But why should a goalkeeper's own lack of skill or incompetence allow him to circumvent the law (yes, I admit it's unintentional, but's it's still a circumvention)? You dismissed it before, but an attempted clear and an attempted dribble are both "plays" on the ball (think of what constitutes 'playing' the ball in determining offside). No one believes that dribbling around the box negates the intentional backpass, so why should a miskicked clearance? The fact is, one the initial intentional backpass is played to the goalkeeper, another person (teammate or opponent) must 'play' the ball before he can handle it.
Hear the man! This is an important point that I couldn't agree with more. Application of this maxim results in more consistentcy. As for AAGunner3's point regarding trivial fouls consider the position of the attacking team. Being denied an IFK from inside your opponent's penalty area is hardly a trivial decision, quite the opposite really. There are two sides to "fair".
In my mind this situation is grey versus clear-cut black and white. I really have emailed the DFB in an attempt to contact the referee (or his superiors) of the match in question. Who knows if I'll ever receive a response but if I do I will share it verbatim with this board. I'm dieing to get his reasoning on it. Maybe he just blew it like someone else suggested? I have, however, taken this to I higher level (state/national) for clarification and 2-3 have in fact agreed with me. Maybe this play will not happen for another 10 years, who knows? But I think its important that we get an understanding of the logic behind the call/non call so as to aid our decisions in the future. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I'll take it like a man.
Certain aspects of the Laws state there must be intent and therefore the referee must make a judgement decision on what he sees in the course of refereeing. That said, trapping a deliberate back pass and releasing it into play, by way of kicking it and then catching it again means he handled the ball and violated the LOTG with respect to the backpass rule. Furthermore and most importantly, he gained an advantage. May I also note that the keepers catching the ball constituted a second touch after releasing it into play. Yet another IFK decision based on Law 12.
Arguably, any foul not called, that would have benefited team B, could be argued to be anything but trivial to team B. Keep in mind I stated before that I'd have to call it if an attacker was anywhere near the keeper when the incident occurred or if the ball was about to go out of bounds. If there were no way a challenge could be made on the miskicked ball, I might let it go. So far though in my applications of the law, I've been overzealous in calling the passback infraction.
Though we agree on the proper call, isn't this viewpoint a bit of a stretch? The 'second touch' rule covers the goalkeeper using his hands a second time after he has first released the ball from his hands without anyone touching it. Since the goalkeeper never intitially handled the ball, how could this rule apply? I'd just like to point out that, conversely, I'm very conservative in my calling of this infraction. I rarely have called it and will never call it if there's any doubt in my mind (the result is too dangerous). But, in this type of circumstance, if I believed the initial backpass to be 100% deliberate, I'd absolutely call the foul after the goalkeeper handles the miskick or errant clear.
To sidetrack the discussion a little, I was doing a JV girls game last spring. One of the defenders just wide of and outside of the penalty area tried to clear a chest high ball upfield. She sent a fairly hard long ball behind her heading towards the far upper 90. The keeper took about three quick steps back and jumped high in the air. One of the more awesome saves I've seen at this level. One of the attackers said something about passback, and I smiled, "Nice Try."
Colins1993 it's too late to set up a poll now. But, the question is really not of popularity, but one of was there a violation or breach of the LOTG and most importantly did the keeper gain an advantage from it. I'm sure other members will chime in with their thoughts. I think in a league like the Bundesliga where forwards routinely poach for goals, unless there was no one within 30 yards of the keeper it would be hard to sell his handling as trifling. If there were opposing players in the box the non-call was botched. Incidentally, I doubt you will receive a response from the Deutch Bundesliga on this matter or the the Deutch Football Association. You may want to ask this question to Jim Allen for an official USSF opinion. He is available at the USSF website here is a link. http://www.ussoccer.com/referees/content.sps?iType=4169&icustompageid=6688
I have in fact just recieved a reply from the DFB. Here it is and I've removed my email address in the interest of protecting my privacy: Hello, your question was forwarded to him. Kind regards Press office -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. November 2003 20:56 An: 'info@dfb.de' Betreff: Dr. Marcus Merk (sheidsrichter) email address bitte Hallo, My referee friends and I are interested in contacting Dr. M. Merk. We have a few questions about his interpretation of a particular play last Sunday during the Bayern gegen B. Dortmund spiel. Specifically on one play were a Dortmund defender passed the ball back to his own keeper. The Dortmund keeper did play the ball with his feet, however he mis-kicked it straight up into the air and subsequently caught it. We are wondering why no indirect free kick was called then against the keeper for handeling his own back pass? Was it because there was no intent? Danke Mit freundlichen grussen.
