Click to enlarge, and debate the strip below the line.
Keith Hackett's verdict
1) No goal. Once a kick is taken in a penalty shoot-out the taker has no further part to play: the outcome is determined when the ball has completed its path, with the keeper allowed to attempt a save. Had this been a penalty in open play, though, the taker would have been allowed to shield the ball like this – just as a defender might shepherd the ball out for a goal-kick. Players are allowed to shield the ball so long as it is within playing distance of them. Thanks to Peter Holland.
2) If you allowed the player to start the match with this haircut – and there's no reason to bar haircuts unless they represent a potential danger – then there's nothing to stop him using it to his advantage. It's no more an offence than a clever ball juggler briefly balancing the ball on his head. So award the goal. Thanks to Ryszard Kaleta.
3) That's a proper Roy of the Rovers moment. There's no need to disallow the goal – players are allowed to go off and on the field of play without permission if it's part of the same move to beat the opposition. So not only has the winger's pace spared his blushes with the awful first cross – he's managed to set up a perfectly valid goal, too. Joe Scargill wins the shirt.
Competition: win a T-shirt of your choice
For a chance to win a Philosophy Football T-shirt of your choice from the Guardian range send us your questions for You are the Ref to you.are.the.ref@observer.co.uk. The best scenario used in each new strip wins a T-shirt; Terms apply. For more on You are the Ref's history, click here.
