Non pass back in game today, but controlled to keeper....

[Wahoos1]

Defender stops ball near end line about 2 feet from post by stepping on ball to stop/trap it then moves away and keeper pick up the ball.

I let it go and no one said anything. But the mind was rolling around the ideas of some variant of pass back, trickery etc.

thoughts?

[Ref Flunkie]

Defender stops ball near end line about 2 feet from post by stepping on ball to stop/trap it then moves away and keeper pick up the ball.

I let it go and no one said anything. But the mind was rolling around the ideas of some variant of pass back, trickery etc.

thoughts?

Sounds like a passback to me...the defender left the ball for the keeper after using his foot. Of course, had it been going out for a goal kick anyway, I may have looked passed it.

[Wreave]

It's a passback. Controlled with the feet, handled by the keeper.

Would like to add a thought from Jim Allen, on a similar situation where a passback call would have been correct in terms of the letter of the law: "Whether it should be called is an entirely different matter and would depend on such things as the competitive level of the teams, whether the goalkeeper handled the ball to unfairly remove the possibility of an opponent's challenge, etc. If there were no opponents nearby, the referee would likely simply classify it as a trifling infringement and warn the players about their actions. If the goalkeeper was clearly handling to foil an active, immediate challenge, the referee should be inclined to blow the whistle. Restart with an indirect free kick at the place where the goalkeeper touched the ball with the hands."

BTW, I have called a passback violation in a very similar situation to the one you described. With attackers in the area, I blew the whistle and got a little flack from the coach. Later in the game, a passing 07, who is well-respected by the refs and coaches in our group, happened by, and the coach asked him about it. He agreed it was a passback.

[sandaroo]

It's definately a deliberate action by the defender which should warrant an IFK to the opposing team. The only reason I said "should" would be the age level of the players. I would probably verbally warn a U12 or below player, and use the incident as a teaching point to the players.

[USSF REF]

Don't make mountains out of mole hills.

[USSF REF]

If anyone wants to see a high level match, with a pass back called, check out the Champions League match with Benfica. I thought the call was correct, and possibly is the first professional match that I have seen such an occurance.

[IASocFan]

Don't make mountains out of mole hills.

I like this attitude. The reason for the passback rule was to prevent stalling. Having the keeper pick up the ball, probably puts the ball into real play quicker than having the defender dribble it out.

My understanding of kick includes some amount of force applied to the ball. The defender is not kicking the ball but stepping on it to stop it.

I have made the pass back call, but only on obvious passes. I haven't made the call lately because the defenders and keepers are more aware of the rules and have probably seen calls made. The attackers are pretty aware of the rules and usually remind us of anything close to a passback that might be called.

In a JV girls game, I had a defender try to clear a high bouncing ball near the corner of her penalty area. Her keeper made a spectacular save catching the ball before it scored far upper 90. Of course, several of the attackers suggested back pass, but I explained that I didn't think it was a pass. :eek:

[njref]

When the defender shields the ball from an attacker and then taps it back or controls it for the keeper would you consider that a molehill or a pass back? It is not within the purpose given for the rule (no stalling here) but let's assume that it has an effect on play, without the help the goalkeeper might have had trouble coming up with the ball.

Personally, I have called this a passback.

[blech]

When the defender shields the ball from an attacker and then taps it back or controls it for the keeper would you consider that a molehill or a pass back? It is not within the purpose given for the rule (no stalling here) but let's assume that it has an effect on play, without the help the goalkeeper might have had trouble coming up with the ball.

