Instead of cautioning him....why don't you just run by and say "Hey, if the keeper would have picked that up it would have been a yellow.", my guess is what would follow is the player asking you why, you explaining the law, and everyone leaving the situation happier and a little smarter....and you have taught a lesson and maintained good repoire with the teams. Just a thought.
A good thought. In the scenario, it sounds like the players should know that already, but you're putting them on notice. My only modification would be to say "it could be a yellow." I was taught never to pledge that you'd absolutely issue a card for a future offense--players then argue that what they did was different, the opposing team says "hey, ref, you said you'd card him...", etc. But that's only a slight modification to a good suggestion.
I don't see why you would have a near riot. Ignorance of the Law does not justify one's actions. If this is a competitive game, then the players should know the Laws. This action is spelled out pretty clearly in the Laws.
Look at this thread: WE don't know the law on this one (at least, collectively-speaking). If a player were to kick the ball up to his own head and then play it back to the keeper in a match, and the keeper did not handle it, and you blow the whistle, nobody on the field is going to like what you're calling. The team you're calling it against is going to protest vociferously, because the goalie didn't handle it and you're awarding an IFK in an extremely dangerous position (plus the caution). And even the players from the team benefiting will see you as nothing short of an extremely over-officious referee. Your credibility with both teams is shot. All that being said, it is the law as currently written and that means we have to deal with it. I'm just putting forth the realistic expectations you should have it you ever have to make this call. And to conclude, let's take a moment to realize that this is a call that the vast majority of us will never have to make, so it's probably not worth debating endlessly.
The call should depend on the level of the teams involved, and the tone of the game, but I agree in reality, on the field, it's probably not a whistle if the keeper does not handle the ball. I would still have a quiet word with the defender, at a minimum. Certainly, if play is allowed to continue, you can't caution the defender at the next stoppage. Either stop play and show the card, or allow the offense as trifling and move on. OTOH, if you do want to get into the business of judging intent, and the actions of the defender are so obviously unsporting you need to make an example of it, the laws are certainly on your side.
Where was the infraction? Sure, there was intent to circumvent the laws, but no law was actually circumvented in this instance. Would there be an infraction if he had flicked it up and passed it to another outfielder? For all you know that's what he was doing, since it didn't quite reach the goalkeeper. Or maybe he was trying to perform a seal dribble and failed miserably. In any case, you'd have to judge the player's intent to caution him.
An example of my point about referees not even knowing this....mvgary had it right from the beginning:
To repeat myself (fun to cite yourself as a source ), as described, it was trivial and did not affect play, or give an undue benefit to the defending team. Therefore--no call. Not everything that fits the absolute definition of each LOTG should get called--use your judgement and discretion.
Put simply, this is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter what the keeper does. His team mate has committed trickery to try to circumvent the Law. This is misconduct and he must be sanctioned for USB. This is a text book case in which IFAB has already ruled.
TO ALL NON-REFEREES THINKING ABOUT TAKING THE REF TEST If this question comes up in the entry level referee test, an infraction has taken place and you should restart with an indirect free kick at the spot where the trickery occured. To everybody else It would have to be a very special circumstance for me to actually stop play to give the indirect kick. Perhaps if the defender was trying to humiliate the attacker with his fantastic foot-to-head skills. Several people have mentioned a caution. Under what catagory would you give the caution. Closest I can see is putting the gave into disrepute...I think you'd have a hell of a time selling that to an assessor though. Scott
Yet you yourself admit it is a grey area on if you would call it or not (well that is my impression from your "riot would ensue" comment). This is what I find to be the HARDEST part about learning to referee, and that is that you can not learn everything from a book. I also think this is why we get more grief as referees from players/coaches/etc, and that is that one referee would call this because it "broke the law" while another said "well, it didn't matter so I'm going to just give a verbal warning". I know, nothing new.
I can't believe we have all spent three pages devoted to this....we are screwed if offside ever comes up. Here is what I understand hopefully someone can say "Yes or No" and then we can end the debate. If the player flicks the ball up to his head, and heads it back to the goalkeeper who handles it, an infraction has occurred and MUST be dealt with (caution and IDFK), if the keeper handles it, we have almost no wiggle room. If the player flicks it up and heads it to the keeper who does not handle it, trickery still has occurred, but you will find very few experienced referees who wish to fight that particular battle (YC and IDFK) you have three choices here, do nothing, give the punishment (YC and IDFK - there can be no deviations, its all or nothing), or admit to yourself an offense has happened and manage the situation in some other way. If we want to discuss why one option would be better than another that might be a worthwhile conversation, but beating dead horses is outlawed in most states.....excluding Nebraska I think
As I said ,this scenario did occur , it was in a 2nd div game(third tier ) in the Portuguese Soccer Federation. The player X was given a yellow card and the free kick awarded from the spot where he headed the ball to the goalie. I guess you could say that the unsportsmanship deprived the attacking team of a possible throw-in in case Defender X had opted to clear to the touchline or a capture of the ball had Defender X lost it due to the pressure from the opposing forward. I'm not a ref (not that crazy ),but it seems to me that the whole exclusion/exceptions to the back passing to the goalie allowing him to handle the ball needs to be revamped and done away with it. In another words , disallow all back passes to be handled. Just like several of the posters , the players(a mix of semi- and professional) confessed ignorance of the rule.
