The player pool comes before the order
Law 10 requires the team with more players to reduce its eligible number to match its opponents before or during a shoot-out. Being excluded for that purpose is different from receiving a red card.
Suppose one team finishes with eleven players and the other with ten after a sending-off. A viewer might expect eleven potential takers against ten. The procedure instead creates equal-sized groups. That matters later, when the sequence reaches the end of the available names.
Read a missing name in context
If a familiar forward stays away from the central group, the camera image alone does not establish injury, a disciplinary sanction or a tactical refusal. The player may have been excluded to equalise the numbers. The announced eligible list is more useful evidence than a reaction shot.
For a simple viewing note, draw two columns of ten names in the hypothetical case. Place each kick under the appropriate name as the order unfolds. This makes the size of the pool visible and avoids treating an unused player on the sideline as an automatically available extra taker. The example assumes the ordinary eligibility requirements are met; it does not cover every goalkeeper-replacement exception.
Questions answered
Is equalising numbers another sending-off?
No. Exclusion from the shoot-out pool is a different procedure.
Can the larger team simply retain an extra potential taker?
Law 10 requires the eligible group sizes to be equalised.
Sources & further reading
Official references for the subjects discussed. Service terms and device software can change.