Laterality, Shot Direction and Spatial Asymmetry in Decisive Penalty Kicks: Evidence from Elite Men’s Football

Abstract

Penalty shootouts often decide major football tournaments, making the analysis of spatial symmetry and shot patterns crucial for performance optimization. This study analyzed 212 decisive penalty kicks in elite men’s football to explore spatial patterns and asymmetries in execution, as well as their relationship with performance effectiveness. An observational methodology was used, combining temporal pattern detection (T-patterns) and chi-square tests to examine associations between contextual, spatial, and outcome-related variables. Results showed that the most frequently targeted area was left-down (28.3%), with a success rate of 71.7%. Additionally, central zones exhibited particularly high accuracy (ranging from 88.9% to 100%) despite their low usage frequency. Differences were also observed in the distribution of shots between left- and right-footed players, both in frequency and effectiveness, although these were not significant. The findings suggest the presence of strategic tendencies and functional spatial asymmetries, which may have implications for specialized training in high-pressure scenarios. These insights can guide targeted training strategies for both kickers and goalkeepers and encourage further research on decision-making and spatial behavior under extreme pressure.

1. Introduction

The execution of penalty kicks in elite football represents a critical event, often determining the outcome of high-stakes matches or entire competitions [1]. It is a specific action in the game in which only two players are directly involved: the kicker and the goalkeeper [2]. This binary interaction, framed within a spatially symmetric environment (the goal structure), invites detailed analysis of how players exploit or break that symmetry to gain an advantage [3]. In this study, the term decisive penalty refers exclusively to a penalty kick taken during a shootout whose outcome directly determines the result of the match—either by securing immediate victory for the kicker’s team or by causing their elimination if missed. Penalties taken earlier in the shootout, which do not yet mathematically decide the outcome, are not included within this definition.

The study of penalties in football has become an important part of performance prediction and behavioral analysis in sports [1,4,5]. These situations are highly advantageous for the kicker, who faces no opposition and therefore typically achieve success rates of 69–85% [2,6,7,8,9,10]. Performance does not usually differ between home and away contexts [10,11,12].

Penalty kicks follow a series of trends that have been identified in various studies [2,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. These trends are influenced by subtle spatial decisions, lateral preferences, and psychological pressure, particularly factors such as the high responsibility of decisive kicks, the potential consequences of elimination, or the increased anxiety associated with taking the final shots in a shootout [15,16]. Generally, penalties tend to be taken to the sides of the goal, more specifically, to the right of the goalkeeper [2,8,14], accounting for 34.7–39.7% of the total [8,13,14]. This tendency is more pronounced among right-footed players, who tend to shoot to the right 59–62% of the time—a direction identified by several studies as their ‘natural’ side [2,13,17]. In contrast, left-footed players display greater variability, with right-sided shooting occurring in 32–59% of cases, depending on the category analyzed [2].

The interaction between the goalkeeper and the penalty taker has been examined in various studies, with particular attention to the goalkeeper’s movements prior to the execution of the penalty kick [5,7,8,18]. Some authors suggest that such anticipatory movements may influence the decision-making process of the penalty taker [5], whereas another study indicates that this strategy might not be effective at the elite level of football [19]. Furthermore, in attempts to predict the direction of the shot, certain biomechanical indicators—such as the orientation of the supporting foot and the position of the arm contralateral to the kicking leg—have been proposed as reliable cues in some investigations [5].

In elite international tournaments—both club-level and national—the role of penalty shootouts becomes particularly critical in knockout stages. After extra time, if the score remains tied, the match is resolved by a series of kicks that not only test physical execution, but also decision-making under intense psychological stress [20]. Finalists in the World Cup have a 56.5% chance of being involved in at least one penalty shootout; this percentage is slightly lower for European teams, at 46.5% [21].

The order in which penalty shots are taken also seems to influence the outcome of a shootout. Around 59.2–60.5% of victories go to the team that starts by taking the first shot [22].

