Two Questions

[Lazzer]

1. When a player plays the ball back to their own keeper (ie both players are on the same team) I know the restart is an IFK but should the kick be taken from from where the defender passed the ball or where the keeper picked it up? I always thought it was from where the keeper picked it up, but in a recent tournament a much more experienced referee placed it where the defender kicked it.

2. I was doing a tournament where the goals were a combination between American Football field-goal posts and a soccer goal. They looked exactly like this: Link (http://www.draperinc.com/images/Football/Images/FootballSoccerComboGoal.jpg). What happens if the ball richochets off the second, higher crossbar, and back into play? Are the uprights and top crossbar considered part of the field or should it result in a corner/goal kick?

Thanks

[NJ Ref]

Answer 1: If it was trickery on the part of the “passer”…flicks the ball up and heads it back…then the restart is at the location of the trickery. If it simply was last played by the foot of a teammate, the restart is at the point where the keeper touched the ball.

Answer 2: If the ball hits any “add ons” to official goals, the ball is out! This includes football goals and, with portable goals, the wheels along the side, etc.

[MassachusettsRef]

The technically correct answer(s) to question 2 is that: a field with goals like that is unplayable because there is a permanent 'foreign agent' on the playing field. But, obviously, in the US, we have to deal with that often, so what's the right thing to do?

Again, technically, the ball is NOT out when it hits the upright, since the upright is a continuation of the post. So, the proper restart should be a drop ball at the top of the goal area. But, through a combination of common sense and tradition (and I'm sure, in some local cases, actual by-laws or competition rules) it's accepted that the ball is out when it hits the uprights. Re-start with a corner kick or goal kick.

But, again, none of this is technically correct or acceptable within the Laws.

[Statesman]

The technically correct answer(s) to question 2 is that: a field with goals like that is unplayable because there is a permanent 'foreign agent' on the playing field. But, obviously, in the US, we have to deal with that often, so what's the right thing to do?

Again, technically, the ball is NOT out when it hits the upright, since the upright is a continuation of the post. So, the proper restart should be a drop ball at the top of the goal area. But, through a combination of common sense and tradition (and I'm sure, in some local cases, actual by-laws or competition rules) it's accepted that the ball is out when it hits the uprights. Re-start with a corner kick or goal kick.

But, again, none of this is technically correct or acceptable within the Laws.

MassRef, there is guidance on this in the ATR. I believe it first came out only a few years ago based on the growing number of modified goal structures:

1.7 SUPERSTRUCTURE ON GOALS
It is not uncommon on public fields for the soccer goals to include structures attached to and above the crossbar (particularly where the goal is being used for other sports). If the ball strikes any part of such a structure, apart from or in addition to striking a goal post or crossbar, the ball is considered to have left the field even if, as a result of the contact, the ball remains on the field. The restart (goal kick or corner kick) is based on Laws 16 or 17.

[MassachusettsRef]

MassRef, there is guidance on this in the ATR. I believe it first came out only a few years ago based on the growing number of modified goal structures:Good find. You know, after I wrote it, I began to think there might be something on this, but was too lazy to look.

So, there it is, with the force of law (at least in USSF games).

[USRef]

Answer 1: If it was trickery on the part of the “passer”…flicks the ball up and heads it back…then the restart is at the location of the trickery. If it simply was last played by the foot of a teammate, the restart is at the point where the keeper touched the ball.



The only way I could see this being acceptable is if the infraction occared within the six yard area. If the defender was on the line or anywhere inside the area, then it would look like it had been brought to where the defender kicked it from. The reasoning for this is that the ball is moved to the point closest to where the infringment occured on the six yard line.

[USSF REF]

Please note... (Most on this board know this, but for the causal passerby who maybe doesn't know and because it hasn't been clarified on this thread...)

It is not a violation for the goalkeeper to pick up a ball that has been played back to him by his teammate. It is only a violation when the ball has been KICKED directly back to him, or thrown to him from a throw-in. If the ball is headed, chested, kneed or otherwise played but not kicked back to the keeper, they are free to pick it up.

