keeper handles his own errant clearance

Discussion in 'Referee' started by colins1993, Nov 10, 2003.

  1. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Dortmund v.Bayern 9 Nov. 2003:

    Dortmund defender plays the ball back to his keeper. The keeper hacks it errantly straight up in the air and proceeds to catch it on the way down.

    No whistle by the CR -play on.

    Anyone see it?

    Why NO whistle?
    A) The ref and his assistants missed it?
    B) The ref and his assistants deemed it to be a non-intentional back pass (to himself)?

    Anyone????
     
  2. Blong

    Blong Member+

    Oct 29, 2002
    Midwest, the real one.
    Probably has more do do with the initial back pass. If it was played with anything but the foot, or if it was a redirection, it would be legal.
     
  3. AAGunner3

    AAGunner3 Member

    Feb 14, 2002
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Kansas City Wizards
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The spirit of that law is to prevent time wasting...

    If in the opinion of the referee, he thought the errant clearance was accidental, and no opponent was around to challenge, why call it? The keeper is not attempting to waste time and in so doing deny the opponents the ball.

    I think this is one of those 'gotcha' kind of calls that one of our more experienced posters (NSA,Statesman,Whipple?) brought up earlier this year. In the letter of the law you're correct, but the spirit of the game is the big thing.
     
  4. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI
    It would depend on the initial backpass. If it was an intentional backpass from the foot, and the keeper did as you said, then in my opinion it should have been an IFK from the spot where he picked it up.
     
  5. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I cannot see how a mis-hit clearance could possibly be construed as time wasting personally.
     
  6. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The restriction on the backpass was never just about limiting timewasting. It was also about preventing defenders from using their goalkeepers when offensive pressure was too much to bear. If a passback to the goalkeeper was made under pressure, and the goalkeeper subsequently miskicked his clearance straight into the air (possibly due to that very pressure?), then he must be whistled if he then handles the ball.
     
  7. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI

    Personally I don't care if the defender was under pressure or not, if it was an intentional backpass, the keeper knows better than to pick it up. Just because he had a "WOOOOPS!" moment doesn't give him the right to then pick up a backpassed ball. Now is this was a kids game, I may give the keeper a break. I think another reason that the backpass was outlawed was to require defenders to actually make passes out of their own half of the field, instead of just passing it back to the keeper for a 60 yard punt.
     
  8. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why is this mis-hit clearance not an entirely NEW PLAY, subsequent to the initial back pass?? - which was NOT handled, but cleared by the keeper's foot ( errantly and straight up in the air).

    Someone needs to get the ref's (Dr. Marcus Merk)email address and ask him directly.

    schreiben/sprechen sie Deutsche anyone??
     
  9. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    Because that is not the way how the Law is intepreted, colins. I agree with MassRef here. The original reason for creating the new law was to prevent timewasting, but that is not the sole deciding factor when making the call. Time wasting itself is not even mentioned in the law for this violation. All the referee has to worry about is whether the first touch was a pass, whether it was deliberate, and then if the keeper handled the ball before an attacker played it. If yes, which it would appear so, then this is a violation and should be called.
     
  10. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree and so does the FIFA ref in charge of that match.

    I say "play on" - no intent on the SUBSEQUENT FOOT CLEARANCE BY THE GK. Remember, the INITIAL back pass was NOT handled, the GK handled the ball AFTER he cleared, ERRANTLY, with his foot.
    to me that's an new play and an unintentional back pass to himself. Wierd but unintentional.
     
  11. Blong

    Blong Member+

    Oct 29, 2002
    Midwest, the real one.
    You see, the back pass rule encourages positive play. Why would you not want to play it back to your keeper? Well, keepers are not known for being smooth on the ball. If a keeper makes a hash out of a back pass, he would be in danger of giving up a soft goal. That is why it is a good idea to only pass it back when you absolutely must.

    If you call it by your rules, and just make sure the keeper gives it a good try, and if he messes up to just pick the ball up, why have the rule?
     
  12. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    I suggest you let the FIFA ref speak for himself.

    As far as your interpretation, please read up on the proper application of the Law found in the Advice to referee, or ask your state director of instruction for clarification. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with somebody so adament they are correct they have closed their mind to the possibility they are not.
     
  13. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Statesman, you are correct in that I should let the FIFA re speak for himself. I am in the process of attemtpting to correspond with him currently. As I don't speak/write German this may prove difficult.

    Also let me just add that I capitalized certain words in my last post to try to clarify my original description of the events, not to SHOUT my opinion.

    Finally I have consulted with various state intereptors and have gotten conflicting opinions.

    I guess I am applying the Law of Common Sense on this one and also the spirit of the law versus the strict interpretation of the law.
    Now if I thought for a nanosecond that the keeper was trying to play the ball to himself I'd call an IFK. I use to be a keeper BTW.
     
  14. jc508

    jc508 New Member

    Jan 3, 2000
    Columbus, Ohio area
    Why look for foul play? If in doubt, I don't call it.

    I would doubt that the keeper intentionally played the ball that way; therefore, it was not really an effort to gain an unfair advantage. It's an aboration - a weird situation no likely to recur.

    Let it go; let them play.
     
  15. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    We don't judge intentions. The only judgement the referee makes is whether the initial pass was deliberate. If it was, the keeper may not handle the ball until it is played by an attacker. If he does, it is an IFK offense. It doesn't matter whether there are a thousand intangibles where players didn't mean for something to occur, the fact that it occurs is a violation of how the game is played. Therefore it is the responsibility of the referee to make the call and allow the game to be played out in the manner of which it was intended.

