mandatory caution for circumventing Law 12 on a backpass

[vetshak]

I had a very curious situation develop in an amateur game last week, and would be interested to hear other opinions on what happened and how they would deal with it.

Defender traps ball 30 yards off the goal line facing his own goal. He mis-touches the ball, chipping it into the air over his head. An attacker, recognizing the mis-touch applies pressure. The defender recognizes the pressure and heads the ball back to his keeper.

I'm 10 yards up field from this play, and I can see what is about to happen as the ball rolls back to the keeper, so I'm already moving. The keeper traps the ball with his foot, and sure enough reaches down and picks the ball up. I blow the whistle and signal for the FK, sprinting to the spot so I can get my hand up for an IFK for the backpass.

As I'm running, my mind is screaming at me, "Mandatory caution, this is that stupid exception you always mention when you teach this rule in Grade 8 classes!!" So now I call the defender over and caution him because he used trickery to circumvent the backpass rule. Meanwhile, the keeper, thinking there might be a quick FK, boots the ball 40 yards away.

The defender begins complaining to me that it wasn't his fault that his keeper was a moron and picked the ball up. Now Law 18 clicks in... the guy is right. I don't think he was trying to circumvent the rule, he was just using the keeper as an outlet. His stupid keeper just assumed he could pick the ball up because it was headed back. So I rescind the caution for unsporting to the defender. But I do caution the keeper for delaying the restart for kicking the ball away. (Even though I was delaying the restart for the original card... the intent of the keeper was clear, and ultimately, this punished him for circumventing the rule, even though that's not how it's written and I don't think he did it knowingly. Law 18, again.)

Ultimately, everybody was satisfied. But I'm still uncertain. We can't read the players' thoughts, but in my opinion, I don't think the defender was purposely trying to circumvent the backpass rule. Nonetheless, the ATR still says it's a mandatory caution to the defender. My AR thought I should have stuck with the caution to the defender. I still think it turned out OK, but I'm curious as to how others feel about this...

[Untroubled by Reason]

I had a very curious situation develop in an amateur game last week, and would be interested to hear other opinions on what happened and how they would deal with it.

Defender traps ball 30 yards off the goal line facing his own goal. He mis-touches the ball, chipping it into the air over his head. An attacker, recognizing the mis-touch applies pressure. The defender recognizes the pressure and heads the ball back to his keeper....
Notice what I emphasized in your description: I'm not sure you have trickery here, and hence, no IFK. OK, the defender screwed up his first touch, but then heads the ball back to his GK. I assume the GK handled the ball within his PA, so I don't really percieve a foul there. In other words, once the defender headed the ball back, we're done. Am I being too naive?

[vetshak]

So what if the defender purposely chips the ball into the air to try a bicycle kick, then changes his mind? So it's not a mis-touch, just a sudden change in tactics? Does that change things?

[ref47]

maybe. if i believe that the player purposely played the ball to be able to avoid kicking it to his keeper, but deliver it in another way - yc to the player.
in the original post, i see no violation - not the player or the keeper. in your second situation, i am leaning to yc because i don't have any way of knowing that the player changed his mind on how he would play the ball.

and remember, if you believe trickery to aviod kicking the ball to the keeper has happened, it does not matter how the keeper chooses to play the ball - yc to the tricky player.

[Wreave]

From the USSF ATR:

"The requirement that the ball be 'deliberately kicked' means that the play on the ball is deliberate and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion of the referee, accidentally deflected or misdirected."

"NOTE: (b) This portion of the Law was written to help referees cope with timewasting tactics by teams, not to punish players who are playing within the Spirit of the Game."

----------------------

You said yourself that, in your opinion, the ball was mis-hit. Sounds like no foul to me.

[Untroubled by Reason]

So what if the defender purposely chips the ball into the air to try a bicycle kick, then changes his mind? So it's not a mis-touch, just a sudden change in tactics? Does that change things?
In that case, yeah, I feel it does. If he purposely, intentionally played the ball up to be able to head it back to his GK, then it's down to trickery. In the other case, he just fluffed up and had to recover from his error.