There are different theories about the order of the kickers in these shootouts. Some indicate that players should take penalties in reverse order of ability, meaning the best shooter should take the fifth kick. However, probability theory suggests that the last penalties in a shootout are the least likely to succeed [16]. If the score remains tied after the first five throws, the success rate drops to 64.3% [16]. This may be because the importance of these kicks negatively affects the players’ performance, due to the stress of taking these penalties. Psychological components constitute a significant determinant in the success or failure of penalty kicks [15].

These moments of pressure can disrupt regular behavioral patterns [23], producing identifiable symmetry-breaking tendencies—whether in shot placement, body orientation, or outcome probabilities. Understanding these patterns provides valuable insight into motor control, anticipation, and decision-making under constraints, all of which are key components in the study of symmetry in sports contexts.

Identifying these patterns is crucial for informing tactical preparation and optimizing performance under high-pressure conditions. Given the importance of these situations in determining tournament outcomes, this study aims to analyze and detect spatial and sequential patterns in decisive penalty kicks (as defined above) from shootouts in elite international football competitions between 2010 and 2023. Through observational methodology, statistical analysis, and T-pattern detection, this research explores how symmetry—both spatial and behavioral—is maintained or broken in these high-pressure scenarios, offering practical applications for performance optimization in elite sport. In line with these aims, we hypothesized that decisive penalty kicks would show structured asymmetries in both spatial distribution and sequential patterns, reflecting adaptive responses to psychological pressure. Unlike general penalty situations, decisive shootout kicks are expected to amplify motor and tactical regularities, making them particularly suitable for systematic analysis. Previous research has mostly examined penalties in broader contexts (e.g., regular match penalties or aggregated shootout data), leaving a gap in the understanding of the specific dynamics of decisive penalties. By combining observational methodology with T-pattern detection, this study addresses this gap and contributes to the literature by uncovering how symmetry is strategically maintained or broken under the highest levels of competitive stress. Addressing this gap is important not only for advancing theoretical knowledge on motor behavior under pressure, but also for providing applied insights to optimize performance preparation in elite football.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

An observational methodology [24] was employed to analyze the execution of decisive penalties in penalty shootouts that occurred between 2010 and 2023. This methodological approach involves the systematic, non-participant observation of naturally occurring behaviors in their real competitive context, recorded and coded according to a predefined category system. The observational design [24] was nomothetic (each penalty was analyzed independently), follow-up (spanning the period from 2010 to 2023), and unidimensional (one level of response).

2.2. Sample

The sample consisted of all decisive penalties from penalty shootouts in both club (UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League) and national team matches (FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro, UEFA Nations League and CONMEBOL Copa América), which took place in continental and world competitions between 2010 and 2023 (66 penalty shootouts). A total of 212 decisive penalties were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were: (a) penalty kicks taken in shootouts of elite-level continental or world competitions, involving either national teams or European club teams; (b) penalties meeting our definition of “decisive” as defined in the Introduction. Exclusion criteria were: (a) penalties from shootouts not meeting the “decisive” definition; (b) penalties from competitions outside the specified tournaments. All available decisive penalties meeting this definition were included, with no cases excluded due to video quality, ambiguous outcomes, duplicate footage, or annulled decisions.

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Education and Sport Science (University of Vigo, application 03-090425).

2.3. Instruments

The instrument described in

Table 1. Observational instrument, descriptive statistics, and results of chi-square goodness-of-fit and independence tests for each criterion.

