question about the backpass rule (R)

Discussion in 'Referee' started by superdave, Oct 20, 2002.

  1. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    DC United
    United States
    Defender is trying to clear the's obvious it is NOT a deflection. However, he almost whiffs, and the ball pretty much goes straight up in the air. The GK catches it.

    When this play happened in the game today, I thought it should be an IFK, because I thought that only a deflection allowed the GK to handle the ball. Is a pass that's intended to go elsewhere, but ends up going to the GK, fair game for the gloves?
  2. Buzz Killington

    Buzz Killington Member+

    Oct 6, 2002
    Lee's Summit
    Kansas City Wizards
    United States
    If the player was not intentionally trying to play the ball to the keeper. Usually the refs let that slide, because they notice what the player was trying to do and play it like that was not what they had planned to do. I assume that you are referring to the clearence in the MLS Cup game today. There was no intent to play the ball to Hartman on the play, it was just a bad clear, so the ref let Hartman do that.
  3. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    Actually it's not a matter of whether we are "letting them get away with it."

    The rules explicitly state that the pass must be done intentionally back to the keeper and by the foot. In the case here the defender was attempting to clear the ball completely but mis-kicked. The keeper is 100% legit in catching a ball off that kind of play.
  4. empennage

    empennage Member

    Jan 4, 2001
    Phoenix, AZ
    Don't forget to look at the spirit of the law as well. The rule was originally instated to prevent defenders from wasting time by passing back to the keeper. The defender in this case was clearly not wasting time and as mentioned above there was no "intent", so it was a good non-call.

    SUNDROP Member

    Mar 8, 2000
    Grand Junction,CO USA
    I've called a backpass twice this season, once in an adult match, once in high school. Hilariously, the player that played the ball back always says "It wasn't intentional!". Well, nobody wants to intentionally have an indirect awarded against their team in a dangerous area. Lacking mind - reading skills, my standard is if the player is facing his goalkeeper, the ball goes that way, he picks it up, it's intentional! Yes, he was playing it back to get out of trouble, and no, he didn't want the keeper to pick it up, but sorry guys!
  6. lmorin

    lmorin Member+

    Mar 29, 2000
    New Hampshire
    United States
    What do you say when a defender dribbles left to right across the top of the PA and her own keeper simply comes out and picks the ball up off the defender's foot in the midst of the dribble? It is certainly not an intentional pass by the defender. Is it an evasion of the rule and, hence, a USB yellow on the keeper with an IDFK to the attacking team? Or, do you let it go?
  7. AvidSinger

    AvidSinger New Member

    Sep 6, 2002
    In that case, I would blow the whistle. Even though it is not, technically, an intentional pass by the defender, the goalkeeper is, indeed, intentionally going after a ball the defender has full control of.

    It's no different than two attackers who run crossing paths, and one attacker "steals" the ball from his teammate to confuse the defense. Even though the attacker who originally controlled the ball wasn't intentionally passing the ball to his teammate, nobody would disagree that the result of the play is, indeed, a completed pass.
  8. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    Don't drink beer but like cheese
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    United States
    And to further AvidSinger, this is a way to subvert the laws. I would view this as being trickery and duly award the IFK

Share This Page