Switzerland rehearsed disruption before penalties, but defender Manuel Akanji still changed his target during the run-up and missed. Declare a target or goalkeeper cue, set a cutoff, reset at the spot and appeal only when Law 14 is breached.

Switzerland head coach Murat Yakin said the team had held a penalty-shootout training session before the tournament. He withheld the drill details in his post-match press conference but named the situations it addressed: provocation during the approach, accompanying the taker and retaining focus at the penalty mark. ¹

Switzerland trained takers to handle the walk, delays and opponent interference before shooting. The player must keep the planned kick through the walk, any delay and the opponent’s intervention, then execute it after the referee restores the setup.

Switzerland beat Colombia 4-3 after 120 scoreless minutes. The recorded shootout sequence included two Colombian misses, Akanji’s shot over the bar, goalkeeper Gregor Kobel’s save from Cucho Hernández and Rubén Vargas’s winning kick. ²

Yakin believed the penalty training had helped. One shootout cannot tell us whether it changed the result, especially when Switzerland converted four of five attempts while its only miss came from the player who later described changing his decision.

The decision broke during the run-up

Akanji said in his post-match interview that he initially planned to shoot high to the left. He saw the goalkeeper moving that way, tried to switch to the middle in the final second and sent the ball over. ³

Akanji also said Switzerland had watched videos covering goalkeepers and opponents trying to irritate takers. He thought the preparation helped his teammates, then added “except me” because his own late change remained decisive.

Goalkeeping and set-piece coach Patrick Foletti led the training session. Teammates reportedly accompanied each taker to the spot and maintained eye contact, although Yakin did not confirm those actions were among his two or three techniques. ⁴

Akanji expected interference and still replaced his target after beginning the run-up. He also needed a declared response to the goalkeeper and a cutoff beyond which he would not change the plant foot or the strike.

Choose a target or a cue

A keeper-independent taker chooses the destination before moving. A keeper-dependent taker waits for a rehearsed goalkeeper cue and responds only if it arrives before a personal cutoff. Either approach lets the player choose freely before the run-up, then limits improvisation once the strike is close.

An analysis of 395 shootout kicks found that neither approach produced a universal advantage. Keeper-dependent attempts scored more often when goalkeepers moved early, while keeper-independent attempts performed better against late movement. ⁵

The 395 attempts produced 289 goals, a conversion rate of 73.2 percent. Researchers classified 73 percent of the kicks as keeper-independent and 27 percent as keeper-dependent, using run-up fluency, attention to the goalkeeper and kicking technique.

Each taker decides before the walk whether to commit to a fixed target or watch for a goalkeeper cue, then holds that decision once the run-up begins.

Akanji’s attempt illustrates the risk. Waiting for a late-moving goalkeeper and then switching leaves too little time to adjust the plant-foot path and make clean contact.

Four jobs to rehearse

Coaches can test the walk and setup rather than beginning every repetition with the player already standing over the ball. The drill should include a realistic wait, legal goalkeeper movement, an opponent approaching or speaking, a referee restoring order and the taker restarting the routine.

The cutoff must match the player rather than a universal number. Filming the player’s final strides shows when a late change begins to distort the plant foot, reduce contact quality or produce a hesitant strike.

Each disruption repetition produces two records — the shot result and whether the taker followed the declared target or goalkeeper cue. A goal from an improvised late change still means the taker abandoned the declared kick, a habit that may not survive tournament pressure.

Disrupt the taker and check whether the player repeats the same reset. Add one disruption at a time, then retain the action only when the player can repeat it and still follow the declared kick. Yakin did not disclose whether Switzerland used breathing, gaze control, verbal cues or another technique, so those details require individual testing.

Attention can move without accuracy improving

Furley, Noël and Memmert studied shootout penalties from World Cups between 1986 and 2010 and European Championships between 1984 and 2012. When they independently coded the footage, goalkeeper-directed attention and deliberate goalkeeper distraction both correlated with better outcomes for the goalkeeper. ⁶

Goalkeepers can therefore attract a taker’s gaze, and players should decide in advance which movements contain information for their chosen method. A fixed-target taker gains little from following every jump or gesture. A responsive taker watches for the designated commitment cue and ignores movement that arrives outside the response window.

Mindfulness training improved attention metrics but not penalty accuracy in a separate controlled experiment. Two tests each used 40 university players and compared 15 minutes of mindfulness with quiet sitting. The players fixated longer and more often under pressure, but scored no more often. ⁷

Better attention numbers did not produce better conversion in those tests. Yakin’s account supports rehearsing real opponent behaviour in training, but the training session’s effect on scoring remains unknown.

Know when the referee should intervene

IFAB Law 14 permits a goalkeeper to move the body and arms, jump and move along the goal line when the referee does not judge the behaviour disrespectful or unfair. The goalkeeper must keep at least part of one foot touching, level with or behind the line when the ball is kicked. ⁸

Law 14 bars the goalkeeper from unfairly distracting the taker. The listed examples include delaying the kick and touching the posts, crossbar or net. IFAB’s guidance also says a defending player who shouts as the taker is about to strike, causes distraction and contributes to a miss should be cautioned and the kick retaken.

Players should know those examples before the shootout. Ordinary arm movement, jumping and positioning may remain legal pressure. Deliberate delay, contact with the goal frame or direct interference can justify stepping away and asking the referee to act.

The referee decides whether conduct is unfair and whether it affected the attempt. A taker who argues over every legal movement gives the goalkeeper another delay. A player who knows the boundary can keep the chosen kick through ordinary disruption and stop only when the setup needs restoring.

Akanji’s miss offers a precise case to review. Ask the player to declare the target or goalkeeper cue before walking forward, then check whether the kick changed after the run-up began. If it did, identify the movement that triggered the change and decide whether it belonged inside the rehearsed response window.