I would have to agree that this is more of a grey area than a black and white issue. I'd put this in the same category as the following scenarios: 1) Defender A, under pressure near his own left corner, sends a long lob to a team mate on the right side of the field, who then heads the ball to his own keeper. Fair or foul? 2) Defender A passes the ball back to defender B, who botches his clear attempt with the keeper coming off his own line to catch the attempted clear in the middle of traffic. Fair or foul? Scenario 1 is almost certainly a fair play. It's perfectly legal for the keeper to handle a ball headed to him by a team mate, meaning this is either fair play or a caution for trickery. This can't be trickery by Defender A, since Defender A could hardly expect a long lob pass to Defender B to develop as it did. It's certainly not trickery by the keeper. The violation might possibly be trickery by Defender B, who presumably knew the ball had last been played by Defender A, but heading an airborn ball back to the keeper is too natural of a play to take this interpretation (especially if there's any possibility of the Defender B believing the lob pass was actually a deflected clear attempt). Scenario 2 is a little more grey. Handling the misplayed ball by Defender B should be legal, but, since the ball was deflected and not controlled, it seems plausible that a referee would work back to the last person to make a controlled play before Defender B. In this case, it's Defender A and could possibly be illegally handling a pass from a team mate. (This at least has some valid reasoning similar to deflections and the offside law, but importing logic from Law 11 into Law 12 may not be a very good practice.) I see no way this could be trickery, but it could conceivably be an indirect free kick offense. (And the keeper mishandling his own kick would seem to fall into Scenario 2). Putting the two scenarios together and it almost resembles the case before the Supreme Court about the accidental death of an asthma patient on an international airplane flight due to second hand smoke - the airline's defense is that the death was not due to an accident, because the flight attendant intentionally denied the passenger's request to be moved further from the smoking section. Personal opinion: If it's this complicated, it's probably not a violation. It generally has to be a blatant violation which cannot be interpreted as anything but a deliberate pass to the keeper before I'll call it.
Well IMO scenario 2 is clearly NOT an intentional BP. I hope I hear back from Dr. Merk. Anyone ever read his bio? He's a dentist and one of his hobbies is triathalons!
Interesting thread. Some thoughts/opinions: 1. Both of Bob G's examples are NOT violations of the laws. 2. If I were the ref and experienced collins' Bundesliga example of GK clearing ball errantly to self, I would probably call an IFK regardless of position of opposing players at time of defender's backpass, GK's initial kicked clearance, or GK's catching of that errant clearance. IFK is the correct interpretation of the laws. 3. If no attackers were present at time of backpass, errant GK clearance, and GK catching his own clearance, I think the proper decision is a no-call. Even at the highest level of soccer, such as the Bundesliga, there is no good reason to call an IFK - under these circumstances. 4. Glad to see MassRef catch Alberto on his claim that this would be a 'double handling' situation. When I read that from Alberto, I was quite surprised to see such an error! Everyone makes mistakes, I guess. 5. Regardless of the position of the opponents during the sequence of events, I would probably call an IFK. And after the game I would probably be mad at myself for calling it, if there was no pressure on defender or GK. 6. Quick story, only slightly related to this thread... Doing a fairly high-level men's amateur match last year. Several players from both teams in penalty area, ball bouncing around in goal area wide of goal. defender facing goal with both feet on ground allows ball to bounce off his right foot with no kicking motion. Ball bounces comfortably into goalkeeper's hands. I whistle for IFK. Players protest pretty strongly. Unlike some defenders, this player has good ball skills and at the time I whistled the foul, there was no doubt in my mind he had done this on purpose. I know this team fairly well, and was discussing the play with them after the game (it was an 11v11 unsanctioned indoor game, so I was willing to discuss my decisions). The defender continued busting my chops about the call until finally the officials were walking off the field and he said 'good call, ref.' It could have been sarcastic condemnation, but I am confident it was a quiet admission that I had correctly spotted the violation. I tend to have a pretty lenient view on IFKs for backpass, but in this case I felt the intent was there although I suspect very few officials would have made the same call.