Criteria	Description	n	%	Ef.	χ2 G-O-F	χ2 Indep.
Type of match	Club match	97	45.8	73.2	χ2 = 1.528 p = 0.216	χ2 = 2.686 p = 0.101
	National team match	115	54.2	62.6
Stadium	The team that kicks plays as the home team	35	16.5	77.1	χ2 = 105.009 p < 0.001	χ2 = 2.196 p = 0.334
	The team that kicks plays as the away team	36	17.0	61.1
	Not-applicable. Neutral venue	141	66.5	66.7
Round	Round of 32 match	30	14.2	63.3	χ2 = 31.066 p < 0.001	χ2 = 1.470 p = 0.832
	Round of 16 match	42	19.8	71.4
	Quarterfinal match	71	33.5	63.4
	Semifinal match	24	11.3	70.8
	Final match	45	21.2	71.1
Type of Penalty	If the kicker misses, their team lose the shootout	57	26.9	68.4	χ2 = 12.632 p = 0.002	χ2 = 9.499 p = 0.009
	If the kicker scores, their team wins the shootout	60	28.3	81.7
	If the kicker misses, the next team can win if they scores the penalty kick	95	44.8	57.9
Order	The team takes the first penalty in the shootout	100	47.2	71.0	χ2 = 0.679 p = 0.410	χ2 = 1.085 p = 0.298
	The team does not take the first penalty in the shootout	112	52.8	64.3
Laterality	The kicking player is right-footed	163	76.9	65.6	χ2 = 61.302 p < 0.001	χ2 = 1.051 p = 0.305
	The kicking player is left-footed	49	23.1	73.5
Run-up to the Kick	The kicker takes fewer than three steps before striking the ball	206	97.2	67.0	χ2 = 388.877 p < 0.001	χ2 = 4.505 p = 0.105
	The kicker takes three or more steps before striking the ball	5	2.4	100
	The kicker clearly pauses during the run-up	1	0.5	0
Direction-Goal (depending on the view of the kicker)	Left-Top	28	13.2	60.7	χ2 = 105.377 p < 0.001	χ2 = 17.128 p = 0.029
	Left-Medium height	21	9.9	47.6
	Left-Down	60	28.3	71.7
	Centre-Top	6	2.8	100
	Centre-Medium height	9	4.2	88.9
	Centre-Down	9	4.2	88.9
	Right-Top	17	8.0	52.9
	Right-Medium height	20	9.4	85.0
	Right-Down	42	19.8	59.5
Direction- Laterality (based on near or far post with respect to foot dominance)	Kicker-top	31	14.6	58.1	χ2 = 116.670 p < 0.001	χ2 = 11.372 p = 0.181
	Kicker-medium	29	13.7	62.1
	Kicker-down	61	28.8	72.1
	Middle-top	6	2.8	100.0
	Middle-medium	9	4.2	88.9
	Middle-down	9	4.2	88.9
	Far-top	14	6.6	57.1
	Far-medium	12	5.7	75.0
	Far-down	41	19.3	58.5
Effectiveness	The penalty ends in goal	143	67.5	-	χ2 = 112.255 p < 0.001	-
	The penalty is saved by the goalkeeper	41	19.3
	The penalty is missed (off target)	28	13.2

Note: Ef.: Effectiveness; G-O-F: Goodness-of-fit; Indep.: Independence.

was developed ad hoc for this study and is a category system in which the criteria categories are mutually exclusive. This instrument is composed of nine criteria, which are made up of a total of thirty-two categories. The criteria and categories were established based on previous research with similar objectives [10,11] and were subsequently refined through consultation with two experts in football and observational methodology. The construct validity of the instrument was assessed by verifying its consistency with the theoretical framework [24] and by obtaining expert agreement on the adequacy of the categories and definitions, achieving a satisfaction rate of 95%.

Data recording was carried out using LINCE PLUS software version 2.1 (Alberto Soto Fernández, INEFC, Lleida, Spain) [25]. This interactive and highly flexible multimedia tool is specifically designed to facilitate systematic observation by enabling the analysis and recording of sports actions. The software allows for the configuration of buttons on the computer interface corresponding to the codes previously assigned to each category within the observation instrument. By generating an observational record of specific actions during sporting events, it contributes to a deeper understanding of behavioral patterns in sports performance. LINCE PLUS has been widely used in numerous studies employing systematic observational methodology in sports settings (e.g., [4,26,27,28]), which supports its suitability for the present research.

The full set of criteria and operational definitions used in the observational tool will be detailed in the Table 1 and Figure 1.

2.4. Procedure

The penalty kicks analyzed in this study were obtained from publicly available sources, including YouTube and the official platforms of UEFA (https://www.youtube.com/@UEFA, accessed on 15 September 2024) and FIFA (https://www.youtube.com/@fifa, accessed on 15 September 2024). Subsequently, the video footage was edited to produce two separate files—one for club teams and another for national teams—in which the penalties were organized chronologically by match day. The editing process was carried out using iMovie software (version 10.4.3; Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA). This approach facilitated the creation of user-friendly video files optimized for use with the observational recording tool.

