Interesting "You Make the Call" posted on BBC Sport

[SirFozzie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/euro2008/2008/06/you_are_the_ref_4_1.html

midfielder misjudges a pass back to his centre-half. An opposition forward, spotting his chance, races in to challenge. The quick-thinking centre-half, feints to play the ball, but without touching it, he allows it to pass through his legs to his goalkeeper, who had sensed the danger and had run to the edge of the penalty box and then picks up the ball. Because the centre-half never touched the ball, the forward immediately claims it is a backpass to the goalkeeper. He screams for a free-kick to be awarded.

The Law States:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area [...] touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate."

The question is, does the centre-half's feint and deliberate allowing of the ball to roll through his legs to the keeper change the situation. It could be argued that by taking the action he did, he could qualify under the rule above.

I'd have to say, No Free Kick, play on. The pass back was not played directly TO the goalkeeper, the rule states "DELIBERATELY KICKED TO HIM", so play on.

[mkoenig_1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/euro2008/2008/06/you_are_the_ref_4_1.html

midfielder misjudges a pass back to his centre-half. An opposition forward, spotting his chance, races in to challenge. The quick-thinking centre-half, feints to play the ball, but without touching it, he allows it to pass through his legs to his goalkeeper, who had sensed the danger and had run to the edge of the penalty box and then picks up the ball. Because the centre-half never touched the ball, the forward immediately claims it is a backpass to the goalkeeper. He screams for a free-kick to be awarded.

The Law States:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area [...] touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate."

The question is, does the centre-half's feint and deliberate allowing of the ball to roll through his legs to the keeper change the situation. It could be argued that by taking the action he did, he could qualify under the rule above.

I'd have to say, No Free Kick, play on. The pass back was not played directly TO the goalkeeper, the rule states "DELIBERATELY KICKED TO HIM", so play on.

This is an infraction of Law 12. It is similar to a tactical foul by a defender who has been beaten and doesn't want the skilled attacker going in on goal alone.

IFK in for the attakers.

[TeeAy]

A memo from USSF on May 21, 2008 regarding "The 'Pass Back' Violation" clarifies this situation.

According to the memo, the violation has occurred when the ball is kicked (played with the foot) by a teammate of the goalkeeper, this action is deemed to be deliberate rather than a deflection, and the goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else). The memo goes on to say "...and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be 'to' the goalkeeper." This tells me that even though the midfielder may not have kicked the ball to the keeper, all three conditions have been met and the IFK should be awarded.

[campton]

IMO, it comes to how one defines deliberatly kicked.


It could be :

1) The player deliberately kicked the ball and then found its way to the goalkeeper

2) He was playing it to the GK

Idk the answer to this call, even according to law 12 its a bit confusing for me. I think FIFA needs to clarify what "Deliberate" means.

[code1390]

IMO, it comes to how one defines deliberatly kicked.


It could be :

1) The player deliberately kicked the ball and then found its way to the goalkeeper

2) He was playing it to the GK

Idk the answer to this call, even according to law 12 its a bit confusing for me. I think FIFA needs to clarify what "Deliberate" means.

The USSF Memo said a deliberate kick was a kicked ball. Doesn't matter if it was intended to go to the keeper or not. This would be an IFK.

[Rufusabc]

Again we are called upon to read the minds of the players. The ball is passed back towards the defenders and is picked up by the 'keeper. That's what we know. We are not privy to the midset of the midfielder doing the passing. He could very well have MEANT to play it back to the 'keeper. I'm always leery of questions that tell us after the fact what the player meant.

R

[mkoenig_1]

I believe the ATR makes it clear that if the kick is to an area where the GK can play it then it is considered to be "to the keeper."

[PVancouver]

As I have said before, drop the "to him" from the Laws, and there is much less of a problem.

[GlennAA11]

right, the important part is that the ball is deliberately kicked, i.e. not a deflection, and not that it is deliberately...to the keeper. So, since the midfielder deliberately kicked it and the GK touched it with his hands with no intervening touches it should be an IFK.

I agree the wording is not the best and couple easily be clarified.

But would any referee ever call it anyway? I would guess this foul is called about 10% of the time or less that it could be called. Precisely because it is confusingly worded and there are so many other, more important things that the referee is keeping track of at any particular time.

[PVancouver]

It should be called 100% of the time, unless there is some doubt about whether there was a deflection off the centre-half, in which case the goalkeeper had a right to pick up the ball, as any the breach of the Law would be doubtful.

[Tarheel Ref]

Again we are called upon to read the minds of the players. The ball is passed back towards the defenders and is picked up by the 'keeper. That's what we know. We are not privy to the midset of the midfielder doing the passing. He could very well have MEANT to play it back to the 'keeper. I'm always leery of questions that tell us after the fact what the player meant.

R

Although I'd hate to be the one in this situation...and probably hope that the keeper just clears the ball without picking it up, I'd probably go with a whistle for the IFK going in...now to 'splain myself.