Personally, I have called this a passback.

we may be starting to mix apples and oranges if the ball is "tapped" back to the goalie (with the foot, of course). similarly, but a step further down the path, is where the ball is "controlled" to the goalie with the foot. i routinely coach my players to use a trap pass, not to the goalie but to teammates, so this could also give rise to a call. the tougher scenario is whether the ball has simply been trapped, and only afterward does the goalie come to get it. we've previously discussed the distinction between deliberate and intentional, but i agree that this potentially becomes a much tougher call. in the end, it really can be a case of "you had to be there" to make the final, tough distinctions....

what if the defender is facing away from the goal, and is trying to trap is with his foot to take it to the outside, but it bounces off his foot and toward the goal instead?

what if the defender is facing the goal and is trying to stop the ball dead so he can turn it to the corner, but it bounces off his foot and toward the goal instead?

what if the defender is facing the goal and is trying to stop the ball dead so that he can turn it to the corner, and after stopping it dead with his foot and preparing to make his turn, he hears a call from the goalie and as a result he does not make any further touches on the ball?

assume in all of these scenarios that the goalie then picks up the ball. the last touch before the goalie picked up the ball was from the foot of the teammate, but i would suggest that in none of these cases was the player actually kicking or passing the ball to the goalie. in the first two, he simply misplayed his trap, and in the third, after trapping the ball for himself, he refrained from any further touches after he heard the goalie.

obviously, i'm curious to hear if others disagree on these scenarios. and i think they begin to underscore the importance of understanding the level of competition and whether a player might be making a "trap-pass" or even trying to disguise a pass as a "bad trap".

all that said, the advice i received from a senior referee after i made what was a "mandatory" back-pass call was that this should be one of the least made calls you will ever make.

[NHRef]

to me, "intentionally kicked to the keeper" means just that, they have to kick it and it has to be intentionally to the keeper or with the intention of the keeper getting it.

We tend to have a tendancy to complicate things, the rules are pretty simple, don't read more into them than needed. When in doubt, the simple thing is normally the answer.

[chrisrun]

The ATR, Section 12.20, seems to spell it out pretty clearly to me.

"The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it has been played with the foot."

"The requirement that the ball be "kicked to" the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place where the keeper can legally handle the ball."

"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."

[ref47]

i keep reading from many people that a "passback" violation is normally a trifling thing and should normally not be called. but, what if the keeper has possession of the ball in the pa, drops it to his feet, dribbles outside the pa, decides it would be better to return to the pa and pick up the ball again? we have a second touch by the keeper. should we consider it trifling? is it any more a violation of the laws regarding keepers than the "passback"? i do not believe it is more or less a violation of the law. and what are we instructed by fifa to do when the keeper releases the ball and again uses his hands?

12-15 of the q&a's: an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team.

[blech]

i keep reading from many people that a "passback" violation is normally a trifling thing and should normally not be called. but, what if the keeper has possession of the ball in the pa, drops it to his feet, dribbles outside the pa, decides it would be better to return to the pa and pick up the ball again? we have a second touch by the keeper. should we consider it trifling? is it any more a violation of the laws regarding keepers than the "passback"? i do not believe it is more or less a violation of the law. and what are we instructed by fifa to do when the keeper releases the ball and again uses his hands?

12-15 of the q&a's: an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team.

for me, it is not that it is trifling or trivial, but i have taken the advice that i have received to be that there generally has not been a passback (i.e., don't just assume that it was a passback just because it last touched a defender's foot).

in response to the new question you describe, it is hard to imagine a realistic scenario where you would not call a second touch on the goalie who released the ball to himself, dribbled outside the area, then back in before picking up the ball again. i'm not exactly sure i understand the connection you are making because it is quite different than the analysis that needs to be made each time their is a potential passback scenario.

[Gary V]

The ATR, Section 12.20, seems to spell it out pretty clearly to me.

"The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it has been played with the foot."

"The requirement that the ball be "kicked to" the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place where the keeper can legally handle the ball."

"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."
Just playing devil's advocate here. There is a slight difference in interpretation between "deliberately kicked" / "to him" and "deliberately kicked to him". AtR takes the former interpretation.

I also wonder why there's a difference in the definition of kicking here (used the foot) and in IFK's (kicking motion by the foot).

