Leicester - QPR match. In this situation I would believe it perfectly okay, as did the ref, as an attacker was in the immediate vicinity - more or less between the defender and the keeper. Defender kicks the ball (on the ground) to the keeper. The keeper chips it back (in the air) to the defender. The defender heads the ball back to the keeper, who gathers it in in his arms. As I said, an attacker was effectively between them. Take away the attacker. Say the keeper rolled the ball to the defender, kicked back to the keeper, chipped to the defender, headed to the keeper, held six or so seconds, rolled to the defender......ad infinitum. I understand the purpose of the "kick back to the keeper" rule was to essentially prevent this sort of gamesmanship and delaying tactic. If the defender kicks the ball up and then heads it to the keeper we call it "trickery." Yes, the actions describe above are different, but the result is the same. Trickery?
This kind of question has been brought about here a few times, and the conclusion is usually that A) this does not fall into what the rules describe as a deliberate trick to circumvent the passback rule, and B) that this will never be used as a time-wasting tactic because it would be extremely easy for the opposition to defend against.
YHTBT. From a coaching perspective, extremely stupid strategy as a referee could easily consider it trickery -- and it doesn't buy much time anyway. But it won't be ad infinitum unless the opposition is really, really stupid. Whether trickery is the best call, will depend on a lot of facts and circumstances -- the closer the defender is to the keeper, the more likely to fall within the trickery rubric (30 yards, headed back, no way to get to trickery; two yards, probably IMO as it is exactly the kind of behavior the rule was designed to preclude and does not meaningfully make the ball subject to challenge); the more the defender uses an "unnatural" play on the ball (getting down on knees, etc.) the more likely to be construed as trickery.
And yet getting on your belly to pass the ball to the keeper with your head doesn't constitute trickery, as we saw in that one clip from a while back. To be honest, I don't really understand what exactly constitutes trickery. But then, I don't really care too much—I'm not especially looking to enforce the passback rule under normal circumstances, so I figure that if I ever decide that I really need to caution for trickery, the circumstances will be so glaringly obvious that I'll know it when I see it.
Dropping down on a ball already in play is different from dropping down on a ball being played to you for the purpose of playing back to the GK beause the GK is presently unable to play it. Absolutely!
In this, just as usual, context is king. The defender that played the ball had over run the ball and turned and somewhat lost his balance and thus chose to play the ball in a way that wasn't just the most beneficial way but also, IMHO at least, in what was the quickest and easiest way available to him. And that makes it not a trick, again IMHO.
Exactly the same stance from me. You gotta choose your battles, and this isn't one I'm willing to fight. I'll caution that one scenario that is specifically mentioned in the text, and shrug my shoulders at the rest. Blackpool should worry about the other passback incident in this match (the game-winning own-goal) before worrying about this.
There is a very fine line between trickery and it's first cousin stupitidy. If a defender want to try the heading routine, and an attacker doesn't close that down in two heartbeats?
You don't have to make excuses to justify the call. He wasn't even remotely losing his balance. In fact, he even played the ball with his foot first to keep it in play. "Trickery" is defined in the laws as one specific action, and Steven Taylor's action was not in line with that definition, so the play is allowed. I don't like it, mind you, but again, I choose not to fight that battle. And this isn't something I'm particularly interested in punishing, anyway.
I'm honestly not trying to make excuses, I just think that Taylor didn't mean (or plan) it as a trick but rather for each touch chose to play it the easiest way he could. And that makes it not a trick IMO.
Mis-typed or mis-spelled? Also "it's" is used incorrectly. But just a bit of fun. I like to gig Evertonians whenever I can, also Man. U, Chelsea and Arsenal fans! (Prepares for angry onslaught!) No need to get all haughty about something that doesn't concern you. Crystal Palace fans not on my radar screen yet, still feel sorry for them, but really cannot stand Pardew your hero. Why anyone in the US would choose that team is beyond me. PH
Just curious if they're is anything spelled out from ifab FIFA or ussf referring to a pass back being only punished when it is wasting time?
Absolutely not. While that was the instigation, a broader objective has also been recognized. The current ATR [12.B.9] advises on these offenses as I believe either the prior ATR or a USSF memo more explicitly noted that while time wasting was a key to the adoption, the rule needed to be more broadly understood as to its purpose. I don't recall anything in FIFA publications on this.
Thanks been curious about that since anytime there is a possible pass back play, people seem to bring up "time wasting" as a factor.
I'll be sure to remember that, since my insignificant comments seem to bother you a lot, whereas they did not affect the initial target of them, who unlike you can clearly distinguish fun from real caustic remarks. Citation please? PH