After conducting training in the use of the instruments, and in order to ensure methodological rigor in the coding process [24], a quality control procedure was implemented to verify the reliability of the recorded data. This was carried out through the calculation of both intra- and inter-observer agreement using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient (COH), performed using LINCE Plus. To assess intra-observer reliability, a concordance test was conducted on 25% of the total sample of penalty kicks. The analysis yielded a Kappa coefficient of 0.99 for both the first and second observations, indicating an almost perfect level of agreement. Inter-observer reliability was then evaluated using the same subset of data, also resulting in a Kappa coefficient of 0.99. These results confirm the robustness and consistency of the observational process. Once the quality of observation was verified, the full dataset was systematically coded by a single trained observer.

Following the completion of the penalty recordings, the data were exported to an Excel file. This file provided a detailed account of the sequential order of the recorded behavior codes, along with their temporal occurrence and corresponding duration, expressed in frames. The versatility of the exported dataset allowed for subsequent transformations, enabling its adaptation for various types of analytical procedures [29].

2.5. Data Analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 25.0 (IBM-SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was applied to determine whether the distribution of observations within each category differed significantly from a uniform distribution, thereby highlighting patterns of preference or dominance in each variable. Furthermore, chi-square tests of independence were carried out to assess whether the effectiveness of the penalty kick (i.e., goal, save, or miss) was significantly associated with the categories of the other criteria. These statistical procedures provide a comprehensive overview of both intra- and inter-criterion relationships, offering an initial understanding of the structural dynamics underlying decisive penalty kicks. Statistical significance was assumed for p < 0.05.

To examine penalty patterns, temporal pattern detection was conducted using THEME v.6.0 (PatternVision Ltd., Reykjavík, Iceland) [30]. THEME has been extensively applied and validated in systematic observational research, particularly in sports performance contexts (e.g., [5,31]). This software is designed to detect hidden temporal structures (T-patterns) within behavioral data, allowing researchers to identify recurrent sequential patterns that are not accessible through conventional statistical analyses. Its application in the present study makes it possible to reveal underlying spatiotemporal strategies in decisive penalty kicks, thereby contributing novel insights into performance under high-pressure conditions.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive and Inferential Statistical Outcomes

To begin the presentation of results, Table 1 shows the observational instrument used in this study, along with the descriptive statistics for each criterion.

The analysis revealed significant differences in the distribution of frequencies across most observational criteria. Only “type of match” (p = 0.216) and “order of the kick” (p = 0.410) showed no significant deviations from a uniform distribution, suggesting that choices in these two cases were more evenly balanced.

In contrast, “penalty effectiveness” was significantly associated with both “type of penalty kick” (p = 0.009) and “goal direction” (p = 0.029), indicating that the situational context of the kick (e.g., immediate victory or elimination) and the target area selected by the kicker have a decisive influence on the outcome.

Regarding success rates, penalties taken while playing at home showed the highest conversion rate (77.1%), followed by those taken on neutral grounds (66.7%), while penalties executed as the away team had the lowest success rate (61.1%). Kicks that provided the opportunity to win the match if scored achieved the highest effectiveness (81.7%), whereas those where a miss would result in immediate elimination recorded the lowest conversion rate (57.9%).

From a spatial perspective, over half of the penalty kicks (52.3%) were aimed at the lower zones of the goal, both central and lateral, aligning with the general tendency to target low areas to reduce the risk of missing. Overall, 67.5% of the penalties were successfully converted, 19.3% were saved by the goalkeeper, and 13.2% were missed entirely (off-target or hitting the post).

Concerning the relationship between shot direction and player laterality, the data showed a higher frequency of kicks directed toward the dominant-foot side of the player, known as the near post. The zones classified as “kicker side” accounted for 14.6%, 13.7%, and 28.8% of the shots, whereas the “far post” zones registered lower frequencies (6.6%, 5.7%, and 19.3%). Additionally, left-footed players achieved a success rate of 73.5%, compared to 65.6% for right-footed players. However, this difference was not significant (p = 0.584).