The quotes from Jim Allen's site referenced above also seem to soften the hard stance expressed in AtR.

I'm not against making a "pass-back" call (although I wish there was a better short-name for the offense). I remember one call I made only because of stupidity: the defender was shepherding the ball to the keeper, and then decided to give it a little tap just to help her out.

[ref47]

blech - for me, i do not see either violation being more important than the other. and the q&a guidance for the second touch says give the ifk. therefore, i error on the side of giving the ifk for the "passback", particularly when it is done to get out from under a challenge by an opponent.

[macheath]

i keep reading from many people that a "passback" violation is normally a trifling thing and should normally not be called. but, what if the keeper has possession of the ball in the pa, drops it to his feet, dribbles outside the pa, decides it would be better to return to the pa and pick up the ball again? we have a second touch by the keeper. should we consider it trifling? is it any more a violation of the laws regarding keepers than the "passback"? i do not believe it is more or less a violation of the law. and what are we instructed by fifa to do when the keeper releases the ball and again uses his hands?

12-15 of the q&a's: an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team.

In keeping with the spirit of the original reason for putting this offense into the LOTG, the two touch scenario for a keeper is pretty likely to be wasting time, so it should be called. It's tricky not to call obvious violations of this rule, when opponents will see that you didn't. You may be setting yourself up for game management problems later. In the original scenario (defender stops the ball from rolling out, keeper picks it up), if it was trivial and didn't affect play, I would probably say, in a loud voice "Watch it--that could be called a passback" or somesuch.

[bluedevils]

i'm all for not calling trifling offenses. But I see a lot of occurrences, in games I work and games I watch, where it seems that the defender plays the ball with the foot toward an area of the field where the GK can get to it and the GK picks up the ball with his hands. My opinion is, too many referees are letting these things go uncalled for fear that they might be too harsh on the players. I like the guidance in the ATR and wish more referees would take it seriously.

It doesn't need to be a direct ball played firmly from defender right to the GK, in order for a violation to have occurred and to warrant being penalized.

[blech]

interesting "non-call" in today's game between Inter and Villareal in the 59th-60th minute

[refontherun]

I know this thread is over a month old, but I didn't want to start a new one for a similar incident.

In a U14B match last week, there was alot of action in front of one of the goals. A defender was trying to take the ball wide, but was stopped by three attackers at the top of the PA. He obviously passed (with the foot) the ball back in direction where the keeper could legally play it with his hands. The keeper had to move several feet laterally, but smothered the ball with his body and hands. There were no attackers making a play for the ball that I could see, however, they were within maybe 8 feet from where the keeper gained possession. I blew the whistle for an IFK. After the whistle, the keeper said the ball had deflected off an attacker and therefore he could pick it up. Because of my angle, I did not notice the deflection, but it brought up a good question. The IFK did not score, by the way.

Using the logic that, if an attacking player passes the ball to an offside positioned teammate, and the ball deflects (uncontrolled) off a defender, the offside position is not reset and we call the infraction. It seems to me, that the same logic would apply in a passback scenario. Even though I did not see the deflection, since I saw noone else control the ball after the initial "passback", the call should have been made.

I asked a couple of other local refs the next day, including the referee coordinator (Grade 7). They gave me the impression that since the ball was last touched by an attacker, it was okay for the keeper to handle it.

I'm not saying anyone, including me, is right or wrong, and I know there are some places in the Laws where using this kind of logic can be risky.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[bluedevils]

refontherun...

Great question. I’ve never thought about this one consciously. But I think in the back of my mind, I have always reffed with the idea that if it touches the attacker, no matter if it was deliberately played or the most minor of deflections, the GK can pick up the ball.

Thinking about this briefly now, my first thought is, there isn’t any reason why it should be treated the same way as a deflection for offside. But my 2nd thought is, there isn’t any reason why it shouldn’t! One can see it either way.

Personally, I will ponder this one a bit more and hopefully have more to contribute later.