    It's not our job to say, "well, he didn't really mean to violate the Laws and so we'll just let it go this time." The very first bullet point under Law 5 specifically declares it is the responsibility of the referee to "enforce the Laws of the Game." Nowhere does it say the referee has the authority to determine which Laws should be enforced and which ones can be ignored based on his personal preference. Do your job!
     
  16. csc7

    csc7 New Member

    Jul 3, 2002
    DC
    referees do judge intentions. players can be red carded for intending to harm a player even if they fail to commit the foul they set out to commit.

    the decision that a player is wasting time is a intention judgement.

    the decision if a backpass was intentional or not judges exactly that.

    I haven't had a licence in 3 or 4 years now, but it seems like this was an unintentional error and not an attempt to circumvent the backpass rule. Obviously if a keeper juggled a backpass up to his hands, that would be a violation. However, a keeper would have to be a huge risk taker to try to 'mistakenly' clear a ball with his feet so he can hold it with his hand. And in this case, it doesn't sound like handling the ball took away an obvious scoring opportunity.


    I think this scenario also happened in a game this weekend. Probably MLS but maybe ManU- Liv. Anyone else see it?
     
  17. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If a miskick constituted a new 'play' on the ball (and therefore allowed the goalkeeper to handle the back pass) wouldn't any sort of dribble by the goalkeeper also constitute a new 'play' on the ball as well? If this logic held true, a goalkeeper could simply just dribble any backpass in order to remove the restriction against handling.

    This isn't a case of searching out foul play. If a goalkeeper is prevented from handling a certain backpass, and his own misplay (or incompetence) causes that ball to stay (dangerously) in his area, he cannot then suddenly be allowed to use his hands to ensure he doesn't lose possession or a challenge for the ball.

    If the play happened as described, I think it should be called. Then again, it takes a good amount of thinking to decipher why it needs to be called, so I can't say with certainty that I would have made the decision I'm making now in a game-situation, so I don't fault the referee of the match for overlooking the infraction.
     
  18. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So dribbeling around the area is the same as a mis-hit clearance?
    Not in my book. And I'm speaking as a former keeper too.

    I still say the Bundesliga ref was correct in his non-call. No intent to circumvent the law. I'm applying the Law of Common Sense my friends.
     
  19. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI
    So are we, guess we will agree to disagree.
     
  20. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Massref has the correct interpretation on the handling by the keeper. Just because he attempted to clear the ball with his feet and shanked it does not relieve the keeper from not handling the ball. The ball must be played by another player and is still subject to the backpass rule if that player is his teammate. This should have resulted in an IFK at the spot the keeper handled the ball except if he was at his goal line. Then the restart would be at the top of the goal area (6 yard box).
     
  21. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It looks like I opened up a can of worms on this one.

    I respectfully submit the following quote as a player and a ref and a fan and a coach and a critic (aren't we all?):

    The trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they do not know the game.
    Bill Shankly, Liverpool manager 1959-1974
     
  22. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not sure how you can 'respectfully' submit that quote in this instance (even if you are a ref) without implicitly offending the people you are debating.

    The fact of the matter is, I know the game. I understand that the rule change was designed not only to prevent timewasting, but also for preventing defenders from cynically and constantly passing the ball back to their goalkeepers whenever they feel pressure. Goalkeepers can no longer handle intentional backpasses now--for both of these reasons--period.

    If a goalkeeper tries to clear an intentional backpass with his foot (since he knows that it is illegal for him to handle) and shanks the clearance, he cannot be suddenly allowed to handle the ball. What if the ball had bounced straight up into the air and an attacker was bearing down and could have headed it? Worse, what if the ball was shanked backwards, or barely deflected off his leg, and began to move towards the open goal? In neither case would the goalkeeper suddenly regain the privilege of handling the ball. Until another player makes a play on the ball any handling by the goalkeeper violates both the letter and spirit of the law that prevents him from handling any intentional backpass.
     
  23. AAGunner3

    AAGunner3 Member

    Feb 14, 2002
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Kansas City Wizards
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I tried to clarify earlier that I'd let this 'infraction' go uncalled if there were no attackers around. Why call trivial fouls? I'd also have to call it if the ball was about to go in the net or out of bounds because the keeper would be trying to keep the ball in play, unfairly.

    How many trivial fouls do we as referees go uncalled? We do not call every foul. We do not enforce the rules all of the time. If we did we'd all be whistle happy and all to glad to get the TV time we rightly deserve.

    I too would like to whistle every possible infraction of the laws and have the players adjust to what the rules spell out in black in white. But in application, we are more lenient and usually only call the 'fouls' that must be called.

    Why does this particular instance demand to be whistled?
     
  24. whipple

    whipple New Member

    May 15, 2001
    Massachusetts
    You miss the point... A good referee should, in theory, recongize every foul, and decide whether a restart is necessary. The decision to intervene by stopping play is not based on "leniency", but on fair play and the spirit of the game.

    Law 5, Decision 8, found now in your ATR, tells us:
    Not calling the deliberate pass back to the keeper and the keeper's subsequent handling, as described, sounds more like a brain fart than common sense. The sole exception would be if the referee felt that the pass did not meet the criteria of being a deliberate pass to the keeper.

    Sherman
     
  25. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I guess my reasoning on this one is I view the original backpass as one play and the subsequent mis-hit foot clearance by the GK as a NEW play, thus the original back pass has no bearing on the latter.

    Am I totally alone here on my reasoning?

    Additionally I am not saying we should ignore the rulebook but there are an awful lot of references to it on this forum. Some legit in my opinion and some, I feel, use it in lieu of a practical knowledge of the game. ie, they never played the game.
     

Share This Page