Figure 2 displays the effectiveness of penalty kicks based on the area of the goal targeted, without distinguishing between left- or right-footed players. The left panel includes all penalty kicks taken (n = 212), while the right panel focuses only on those directed between the goalposts (n = 184), meaning shots that were either saved or scored.

In terms of usage frequency (n = 212), the most commonly targeted areas were left-down (28.3%), right-down (19.8%), and left-top (13.2%), which together accounted for over 60% of all penalty kicks. However, when analyzing only shots directed on target (n = 184), their effectiveness varied: left-down achieved a success rate of 78.2%, right-down 62.5%, and left-top 100%. In contrast, other frequently used zones such as left-medium (9.9% of total penalties) recorded a lower success rate, with only 50% of on-target attempts resulting in goals.

Other less frequently used zones also exhibited high performance. Right-top, for instance, accounted for just 8.0% of total kicks but achieved 100% success on shots on target (n = 9). The same was true for the center-top area (2.8% of total kicks), which was the only zone to reach perfect effectiveness both in overall attempts and in shots directed on target. The center-middle and center-down areas also showed high success rates, each converting 88.9% of on-target shots.

Overall, the central areas of the goal, especially center-top, demonstrated the highest levels of accuracy. Despite their low usage, their performance indicates that they may be technically effective target options in decisive penalty scenarios.

Figure 3 shows the effectiveness of penalty kicks based on the targeted area of the goal, categorized according to the direction of the shot relative to the kicker’s dominant foot: kicker side (short post), middle, and far side (long post). The left panel includes all penalties taken (n = 212), while the right panel considers only those directed on target (n = 184), meaning shots that resulted in a goal or were saved by the goalkeeper.

This reclassification by laterality allows for a more precise analysis of tendencies between short and long post targeting. The most frequently used zone was kicker-down (28.8%), followed by far-down (19.3%) and kicker-top (14.6%). Kicker-down achieved a success rate of 72.1% for all kicks and 78.6% for on-target attempts. In contrast, far-down showed lower success: 58.5% overall and 61.5% on target.

In the upper zones, kicker-top recorded an overall success rate of 58.1%, while far-top showed 57.1%, with both areas presenting a relatively high proportion of missed or saved attempts. Regarding the middle-height areas, kicker-medium achieved 62.1% effectiveness on target shots, compared to 75.0% for far-medium, although the latter was used less frequently.

Overall, kicker-side zones were more frequently selected and generally yielded higher success rates compared to far-side zones, which may reflect a biomechanical or perceptual preference under high-pressure conditions.

Figure 4 shows the effectiveness of penalty kicks based on shot direction and the kicker’s laterality, distinguishing between right-footed and left-footed players. As in Figure 3, the left panels include all penalties (n = 212), while the right panels consider only on-target shots (n = 184).

Among right-footed players, the most frequently used zones were kicker-down (30.1%), far-down (18.4%), and kicker-top (16%). When considering only shots on target, success rates increased: kicker-down went from 69.4% to 77.3%, far-down from 50.0% to 53.6%, and kicker-top from 61.5% to 100%. The middle-top and middle-medium zones reached 100% accuracy in both conditions, while far-medium rose from 90.0% to 100%, and middle-down remained stable at 83.3%.

For left-footed players, the most commonly used zones were kicker-down (24.5%), far-down (22.4%), and kicker-medium (20.4%). The most effective zone was middle-down, with 100% accuracy in both total attempts and on-target shots. Far-top and kicker-top also achieved 100% success on shots on target, although their overall success rates were lower—50% and 40.0%, respectively—due to off-target attempts. Other effective areas included kicker-down (83.3%), far-down (81.8%), and middle-medium (75.0%). Far-medium did not record any successful penalties (0.0%).

When considering only shots on target, right-footed players stood out in middle-top, middle-medium, far-top, far-medium, and kicker-top, all with 100% success. They also achieved good results in middle-down (83.3%) and kicker-down (77.3%). Lower success rates were observed in kicker-medium (52.6%) and far-down (53.6%).

Left-footed players, in turn, achieved 100% success in middle-down, far-top, and kicker-top, and high percentages in kicker-down (83.3%), far-down (81.8%), and middle-medium (75.0%). Far-medium was the only zone without any goals on target.

