Pass back question

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Sport Billy, Oct 20, 2019.

  1. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Defender deliberately passes back to keeper. Keeper at the PK spot goes to clear the ball and miss kicks the ball up and into his hand. On-coming attacker can’t get to it. Keeper kicks again and clears.

    100% contrary to the written law.
    However, it is not at all within the spirit of the law.

    There was no intent to delay
    There was no intent to play the ball with the hand.
    It does, however, prevent on-coming attacker from getting to the ball

    do you call it or see it as trifling?
     
  2. mathguy ref

    mathguy ref Member

    Nov 15, 2016
    TX
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Whats there to call? The LOTG are clear that a deflection from one's feet or body to a hand in a natural position is not handling.
     
  3. MJ91

    MJ91 Member

    Jan 14, 2019
    United States
    i don't think there's anything to interpret after it was decided the GK made an honest attempt to kick the ball... Technically, after the mis-kick the GK can pick it up with hands.

     
    voiceoflg, ArgylleRef, jayhonk and 2 others repped this.
  4. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Thanks - brainfart
     
    dadman repped this.
  5. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    It's the keeper in the PA so handling really isn't the question. :D
     
    voiceoflg repped this.
  6. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Y'all are making my head hurt. Cut it out.
     
    Spencedawgmillionaire and dadman repped this.
  7. Spencedawgmillionaire

    Mar 2, 2017
    Belleville, ILLLLLLLLINOIZE
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    But what if, same situation, GK has a prosthetic hand and on the same side has a eye patch from a healing injury and the ball strikes THAT hand, which he clearly can't see or feel, then plays the ball out?
     
    dadman repped this.
  8. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Depends. Does his eye patch match the primary color of his GK jersey?
     
    voiceoflg, dadman, Sport Billy and 4 others repped this.
  9. TheRealBilbo

    TheRealBilbo Member+

    Apr 5, 2016
    I guess my question on this is the phrase “release into play.” That seems subjective. Is it possible that the kick/attempt to kick wasn’t “to release the ball into play?”
     
  10. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Don't overthink this. The goal is to not punish the GK when something bad happens when the GK tries to kick the ball.
     
    dadman, MJ91 and Bubba Atlanta repped this.
  11. TheRealBilbo

    TheRealBilbo Member+

    Apr 5, 2016
    Understood, but I assume the change wasn’t intended to allow the keeper to circumvent the pass back rule by kicking (or attempting to kick) the ball. If that’s the case, the might as well just repeal the rule.
     
  12. MJ91

    MJ91 Member

    Jan 14, 2019
    United States
    Correct, and in my opinion it doesn't... the 2019-20 LOTG changes and clarifications document says:

    I believe "into play" implies someone else has a fair chance to play or challenge for the ball. After a save, no one can play the ball until the GK "releases the ball into play".

    So...
    - A GK making a little foot-flick of the ball to raise it straight up into their hands (or a light 2' tap to their side before pickup) would still be an IFK to the attacking team.
    - What looks like a "normal" GK attempt to kick it away (or make a pass of some distance) but results in an obvious shank, can be chased then handled by the GK.
    - Anything in between, including an outstanding acting job by the GK, is going to be ITOOTR... and likely age & skills dependent.
     
    Bubba Atlanta, Thezzaruz and ArgylleRef repped this.
  13. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I'll stick with don't overthink this. If we ever actually see a GK trying to circumvent, it will probably be obvious (it's a pretty high risk, low gain move). If it isn't obvious, don't go there.
     
    ArgylleRef, dadman and MJ91 repped this.
  14. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    #14 SCV-Ref, Oct 21, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
    If you would allow me to slightly hijack and ask/pose this.
    I struggle more with the "intent" of the defender who has kicked the ball.
    Imagine the following scenario:
    Breakaway. 1 v 1 in the sense that we have an attacker and defender, at pace, shoulder to shoulder at around 30 to 35 yards from goal with the ball within playing distance from both of them. (say 10 ft for grins). Both at full tilt toward goal.
    Meanwhile, keeper is starting to come out.
    At which point defender, nudges slightly ahead and gets a good "toe" on the ball, to get it away from playing distance and to get it away from the attacker.
    But the ball, of course has been toed toward the keeper.
    Now is this cause or effect? Was he trying to defend and just get the ball away? (of course he was)
    Was he knowingly doing it in the direction of the keeper? (of course he was)
    Was he "passing" the ball to the keeper with the intention of time wasting...umm..no. Does it need to be "time wasting" even though that was the original intent of the law's introduction?
    Is the attacking coach yelling for a "pass back"? Every time.
    To make this even more challenging. At this point I am (trying) to sprint to catch up (haha) and inevitably find myself behind the play trying to get wide enough for a better angle and always have trouble discerning who did the toe kick anyway!
     
    dadman repped this.
  15. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Ok, I’ll bite.

    The pass back law is not only about time wasting, it is also about taking the ball out of the ability for an opponent to challenge by putting it in the GK’s hands.

    So if, ITOOTR, the ball was deliberately kicked to the GK to get it away from the defender AND to the GK, it is an offense if the GK picks it up. But if, ITOOTR, the defender was simply trying to get it away from the opponent (“anywhere but there”), it is not an offense if the GK picks it up. The real question is how we form our opinion. For me, it’s going to be hard to sell me on this as a deliberate kick to the keeper without really strong indicators. My opinion is going to err on the side of “anywhere but there” and not an offense. But this is 100% a subjective call within the opinion of the referee.
     
    jayhonk and dadman repped this.
  16. TheRealBilbo

    TheRealBilbo Member+

    Apr 5, 2016
    To me, this is the issue. If you can’t tell who kicked it, how can it be a pass back?
     
  17. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    No it wasn't a "bite" type post. I genuinely get conflicted on these and I think that 14u and 16u I see this more than a few times. I really am seeking feedback because, as you say, it comes down to ITOOTR.
    I brought up the origin of the Law (time wasting...or so I thought) because I hear it cited occasionally and wondered if it still weighed on the decision making process at all for anyone.
    I like the "anywhere but there" phrase. I might use it.
     
    dadman repped this.
  18. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    Well because the general scenario happened to me more than once. (and more than likely will happen again) I shouldn't have used the word "always". Can we replace that with "sometimes"? Sorry about that.
     
    dadman repped this.
  19. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I don't think you are wrong that the primary original driver was time wasting, but a secondary purpose is the unfairly taking ball out of play. And I didn't mean to imply that time wasting is never a consideration in trying to (in those few sentences) sort out whether a potential violation needs to be called. I certainly would agree that it should be considered in some cases when trying to sort out whether to make the call.
     
  20. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Oct 9, 2007
    SCI-Ref, I see your join date is Feb 2018...
    Socal Lurker's hesitency results from the dozens of dead horses that were beaten on the BS forum when this rule was first promulgated. Discussion raged especially when the USSF put out its ridiculous Iron Triangle memo and never rescinded it. I'd say search the archives, but you probably shouldn't.

    I would suggest that Socal's answer, given above, encapsulates current best practices.
     
    SCV-Ref repped this.

Share This Page