The pass back may or may not have been a deliberate play to the GK, I agree with Rufusabc here that we cannot read the player's mind as to his/her intentions. The dummy play, however, by the defender is something that I would interpret as a deliberate play on the ball even though he didn't actually touch it...we've discussed dummy plays as they relate to offside and I think I remember that the consensus was that a dummy play does constitute involvement in the play.

In this case the dummy play would be a deliberate move to make sure the GK could play the ball although it doesn't fit directly with the LOTG that says deliberate pass-back with the foot...stringing together the events of the whole play make it possible to make the IFK call in accordance with the Laws...passback from the foot of a defender then ANOTHER defender deliberately makes a play on the ball (without actually touching it) that is clearly intended to get the ball to the GK.

If this was Law & Order the judge would probably say I'm bootstrapping but I think this interpretation is in keeping with the spirit of the Laws.

Let the debate rage on............

[refontherun]

This is an infraction of Law 12. It is similar to a tactical foul by a defender who has been beaten and doesn't want the skilled attacker going in on goal alone.

IFK in for the attakers.

I tend to agree with this scenario. Whether the ball was passed to the center back, or to the keeper is immaterial. It was passed by a teammate to an area where the goalkeeper could handle it. IDFK at the spot of the handling. Poor decisions by both the mid-fielder and the keeper. Sounds like the defender was just trying to give the keeper a extra moment to clear the ball with his feet.

[PVancouver]

Unless the center back actually touches the ball or there is some doubt about whether or not he touched the ball, the back pass call is not affected at all.

[Rufusabc]

I think with the attacker bearing down on the play I would be more likely to call the IFK. Take the attacker out of the equation, and I would proably allow for the 'keepr to pick it up and put it back into play.

[Tarheel Ref]

I think with the attacker bearing down on the play I would be more likely to call the IFK. Take the attacker out of the equation, and I would proably allow for the 'keepr to pick it up and put it back into play.

Agree here as well...if there is no possibility of an advantage to the attackers being taken away by the GKs handling of the ball if there is no attacker present, Law 18 should prevail.....

[PVancouver]

If the goalkeeper did not gain an advantage by picking up the ball, why did he do it?

[mkoenig_1]

Agree here as well...if there is no possibility of an advantage to the attackers being taken away by the GKs handling of the ball if there is no attacker present, Law 18 should prevail.....

Yes, but now we have other factors to take in to consideration in addition to the presence or absence of the attacker. What is the score of the game? Who is ahead? Is the midfielder trying to waste time by passing back to the GK (which is why this part of the law was created)? How old are the players? Is the GK a full-time GK?

There are ways to get out of calling this if one wants to, but that doesn't mean one should.

[Tarheel Ref]

Absolutely...lots of things to take into consideration...the scenario in my mind was with high enough level players to know about dummying the ball to deceive an opponent....if the defender had just tried to play the ball and missed and then the GK handled it I would say no infraction.

But I don't see how time-wasting comes into play...if the ball is in play whoever is in possession may pass it wherever they want...if the GK handles it simply to waste time then his penalty is the IFK going in rather than a caution...now if he handles it for an extended amount of time that's a different story....no matter how the ball came to be in his hands.

[HeadHunter]

If the goalkeeper did not gain an advantage by picking up the ball, why did he do it?

Because he wanted to. The key here and on your other response in this thread about calling it 100% of the time is that we need to consider that the offense might have been trifling.

I think we are all agreed that the play on the ball by the MF satisfies the deliberate portion (at least under USSF interpretation) and the keeper picked it up so you could call the foul. Additionally, given the forward bearing down on the play, Id probably call it-though Id consider how close he was to the keeper.

Otherwise we probably have a trivial infraction as no portion of the spirit of the laws have been violated. Play

[PVancouver]

Because he wanted to. The key here and on your other response in this thread about calling it 100% of the time is that we need to consider that the offense might have been trifling.

I think we are all agreed that the play on the ball by the MF satisfies the deliberate portion (at least under USSF interpretation) and the keeper picked it up so you could call the foul. Additionally, given the forward bearing down on the play, Id probably call it-though Id consider how close he was to the keeper.

Otherwise we probably have a trivial infraction as no portion of the spirit of the laws have been violated. Play

While the advantage gained by infringing the law might be considered trifling, in my mind, any obvious breach of the law should not be considered trifling, and thus should be called.

If a defender, 30 yards from any other player, decides to play a ball straight back to his keeper, who is also 30 yards from any other player, the keeper should not be allowed to pick up the ball. Sure, the game is hardly affected by the breach, but the laws of the game are being seriously flouted.

Any obvious violation of the law, no matter how trivial, should be whistled.

If a corner kick taker were to place the ball 1 yard outside the corner arc, would not the affect of the game likely be trivial? Surely the same player could place a ball 2 yards closer than the actual spot of a foul on a free kick and no referee would even grumble. But such a clear flouting of the law on a corner kick needs to be corrected.

If a player obviously infringes the law, do we really want players arguing with referees that, hey, the game wasn't really affected?

If the law were written that it was only illegal to pick up a back pass in order to waste time or to deny attacking play, then I would agree with you. But the law says it is illegal to pick up a back pass. Period.