By the book... No foul has been comitted. Assuming that in the referee's opinion, the player kicked the ball from the ground, up to his head to deliberately circumvent the prohibition on passing the ball back from the feet -- THEN -- misconduct has, by definition, occured, classify it as unsporting behavior. Stop play, caution the guilty player and show him the yellow card. Restart play with an indirect free kick. In reality... Just like Mass Ref has been saying. In this event player X who is under pressure from attacker Y, kicks the ball up off the ground and heads the ball in the direction of his GK. The story goes that he flubbed the play and the play back to the keeper wasn't anywhere near close. However, the keeper had enough time to get to the ball and kick it away, he didn't play it with his hands. An arguement could be made that perhaps he didn't intend to get it to the keepers hands and instead played it far enough away so the keeper could get to it first. The Keeper was smart enough to NOT pick it up. So still there is no penal foul or technical infringement. The referee could stop the play here and give the yellow, fine. Q: What would that decision do for this game? For these players? What is the referee getting out of this, in terms of his control of the match and credibilty with the players? A: Nothing good. The game doesn't need to stop in this scenario and the player's will lose respect for you if you do call it. Is it really worth erroding your power to control the match over this? We know what the laws say but the referee does have common sense and discretion in these matters. Keep this in mind, don't shoot yourself in the foot. If the assessor asks, you tell him that in your opinion you didn't believe he was trying to circumvent the laws. I doubt they will flunk you for this or even think twice about it.
I think the whole discussion has been as to whether or not the keeper's handling the ball or choosing not to handle had any impact on whether or not the defender receives a caution. The entire conversation (at least in my mind) was under the assumption that the defender deliberately flicked the ball up to head it back to the goalie. By the way, I discussed this thread with my local assignor, my boss at the indoor soccer facility and a couple other employees. Only two people agreed that the caution could still be shown, while my boss, the local assignor and another guy who referees a lot of HS games all thought that the keeper had to handle the ball in order for this to be a caution. I'm bringing the LOTG to work Saturday.
If attempting to trip and attempting kick are "against the law", I don't see why this can't be either (not as serious obviously, but it still is against the SOTG). I just checked the USSF 7+7 Cautionable and Sending Off offenses paper, and it says this: Engages in trickery to circumvent the goalkeeper's limitation on handling the ball played from a teammate's foot (the defender who initiates the "trickery" is cautioned, the decision does not require that the goalkeeper actually handles the ball, and the misconduct can occur during dynamic play or at a restart). I don't know if I'd show the defender a card (depends on the match), but I would give him a warning. After all, if he's willing to undermine the laws, he'll probably try to undermine the referee later.
The dilemma that we always have on these boards is that we basically try to cover two requirements, which are often in conflict. Firstly, we have to consider the "Laws", and what is correct as per current FIFA and USSF directive/advice. But then, secondly, we try to cover "common sense". The first is easy - the Law is the Law. The second is more difficult. That depends on the experience/stature of the Referee; it depends on the level of the game; and it depends on the circumstances at the time. None of those can really be addressed on these boards.
i called this in a u17b, d1 game this past year. the reaction i got was, "what was the call?" and after i explained - "trickery to circumvent..." all i heard the rest of the game from the team i called it against was, "trickery," after every call. i treated this as funny and not dissent. the ifk did not amount to any threat and the player i carded looked confused even after the explanation. i think this is like the situation where the keeper reaches outside of the pa to collect a ball. if it was not done while an opponent was challenging for the ball, probably let it go as trifling. but if a player was being challenged and used this to unfair advantage, make the call; flash the card.
By the way, I discussed this thread with my local assignor, my boss at the indoor soccer facility and a couple other employees. Only two people agreed that the caution could still be shown, while my boss, the local assignor and another guy who referees a lot of HS games all thought that the keeper had to handle the ball in order for this to be a caution. I'm bringing the LOTG to work Saturday.[/QUOTE] Many people should know the LOTG. Few actually understand them. Ask a NFHS referee a law question and it better be an open book test. (I am NFHS and USSF 7). Assignors do not have to be certifed referees, though they have a seperate certification in USSF (I am assignor too). Buy and read 2005 USSF Advice to Referees, read Jim Allen's Q&A at US Soccer website. I do not ask the people around me for answers to these questions (remember 75 is passing!).
I am very wary of the word "must" in many of these posts. Law 18 (discretion) "must" be applied to every situation. I am curious to know what occured after the clearence, and what was the quality of the clearance? Did the team of the offending defender launch an immediate counterattack, or did the attacking team regain possession of the ball (even if it was at midfield) and continue the attack? They have an attacker on the 18 who, at least for the short term, is in a legal position to play the ball. I think I would have to see the whole field, how the game was progressing and what the result of the action would be before I would stop a game for something like this.
I admit ambiguity in my posts. I've just been trying to focus on what the Law actually says, because it seems that so many people--still--don't seem to have a grasp of this provision. In reality, allan_park's post pretty much sums up how I feel about this sort of situation. There's going to be different answers for certain times and certain situations. But if you don't know the Law inside out, then that will make you incapable of bending it properly when necessary. The word "must" is used because this particular provision is an IFAB Decision, which means USSF has classified it as one of the "mandatory" cautions (let's not open up the debate on the definition of "mandatory"). Essentially, what it means is that, if you blow the whistle for this, you MUST give the caution. It's the same as simulation or taking the shirt off to celebrate a goal. Sure, there are ways to get around not making the call altogether if Law 18 says it's for the good of the game. But, once you blow the whistle for this, you have to give the caution, otherwise you are intentionally failing to apply the Laws as explicity written.
Although I'm one of those who wouldn't have called this, as described in the posting, I agree with MassRef here. If you call this, you have to caution.