There are 2 exceptions to this:

A) The ball is at the ground and the attacker kicks it up to his head (or other body part) and then plays it back to the keeper. This is not only an IFK where the ball is picked up by the keeper* but it is also a mandatory caution to the player who played it to the keeper for this player has "circumvented the laws of the game by using a deliberate trick" aka -TRICKERY-.

B) Same idea, but this time player A1 kicks the ball off the ground to player B2's knee (or head or whatever) and B2 plays it to their keeper. This is also a mandatory caution (or possibly 2 cautions) and an IFK from the place where the ball was picked up by the keeper*.

*(subject to the special circumstances of law 8)

[Gary V]

A) The ball is at the ground and the attacker kicks it up to his head (or other body part) and then plays it back to the keeper. This is not only an IFK where the ball is picked up by the keeper* but it is also a mandatory caution to the player who played it to the keeper for this player has "circumvented the laws of the game by using a deliberate trick" aka -TRICKERY-.

B) Same idea, but this time player A1 kicks the ball off the ground to player B2's knee (or head or whatever) and B2 plays it to their keeper. This is also a mandatory caution (or possibly 2 cautions) and an IFK from the place where the ball was picked up by the keeper*.
A) The location of the restart is where the infraction occurred. The first infraction is the trickery, thus the IFK restart is at the location of the teammate, not the keeper. The stoppage is for the caution, not what the keeper does. Incidentally, the trickery is to be punished regardless of what the keeper does - it is immaterial whether the ball is picked up or not. (Look it up, it's in Advice.)

B) This is not automatically trickery. Players may pass the ball to each other in any legal manner, and then if it is played back to the keeper in a manner other than a deliberate kick there is no offense if the keeper picks up the ball. Only an extremely contrived play, where the opponents have no opportunity to intervene, would be considered trickery. (That can be looked up in Jim Allen's archives.) And again, the restart would be at the location of the trickery, per A).

[usatowin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Ref
Answer 1: If it was trickery on the part of the “passer”…flicks the ball up and heads it back…then the restart is at the location of the trickery. If it simply was last played by the foot of a teammate, the restart is at the point where the keeper touched the ball.
---

The only way I could see this being acceptable is if the infraction occared within the six yard area. If the defender was on the line or anywhere inside the area, then it would look like it had been brought to where the defender kicked it from. The reasoning for this is that the ball is moved to the point closest to where the infringment occured on the six yard line.

Are you saying NJ is wrong? It's 100% correct. Trickery is misconduct committed by the defender. IFK from location is the restart for misconduct on the field by a player on the field. If trickery was not involved, then the GK has committed one of the GK IFK offenses, which are taken from where the GK did it.

[usatowin]

There are 2 exceptions to this:

A) The ball is at the ground and the attacker kicks it up to his head (or other body part) and then plays it back to the keeper. This is not only an IFK where the ball is picked up by the keeper* but it is also a mandatory caution to the player who played it to the keeper for this player has "circumvented the laws of the game by using a deliberate trick" aka -TRICKERY-.

B) Same idea, but this time player A1 kicks the ball off the ground to player B2's knee (or head or whatever) and B2 plays it to their keeper. This is also a mandatory caution (or possibly 2 cautions) and an IFK from the place where the ball was picked up by the keeper*.

*(subject to the special circumstances of law 8)

You missed on this one as stated before. To put it more simply: Where would we restart if the GK didn't use his hands? It's still an offense even if the hands aren't used. Since the offense is the trickery itself, and not the trickery followed by the GK handling, we go where the trickery was, the spot of the defender.

[USSF REF]

You missed on this one as stated before. To put it more simply: Where would we restart if the GK didn't use his hands? It's still an offense even if the hands aren't used. Since the offense is the trickery itself, and not the trickery followed by the GK handling, we go where the trickery was, the spot of the defender.

If he doesn't pick it up but instead traps it with his chest and then plays it with his feet would you really stop the game and give a yellow card. I think it would be hard to "sell" that. I forget if we've had this debate before, but I offer if the keeper never picks the ball up and you still punish the player for trickery, you would be "mind reading" and certainly acting with too much zeal. The players, coaches, and spectators would have no clue what you were doing, even if you were "technically correct" as the advice goes, AND when everyone else on the field has NO CLUE what you are doing, you're only digging yourself a hole.