In terms of spatial distribution, right-footed players directed 57.8% of their penalties toward their dominant side (kicker side), while left-footed players did so in 55.1% of the cases.

3.2. Analysis of Decisive Penalty Kick T-Patterns

To complement the descriptive and inferential analyses, a T-pattern detection procedure was conducted in order to explore the temporal structure and contextual regularities underlying decisive penalty kicks. This analysis was performed using the THEME software and focused exclusively on patterns with a minimum of three occurrences.

A total of 2435 unique T-patterns were identified and classified based on the type of decisive penalty kick:

• Miss—Lose (penalties missed that directly resulted in a loss).
• Score—Win (successful penalties that secured victory).
• Miss—Continue (penalties missed that allowed the opponent to continue and potentially win).

Each category was then subdivided according to the kicker’s laterality (left-footed or right-footed) and the outcome of the kick (goal, save, or off-target).

Due to the volume and complexity of the data, the full results are provided as Supplementary Material, including three detailed tables:

• Table S1 presents the most frequent T-patterns in Miss-Lose situations, revealing key factors such as run-up characteristics, shot direction, and contextual variables (e.g., venue, round).
• Table S2 includes the T-patterns associated with Score-Win penalties, highlighting conditions that consistently precede successful outcomes.
• Table S3 covers the patterns observed in Miss-Continue situations, offering insight into behaviors that may increase risk or reduce effectiveness.

This structured temporal analysis enriches the understanding of behavioral strategies adopted by players under high-pressure conditions and complements the static performance indicators presented earlier in the article.

4. Discussion

4.1. General Overview and Key Findings Under Pressure

Decisive penalty kicks in elite football represent unique high-pressure scenarios where psychological, tactical, and motor control factors interact to determine success or failure. Our findings reinforce previous research suggesting that performance under these conditions is shaped by both the situational context and the cumulative effects of stress during the shootout [6,10,12]. The advantage observed for teams taking the first kick aligns with earlier studies reporting similar trends [22], supporting the view that initiating the sequence can confer a psychological edge by placing immediate pressure on the opponent.

Reduced effectiveness in the final kicks of the sequence is consistent with the idea that rising pressure impairs technical execution [16,22]. This phenomenon may relate to the “choking under pressure” effect described in sports psychology literature [32]. whereby heightened anxiety and perceived responsibility disrupt motor performance. Moreover, the decisive nature of these kicks likely increases cognitive load, affecting attentional focus and decision-making in ways not observed in non-decisive penalties [8,9,31]. Together, these findings highlight the need to examine both spatial and temporal patterns to understand adaptive responses under pressure and to develop targeted preparation strategies.

4.2. Spatial Direction and Zone Preference

The tendency to target lateral areas, particularly the goalkeeper’s right, is consistent with previous evidence on laterality effects in penalty taking [2,8,10,11,14]. This bias may stem from biomechanical preferences—especially among right-footed players—linked to natural kicking mechanics and the perception–action coupling described in motor control theories [2,8,10]. However, our findings suggest that high-pressure contexts can disrupt these regularities, producing symmetry-breaking behaviors such as targeting the central vertical corridor. Although less frequent, central shots—particularly to the middle-top and middle-medium zones—showed notably high success rates, which may reflect opportunistic exploitation of goalkeepers’ anticipatory lateral movements [11,14].

From a theoretical perspective, the intentional breaking of spatial symmetry can be interpreted through established frameworks in motor control, decision-making under stress, and ecological dynamics. Under pressure, athletes often revert to well-learned motor patterns that offer proprioceptive control and minimize execution variability, consistent with Schmidt’s Schema Theory [33] and optimal control models [34]. Ecological dynamics emphasizes that such behaviors emerge from the interaction between task, environmental, and individual constraints, with performers exploiting affordances that maximize perceived control [35]. Attentional Control Theory further posits that anxiety shifts focus toward goal-relevant cues, leading athletes to select motor solutions that feel most reliable [32]. Thus, symmetry-breaking in penalty kicks appears to be a functional adaptation to the demands of the situation rather than random variation.