[jayhonk]

Original scenario:

"Back Pass": No.
YC for Trickery: Definitely no.
(I am not sure there is such thing as unintentional trickery.)

If No and NO, then the YC for delay becomes tenuous (since you should not be blowing the whistle). For instance, if during your instant self-analysis you wish to unblow the whistle, and actually call for a drop ball somewhere (near the center circle, perhaps), then the YC is a hard sell. If you figure that game management issues mandate that you stick with the inbound IFK, pretending that you made the right call for the Passback, but that you just won't call it that way next time, then enforcing the YC for delay becomes morally problematic.

There is a kind of a time-travel butterfly effect thing going on here. If you don't blow the whistle, he doesn't kick the ball away...

Glad to hear that it worked out OK.
See, it is a good thing that the players don't know the rules.

[Gary V]

Please note that any trickery that occurred, happened regardless of whether the goalkeeper handled the ball or not. The caution is against the player for attempting to circumvent the Laws. It doesn't require goalkeeper cooperation - the circumvention itself is the problem. And as a result, after the caution the indirect free kick is taken at the spot where the trick happened, back where the player flicked the ball up to his head (or whatever it was that was done).

uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick

Engages in trickery to circumvent the goalkeeper's limitation on handling the ball played from a teammate's foot (the defender who initiates the "trickery" is cautioned, the decision does not require that the goalkeeper actually handles the ball, and the misconduct can occur during dynamic play or at a restart)

Nevertheless, your description of events doesn't sound like a deliberate trick to me.

[vetshak]

You know, that's a really interesting question. Does the circumvention of the backpass rule always have to be on purpose (i.e., involve trickery)? Do we have to read the player's mind and decide if he is actually utilizing trickery? Can a backpass take place through circumvention and yet no trickery take place?

I frequently have players ask for the backpass call when a defender deliberately plays the ball but misplays it to an area where the keeper picks it up. That is clearly NOT a backpass.

But if the defender has control the entire time, then passes the ball back to the keeper by means other than foot, and it is then picked up, it seems to me the spirit of the Law askes for a call in that circumstance.

I had no doubt at the time about calling it a backpass, but I don't think he purposely circumvented the rule so his keeper could pick it up.

But I also don't think it's fair to not make the call in that situation, because the ball was deliberately played with the feet to the head and then back to the keeper. Maybe the defender didn't intend to circumvent the law when he started the sequence, but the spirit of the law was clearly violated.

As for the caution to the keeper, I had no problem with cautioning him for delay. That was his intent, even if it really wasn't delaying the restart because I was. Even if I incorrectly called the backpass and never intended to caution the defender, that doesn't entitle him to bash the ball 40 yards away to prevent a quick restart. Again, the spirit of the Law was violated.

Lastly, Gary V, you make a really good point about the spot of the infraction... I did blow that one when I consdiered it trickery (initially). I restarted where the keeper touched the ball.

Of course, seeing as I rescinded the card and chose to simply punish it as a backpass, then the restart was in the correct spot after all. Yikes, what a FUBAR situation...

[chrisrun]

Of course, seeing as I rescinded the card and chose to simply punish it as a backpass, then the restart was in the correct spot after all. Yikes, what a FUBAR situation...

If the keeper picked up a ball that was headed to him, he can't be punished for a backpass violation. You either punish the defender for trickery (IFK where the defender was), or there is no call and inadvertent whistle (drop ball where the ball was when the whistle blew).

[hradilv]

I frequently have players ask for the backpass call when a defender deliberately plays the ball but misplays it to an area where the keeper picks it up. That is clearly NOT a backpass.

Actually, this is not so clear. If the ball was indeed mis-kicked, then correct, no foul. However, if the ball is played deliberately to an area where the GK picks it up - even if not intended for him - it is a handling violation. See the 05/21/08 position paper at ussoccer.com.