We can argue the theoretical all we want to, but from a practical stand point. I would just save the whistle in cases such as these for when the keeper handles the ball back. Save yourself the headache and the credibility during the match.

That said, I think you're right regarding the restart location, assuming trickery was involved. The one time I had the call this in a match, I put the restart where the kick was taken from -- I guess I just wasn't thinking last night. I was crossing that bit up with where the restart goes in standard cases of passbacks.

Also a correction: Earlier I posted: A) The ball is at the ground and the attacker kicks it up to his head (or other body part) and then plays it back to the keeper. This is not only an IFK where the ball is picked up by the keeper* but it is also a mandatory caution to the player who played it to the keeper for this player has "circumvented the laws of the game by using a deliberate trick" aka -TRICKERY-.


It should read: A) The ball is at the ground and the defender kicks it up to his head (or other body part) and then plays it back to the keeper. This is not only an IFK where the ball is picked up by the keeper* but it is also a mandatory caution to the player who played it to the keeper for this player has "circumvented the laws of the game by using a deliberate trick" aka -TRICKERY-.
thanks Wreave.

[usatowin]

If he doesn't pick it up but instead traps it with his chest and then plays it with his feet would you really stop the game and give a yellow card.

Absolutely would.

I think it would be hard to "sell" that. I forget if we've had this debate before, but I offer if the keeper never picks the ball up and you still punish the player for trickery, you would be "mind reading" and certainly acting with too much zeal. The players, coaches, and spectators would have no clue what you were doing, even if you were "technically correct" as the advice goes, AND when everyone else on the field has NO CLUE what you are doing, you're only digging yourself a hole.

We can argue the theoretical all we want to, but from a practical stand point. I would just save the whistle in cases such as these for when the keeper handles the ball back. Save yourself the headache and the credibility during the match.

Think about when you're calling this. It's not going to be a gotcha thing after a 40 yard defender to defender kicked cross, headed to the GK. It's going to be really obvious. Juggling to themself, chipping it to someone's head when they're within a few yards of each other. It's pretty clear in these kinds of situations they're trying to circumvent the law and that's why the guidance is the defender is cautioned for UB despite what the keeper does.

If you're worried about the sell, hit the whistle before the keeper gets it. How? When the defender starts juggling or chips it to the other guy, instead of going :eek: :confused: , start bringing the whistle up. When it goes towards the GK, hit it.

[USSF REF]

Absolutely would.

If you're worried about the sell, hit the whistle before the keeper gets it. How? When the defender starts juggling or chips it to the other guy, instead of going :eek: :confused: , start bringing the whistle up. When it goes towards the GK, hit it.

It's not for me, I can't imagine a situation where issuing this caution will help the players, the teams, or me. But far be it for me to say that you are wrong for booking this -- because the book says you are correct to do so, but I still can't see that this really requires a caution if the keeper doesn't pick it up. I just think it will cause problems, but thats just my opinion and my style. Everyone has to do what they think is right. At the most I would treat it like a keeper carrying the ball over the line, maybe a verbal warning, then a stern and public verbal admonisment before stopping play for this.

[usatowin]

It's not for me, I can't imagine a situation where issuing this caution will help the players, the teams, or me. But far be it for me to say that you are wrong for booking this -- because the book says you are correct to do so, but I still can't see that this really requires a caution if the keeper doesn't pick it up. I just think it will cause problems, but thats just my opinion and my style. Everyone has to do what they think is right. At the most I would treat it like a keeper carrying the ball over the line, maybe a verbal warning, then a stern and public verbal admonisment before stopping play for this.

You cut out the most important part in your quote. This isn't "gotcha reffing". It's an act that shows a sheer disregard and disrespect of the laws. Same reason we caution for a failed attempt to DOGSO, same reason we caution for trying to score with the hand even if it doesn't go in.

Further, even though I think the above has enough to stand on, if you would have called trickery had it been handled, not doing so because it wasn't handled is an error in law. While you may feel this doesn't require a caution, IFAB decided it was enough of a problem that it must be. What about removing the jersey after a goal? Maybe you don't gain much in that match, but you sure as hell better caution him when it comes off.