4.3. Laterality and Footedness

Differences between right- and left-footed players in shot distribution and accuracy, although not statistically significant, follow patterns reported in earlier studies [2,8,10]. Right-footed players showed a stronger bias toward their dominant side, while left-footed players displayed greater variability, supporting the view that minority laterality profiles introduce unpredictability and challenge goalkeeper anticipation [2,8,10]. From a performance standpoint, these findings underline the value of individualized penalty preparation that accounts for the kicker’s laterality and the goalkeeper’s tendencies. Coaches could leverage the variability of left-footed players in decisive contexts, as their unpredictability may confer a tactical advantage.

4.4. Temporal Pattern Analysis (T-Patterns)

The use of T-pattern detection revealed sequential structures in penalty execution that are not apparent in conventional statistics. These patterns, consistent with prior applications of THEME in sports performance analysis [4,31], indicate that certain spatial choices and outcomes cluster under specific contextual conditions. Such structures align with the concept of emergent coordination patterns in ecological dynamics, where athletes adapt based on environmental cues and the evolving sequence of play.

By uncovering these hidden temporal regularities, our study adds to the evidence supporting T-pattern analysis as a tool for revealing the underlying logic of performance behaviors. This approach offers practical value by enabling coaches to anticipate and train for recurrent behavioral sequences in high-pressure scenarios.

4.5. Contributions and Applied Implications

This research provides new evidence on how spatial symmetry is maintained or broken during decisive penalty kicks, integrating both spatial and temporal perspectives. By highlighting the interplay between biomechanical preferences, psychological pressure, and sequential dependencies, the findings can inform targeted training interventions for both kickers and goalkeepers. For example, goalkeepers may benefit from training to resist anticipatory movements that open central shooting lanes, while kickers can be trained to exploit these openings effectively.

Moreover, the methodological integration of systematic observation with T-pattern detection offers a replicable framework for analyzing performance behaviors in other sports contexts. The dual focus on spatial and temporal patterns enriches the tactical understanding of penalty shootouts, providing actionable insights for elite-level preparation.

4.6. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study focused exclusively on decisive penalty kicks in elite international competitions, which may limit its applicability to league matches or non-decisive penalties. The relatively small number of left-footed kickers restricted the robustness of laterality-based comparisons, and goalkeeper anticipation or movement patterns—despite their potential influence—were not examined. The T-pattern methodology is sensitive to coding quality and temporal resolution; integrating multimodal data (e.g., biomechanics, gaze tracking, physiological indicators) could strengthen analyses. The predefined goal-zone grid could also be replaced or complemented by dynamic spatial models, such as ball-trajectory heatmaps or AI-based goalkeeper tracking.

Future studies should test training interventions to manage spatial–temporal asymmetries, analyze decision-making under fatigue or emotional stress, and explore kicker–goalkeeper interaction dynamics to enhance performance in high-pressure contexts.

5. Conclusions

This study offers new insights into how elite football players respond to high-pressure situations by selectively breaking spatial and behavioral symmetry during decisive penalty kicks. The results confirm that penalty shootouts are not purely stochastic events but are governed by strategic tendencies shaped by biomechanical familiarity, perceptual comfort, and psychological stress.

Despite the theoretically symmetrical nature of the goal structure, kickers consistently favored the lower zones—particularly the short-post areas on their dominant side—suggesting a functional asymmetry driven by motor control strategies. Interestingly, central areas, although infrequently targeted, demonstrated the highest success rates, pointing to untapped opportunities that remain underutilized in practice.

Contextual factors such as venue, order of execution, and type of penalty (i.e., win/loss consequence) also influenced outcomes, highlighting the role of situational asymmetries beyond spatial configuration. These findings suggest that both environmental and internal (motor/perceptual) asymmetries must be considered when analyzing performance under pressure.

Moreover, the T-pattern analysis revealed structured behavioral sequences that distinguish successful from unsuccessful kicks, underscoring the importance of temporal dynamics and routine consistency in high-stakes contexts.

From an applied perspective, these results support tailored training approaches that incorporate not only spatial variability in shot placement but also psychological resilience and decision-making under stress. For coaches and analysts, understanding the nuanced interplay between symmetry, laterality, and outcome can inform more effective strategies in preparation for penalty shootouts.