'Pass Back' Violation (.pdf) - added 5/21/08 - (Watch now at YouTube)

[shawn12011]

Law 12 - An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:

- takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his hands before releasing it from his possession

- touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player

- touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate

- touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw in


The deception on the bicycle kick or anything else is meaningless once the defender heads the ball back.

[DWickham]

The term "backpass" causes problems. The IFK foul occurs when the GK handles a a ball deliberately kicked by a teammate.

Kicked means foot.
Deliberately means the ball went where/how the player intended (i.e., not a miskick). It requires the referee to infer intention from the player's actions and the movement of the ball.

The kicked ball doesn't need "back" - forward or sideways will also infringe the law. It doesn't need "pass". If the defender kicks the ball into the PA and it isn't a miskick, the keeper cannot handle the ball (even if the ball was intended to be passed to another defender or the keeper runs 20 yards to get to the ball.)

The original purpose of the IFK foul (formerly called a technical offense) is to keep the game moving. Otherwise, the keeper would hold the ball for six seconds, release the ball to the defender, who would kick it back for another six seconds, etc. That made for an extremely boring match.

Misconduct is the unsporting behavior by the defender. It happens when ITOOTR the defender is attempting to deliberately kick the ball to a place where the keeper can handle it, but uses a trick (usually flicking the ball with the foot to the head and heading it.) Nothing is a miskick. It is a practiced move. The misconduct occurs when the defender acts, the keeper doesn't have to touch the ball. (Note: high school rules differ). It is not "mandatory" in the sense that it is always 100 percent misconduct under the current USSF teaching. When/ how to deal with it will depend on the referee's judgment about the circumstances of the match.

[vetshak]

I found two references tonight which should further clarify this:

USSF ATR, 12.20

... (b) This portion of the Law was written to help referees cope with timewasting tactics by teams, not to punish players who are playing within the Spirit of the Game.LOTG, pg. 114 in Interpretations and Guidelines

There are different circumstances when a player must (my emphasis) be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:

• uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to
his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee etc. in order to
circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper
touches the ball with his hands or not. The offence is committed
by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the
spirit of Law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kickThe ATR reference implies that as long as players are not violating the spirit of this Law, we shouldn't be haphazardly calling backpass (which I will continue to use for shorthand here, accepting its flaws) violations. A deliberate ball kicked into the defensive PA, picked up by the keeper, should not be an infringement if it does not infringe on the spirit of the Law. In the opinion of USSF.

And according to FIFA, such an infraction by a defender is a mandatory caution. I agree the ATR section 12.20 does not require that a caution be given whenever this occurs, but if it does occur, it is considered a mandatory caution.

I fully understand that the situation I encountered should not be considered an infringement by the keeper; if anything, the defender committed an infraction. But at the same time, I think a clear violation of the Spirit of the Law occurred. The Law is written to prevent this defensive tactic. Maybe the defender didn't intend to do anything against the Law, and maybe I screwed up and should have just cautioned him. I dunno. But I do know there was a violation of the Spirit of the Law, and at the least, USSF appears to authorize the referee to apply it in this situation.

[refmedic]

I don't think there was any type of trickery here (I'm not a fan of the trickery argument almost universally). For there to be trickery, the referee must determine that the defender intentionally flicked the ball to his head to circumvent the law regarding the goalkeeper playing the ball with his hands after being kicked to him by a teammate. YOu stated that you felt it was a mis-kick. Therefore, there is no intentional "passback". THe "passback" and the trickery are 2 mutually exclusive things. You can either call the "passback" or call the trickery. Since you said there was a mis-kick, there was no passback, and you can't punish the GK for playing the ball with his hands. If you feel that there was no intent on the part of the defender to circumvent the law, then there was no trickery. So now you have blown the whistle for no reason. YOu must restart with a dropped ball from where the ball was when you blew the whistle. IF you call the trickery, then it is on the defender, not the GK, and the restart is an IFK from the position of the defender.

