendtke, F. (2012). “Get it out the way.
The wait’s killing me.” Hastening and hiding during soccer
penalty kicks. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 456–465.
Graham-Smith, P., Lees, A., & Richardson, D. (1999). Analysis
of technique of goalkeepers during the penalty kick. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 17(11), 905–929.
Howard, L. A., & Tipper, S. P. (1997). Hand deviations away
from visual cues: Indirect evidence for inhibition. Experimental
Brain Research, 113, 144–152.
Jordet, G., Hartman, E., & Sigmundstad, E. (2009). Temporal
links to performing under pressure in international soccer
penalty shootouts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10,
621–627.
Jordet, G., Hartman, E., Visscher, C., & Lemmink, K. A. P. M.
(2007). Kicks from the penalty mark in soccer: The roles of
stress, skill, and fatigue for kick outcomes. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 25(2), 121–129.
Jordet, G., Hartman, E., & Vuijk, P. J. (2012). Team history and
choking under pressure in major soccer penalty shootouts.
British Journal of Psychology, 103, 268–283.
Kerwin, D. G., & Bray, K. (2006). Measuring and modelling the
goalkeeper’s diving envelope in a penalty kick. The Engineering
of Sport, 8, 321–326.
Kuhn, W. (1988). Penalty-kick strategies for shooters and goal-
keepers. In T. Reilly, K. Davids, W. J. Murphy, & A. Lees
(Eds.), Science and football (pp. 489–492). London: E. & F. N.
Spon.
Land, M. F., & Hayhoe, M. (2001). In what ways do eye move-
ments contribute to everyday activities? Vision Research, 41,
3559–3565.
Land, M., Mennie, N., & Rusted, J. (1999). The roles of vision
and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living.
Perception, 28, 1311–1328.
Lees, A., & Owens, L. (2011). Early visual cues associated with a
directional place kick in soccer. Sports Biomechanics, 10,
125–134.
8 M. Navarro et al.
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013

Masters, R. S. W., van der Kamp, J., & Jackson, R. C. (2007).
Imperceptibly off-center goalkeepers influence penalty-kick
direction in soccer. Psychological science, 18, 222–223.
McGarry, T., & Franks, I. M. (1997). A horse race between
independent processes: Evidence for a phantom point of no
return in the preparation of a speeded motor response. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
23, 1533–1542.
Morya, E., Bigatão, H., Lees, A., & Ranvaud, R. (2003). Evolving
penalty kick strategies: World cup and club matches 2000–
2002. In T.Reilly, J. Cabri, & D. Araújo (Eds.), Science and
football V (pp. 237–242). London: Routledge.
Morya, E., Ranvaud, R., & Machado-Pinheiro, W. (2003).
Dynamics of visual feedback in a laboratory simulation of a
penalty kick. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 87–95.
Navarro, M., Miyamoto, N. T., van der Kamp, J., Morya, E.,
Ranvaud, R., & Savelsbergh, G. (2012). The effects of high
pressure on the point of no return in simulated penalty kicks.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 81–101.
Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D.(in press). Anxiety and
perceptual-motor performance: toward an integrated model of
concepts, mechanisms, and processes. Psychological Research,
76(6), 747–759.
Noël, B., & van der Kamp, J. (2012). Gaze behaviour during the
soccer penalty kick: an investigation of the effects of strategy
and anxiety. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 43(4),
326–345.
Savelsbergh, G., Versloot, O., Masters, R., & van der Kamp, J.
(2010). Saving penalties, scoring penalties. In I. Renshaw, K.
Davids, & G. J. P. Savelsbergh (Eds.), Motor learning in practice.
A constraints-led approach (pp. 57–68). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Jackson, S. R. (1997). Selective
reaching to grasp: Evidence for distractor interference effects.
Visual Cognition, 4,1–38.
Van der Kamp, J. (2006). A field simulation study of the effec-
tiveness of penalty kick strategies in soccer: Late alterations of
kick direction increase errors and reduce accuracy. Journal of
Sport Sciences, 24, 467–477.
Van der Kamp, J. (2011). Exploring the merits of perceptual
anticipation in the soccer penalty kick. Motor Control, 15,
342–358.
Van der Kamp, J., & Masters, R. S. W. (2008). The human
Muller-Lyer illusion in goalkeeping. Perception, 37, 951–954.
Vars, F. (2009). Missing well: Optimal targeting of soccer shots.
Chance, 22, 21–28.
Vickers, J. N. (1996). Visual control when aiming at a far target.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 2(22), 342–354.
Vickers, J. N. (2007). Perception, cognition and decision training: The
quiet eye in action. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control.
Psychological Review, 101(1), 34–52.
Welsh, T. N., & Elliott, D. (2004). Movement trajectories in the
presence of a distracting stimulus: Evidence for a response
activation model of selective reaching. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 57, 1031–1057.
Welsh, T. N., Elliott, D., & Weeks, D. J. (1999). Hand devia-
tions toward distractors. Experimental Brain Research, 127,
207–212.
Wilson, M., Stephenson, S., Chattington, M., & Marple-Horvat,
D. E. (2007). Eye movements coordinated with steering benefit
performance even when vision is denied. Experimental Brain
Research, 176, 397–412.
Wilson, M. R., Wood, G., & Vine, S. J. (2009). Anxiety, atten-
tional control, and performance impairment in penalty kicks.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 761–775.
Wood, G., & Wilson, M. R. (2010a). Gaze behaviour and shoot-
ing strategies in football penalty kicks: Implications of a ‘kee-
per-dependent’ approach. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 41, 293–312.
Wood, G., & Wilson, M. R. (2010b). A moving goalkeeper dis-
tracts penalty takers and impairs shooting accuracy. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 28, 937–946.
Wood, G., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). Quiet-eye training for soccer
penalty kicks. Cognitive Processing, 12, 257–266.
Goalkeeper affects the accuracy of penalty kicks 9
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 14:26 25 February 2013