If you're looking for wiggle room, there is a little. All 3 players within 5 yards off each other or one guy taking multiple juggles, it's clear as day and you've got no room. Something less obvious, long lofted pass chested down to the keeper, you've got a little more ground to stand on in not deeming it trickery.

[EJDad]

[QUOTE=Gary V]A) The location of the restart is where the infraction occurred. The first infraction is the trickery, thus the IFK restart is at the location of the teammate, not the keeper. The stoppage is for the caution, not what the keeper does. Incidentally, the trickery is to be punished regardless of what the keeper does - it is immaterial whether the ball is picked up or not. (Look it up, it's in Advice.)

So If the defender pops the ball up and starts juggling you yellow card him? What if two defenders juggle back and forth near the 18? What if a defender and GK juggle back and forth? (see Eclipse Gu15 video on Youtube for when this might happen!) I understand that this is in the advice but I do not see how logic makes this a card unless the GK handles the ball. A player can pass the ball to another player in any manner within the laws. If I can lift it and head it to the 9 other teammates, why can't I do this with the GK? The intent of the rule was to eliminate the "free pass " of putting the ball safely in the hands of the GK and relieving the pressure of the opponent. As long as that does not happen what is the offense?

[usatowin]

So If the defender pops the ball up and starts juggling you yellow card him? What if two defenders juggle back and forth near the 18? What if a defender and GK juggle back and forth? (see Eclipse Gu15 video on Youtube for when this might happen!) I understand that this is in the advice but I do not see how logic makes this a card unless the GK handles the ball. A player can pass the ball to another player in any manner within the laws. If I can lift it and head it to the 9 other teammates, why can't I do this with the GK? The intent of the rule was to eliminate the "free pass " of putting the ball safely in the hands of the GK and relieving the pressure of the opponent. As long as that does not happen what is the offense?

This isn't just Advice, it's Law 12.

Decision 3
Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player may pass the ball to his own
goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in the
opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick while the ball is
in play in order to circumvent the Law, the player is guilty of unsporting
behaviour. He is cautioned, shown the yellow card and an indirect
free kick is awarded to the opposing team from the place where the
infringement occurred. * (see page 3)
A player using a deliberate trick to circumvent the Law while he is
taking a free kick is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and shown
the yellow card. The free kick is retaken.
In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently
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 please, let's use common sense instead of making up wild scenarios. How often do you see players juggling to each other in the same way as a trickery caution would involve?

[Sean_94]

You do not caution the defender when he/she begins juggling.
As I understand it, you caution when the defender shows a clear attempt to make a pass to the goalkeeper with the intention of permitting the GK to use his/her hands.
The intent by the defender to work around the law is the USB. Once the juggler makes the pass back to the GK, it is USB.
The GK might try to save the teammate by not using his/her hands, but according to the law that does not matter. An attempt to circumvent the law has already happened. Yellow card.

[USRef]

Are you saying NJ is wrong? It's 100% correct. Trickery is misconduct committed by the defender. IFK from location is the restart for misconduct on the field by a player on the field. If trickery was not involved, then the GK has committed one of the GK IFK offenses, which are taken from where the GK did it.

No, I simply quoted the wrong post. I was responding to Lazzer's first question about the ball being placed where the infringement started. Next time, don't be so quick to jump on people.

[usatowin]

No, I simply quoted the wrong post. I was responding to Lazzer's first question about the ball being placed where the infringement started. Next time, don't be so quick to jump on people.

I hope this isn't too quick for you: What do you expect when you quote a post that's correct and say "The only way I could see this being acceptable "? Are we supposed to read your mind and know you're not saying the one you quoted is wrong?

All you had to say was "No, I simply quoted the wrong post. I was responding to Lazzer's first question about the ball being placed where the infringement started."

[macheath]

It's not for me, I can't imagine a situation where issuing this caution will help the players, the teams, or me. But far be it for me to say that you are wrong for booking this -- because the book says you are correct to do so, but I still can't see that this really requires a caution if the keeper doesn't pick it up. I just think it will cause problems, but thats just my opinion and my style. Everyone has to do what they think is right. At the most I would treat it like a keeper carrying the ball over the line, maybe a verbal warning, then a stern and public verbal admonisment before stopping play for this.


Agreed, especially if it doesn't seriously affect play and is trivial.