Jayhonk makes an excellent point here on the caution to the GK. You may not have a problem with cautioning the GK for his behavior, but I do. If you decide that you made an error in whistling for trickery, and then issuing an incorrect caution to the defender, and then awarding the restart at the incorrect place, then you have made 3 errors. Had you not made those errors, or maybe even 1 of them, then the GK would never have punted the ball away. IMO, you can't punish the GK for something that he did as a result of your error, and would have never had the opportunity to do had it not been for your error(s).

Last fall, I had a match where I made a meal out of a free kick. There was a DFK about 35 yards from goal, and the defending team was milling around about 7 yards or so in front of the ball. I passively interjected myself into the management of the required distance when my assistance was neither needed nor wanted by the attacking team. While I had the defenders attention (I had not told anyone to wait for the whistle as I had not been resuested to intervene) the attacking team played a quick free kick and scored. Not being able to remove my head from my rectum in time, I allowed the goal. The rest of my match became extraordinarity difficult when that same team needed to defend free kicks. I could have cautioned for dissent and or FRD/DTR, but it would not have been fair, as it was a problem I created. I didn't think it was fair to punish the players for reacting to an error that I made. I had to eat it, within reason. I learned 2 lessons that day. Lesson 1: keep youself out of FK's unless you are either asked to get involved, or you HAVE to get involved. Lesson 2: If you don't make egregious mistakes, you don't have to eat the reaction to those egregious mistakes.

[vetshak]

I understand the issue with cautioning the keeper for delay/unsporting. But that is 100% dependent on the referee (me) recognizing I have called an inadvertent whistle.

If, on the field before the IFK restart, I recognize I should not have called the backpass, OK then, I should not caution the keeper. That's not what happened.

I opted to enforce the spirit of the Law, in which case I decided the keeper played the ball with his hands on a ball "kicked" (via the header, I understand the consensus is bad decision by me, no further argument!) and awarded the IFK. Incorrect, yes. But having established to everybody on the field that an IFK was awarded, correctly or incorrectly, that does not entitle a player to delay that restart.

What if the goalkeeper, infuriated with my decision, fires the ball at my head instead of kicking it away? Can we say, "Well, in hindsight we can't send him off for violent conduct because I screwed up the call?" That doesn't seem to be an appropriate response.

Don't get me wrong... I once pulled a reverse Graham Poll and accidentally gave a second yellow to a kid because he had the same number as somebody on the opposing team I had cautioned. I realized my error when the kid ripped his shirt and and stormed away yelling, "This is f*%king bulls&^t!" (USSF game, incidentally... not NFHS, though even then, I'm a big enough person to know the outburst was my fault and I still wouldn't punish the kid for his moment of cursing, even in a HS game). I re-read my book and recognized the error, quickly ran to the bench, apologized to both the player and the coach, and corrected everything. I didn't throw a straight red at the kid for FAL.

But somebody cursing about your screw-up in frustration is far different than a calculated tactical decision to delay a restart or commit violent conduct. I think if the misconduct is justified by a recognized error, rescinding the card is absolutely warranted.

But until I threw this question up on this message board, I was not under the impression that I had made the incorrect call. So while in hindsight we can all say, "He screwed up, bad card to the keeper," at the time considering the sequence of events and the decisions I made, I do not believe the caution to the keeper was unwarranted. I still don't.

[jkc313]

You know, that's a really interesting question. Does the circumvention of the backpass rule always have to be on purpose (i.e., involve trickery)? Do we have to read the player's mind and decide if he is actually utilizing trickery? Can a backpass take place through circumvention and yet no trickery take place?

I frequently have players ask for the backpass call when a defender deliberately plays the ball but misplays it to an area where the keeper picks it up. That is clearly NOT a backpass.

But if the defender has control the entire time, then passes the ball back to the keeper by means other than foot, and it is then picked up, it seems to me the spirit of the Law askes for a call in that circumstance.

I had no doubt at the time about calling it a backpass, but I don't think he purposely circumvented the rule so his keeper could pick it up.

But I also don't think it's fair to not make the call in that situation, because the ball was deliberately played with the feet to the head and then back to the keeper. Maybe the defender didn't intend to circumvent the law when he started the sequence, but the spirit of the law was clearly violated.

As for the caution to the keeper, I had no problem with cautioning him for delay. That was his intent, even if it really wasn't delaying the restart because I was. Even if I incorrectly called the backpass and never intended to caution the defender, that doesn't entitle him to bash the ball 40 yards away to prevent a quick restart. Again, the spirit of the Law was violated.

Lastly, Gary V, you make a really good point about the spot of the infraction... I did blow that one when I consdiered it trickery (initially). I restarted where the keeper touched the ball.

Of course, seeing as I rescinded the card and chose to simply punish it as a backpass, then the restart was in the correct spot after all. Yikes, what a FUBAR situation...
You really have to stop using the term backpass. It's not only meaningless, it's confusing trying to read your thoughts. Usually, those of you using this term mean it to be a deliberate kick of the ball to the keeper. That clearly didn't happen here. The only thing you need to consider is did the teammate of the keeper deliberately try to circumvent the Law through trickery. What the keeper does or does not do is totally immaterial. It sounds as though there was no trickery involved but of you thought it was then misconduct on the teammate of the keeper and IDFK is where the teammate headed the ball. If he bicycle kicks it then there's no trickery involved but now he has deliberately kicked the ball to the keeper, at least it's possible depending on whether you think the ball was miskicked or misdirected.
It DOES sound as if the caution to the keeper for delaying the restart of play by blasting the ball (even if the location of restart was wrong) 40 yards away.

[vetshak]

With all due respect to everybody who keeps telling me to quit using the term "backpass", I thought I made it pretty clear I was using that as shorthand for a "ball kicked to the keeper deliberately that cannot be handled".

If everybody would prefer, I'd be happy to abbreviate this as BKTTGKDTCBH. Frankly, I think that looks even more confusing and harder to remember, but it seemed to me message board etiquette allows for frequent shorthand (such as, for example, IDFK, FRD, DTR, etc.). I apologize if it's confusing... I was under the impression that most people had a clear understanding of what I mean.

I realize in this situation I have described, the ball was not kicked to the keeper... I was under the impression that I made it clear that I considered what happened to be a violation of the spirit of the Law, an interpretation that I have repeatedly stated I now understand to be incorrect.

I understand that when the Law was written, the idea was to caution players for deliberate circumvention. Therefore, I understand that the infracton occurs when the teammate chips the ball to his/her head/knee/chest in order to circumvent the law, not when the keeper handles the ball.

This Law has been around now for at least 15 (?) years, and most players know it. Therefore, when a defender plays the ball up to his/her head and then heads it back to the keeper, the only way it appears we can call that misconduct is if the defender then yells to the keeper, "You can pick it up!" Otherwise, if there is no such blatant display, then there is no harm done be cause we don't know if the player is purposely circumventing the law. Whether the keeper handles the ball or not is inconsequential.

Thank you all for making my understanding of this matter far more clear.

[CanadaFTW]

Please note that any trickery that occurred, happened regardless of whether the goalkeeper handled the ball or not. The caution is against the player for attempting to circumvent the Laws. It doesn't require goalkeeper cooperation - the circumvention itself is the problem. And as a result, after the caution the indirect free kick is taken at the spot where the trick happened, back where the player flicked the ball up to his head (or whatever it was that was done).

Is that really the rule? You can caution a player for a play that breaks no laws (if the goalkeeper doesn't pick the ball up)? That seems incredible to me.

[NHRef]

Is that really the rule? You can caution a player for a play that breaks no laws (if the goalkeeper doesn't pick the ball up)? That seems incredible to me.

Of course you can not caution someone who breaks no laws. However this is a violation of Law12, so yes you can and should caution him. You are cuationing the person who intentionally got around the backpass law using trickery, this is called out as one of the types of UB.