To date I have not heard back from Herr Dr. Merk (ref in that match) but I have heard back from a national assesor and a former intl referee. Their answer to my query was NO IFK against the keeper. Btw, this created a prolonged debate here locally and 2 natinal level refs and one FIFA linesmen @ first disagreed. This tells me that this particular sequence of events is/was really rare and a real noggin scratcher.
The keeper was the last Dortmund player to play it with his feet before he caught it. The officials surely ruled that he did not intentionally pass it to himself. It was a miskick which the keeper can pick up. That the defender passed it back intentionally to the keeper is irrelevant because he was not the last Dortmund player to play the ball with his feet.
You say that this is a subsequent play... so... Goal keeper 'mis-kicks' it (it is a subsequent play... so no foul) picks up the ball and punts it up field. 5 min later... defender kicks ball back to the goalkeeper.. who 'mis-kicks' it (it is a subsequent play... so no foul) picks up the ball and punts it up field. 5 min later... defender kicks ball back to the goalkeeper.. who 'mis-kicks' it (it is a subsequent play... so no foul) picks up the ball and punts it up field. 5 min later... defender kicks ball back to the goalkeeper.. who 'mis-kicks' it (it is a subsequent play... so no foul) picks up the ball and punts it up field. 5 min later... hey... I wanna be the goalkeeper when you referee the match. ;-)
Totally different situation here IMO. Keeper is intentionally mis-kicking the ball to himself. This aint rocket science.
I don't know how I missed this thread earlier. colins, I'm not sure what you plan to achieve through continuing this discussion. It's clear that almost every single referee here (and I mean referee, not armchair linesman) disagrees with you and has substantial proof. This is not a grey issue. Or a gray issue, for that matter. It is NOT a subsequent play when the ball is mis-hit. I direct you to another example: PK for red. Shot is taken to the left, blue keeper dives, but doesn't make it to the ball. Luckily for him, the ball hits the post and not the side netting. Red shooter calmly collects the ball and chips the sprawled keeper to score. Subsequent play, using your rationale, but LOTG says no goal. I would advise that you drop the issue. Take it from me. Read the headgear thread and see what happened when I held onto an issue too long. Let it go, and stop insulting the referees. This is the smart board. Don't contaminate the pool.
Though I disagree with him, he certainly has a leg to stand on, as FIFA Referee who has attended a World Cup and will attend two EUROs (Marcus Merk) agrees with his position. If you want to call Marcus Merk an 'armchair linesman' (whatever that means)...well, that's your perogative. Though the attempted humor--or humour--is appreciated, I think it most certainly can be construed as a 'grey' area as there is nothing definitive in the laws to point at as the answer to this situation. Irrelevant example. No one has touched the ball. The penalty taker is violating a clearly delineated part of the laws that say the taker of any restart besides a dropped ball cannot touch the ball again until someone else does. The keeper mis-kicking a backpass has nothing to do whatsoever with a restart. The ball is in dynamic play. The question--like the offside discussion in another thread--is what constitutes a 'play'. I'm not insulted, are you? In the end, I--along with others here--agree with you that the keeper shouldn't be able to handle the ball, but I'd make sure your arguments are a little sounder and avoid shooting down opposition so quickly.
Just trying to get the truth out there to the masses on this rare sequence in case it ever happens again. So the majority think I'm wrong on this board? If so, does that mean I AM wrong? I'm not trying to insult anyone here. I got a little peeved when I reported that 2 higher authorities did in fact rule no IFK and some readers chose not to believe it I guess I have a credibility problem then. Perhaps because I'm a relative new poster? Who knows.? Peace brother.
Well, here's my position. The law says: . The application of this law requires only two conditions. 1) Ball is deliberately kicked to the keeper by a teammate. 2) Keeper touches the ball with his hands. In your scenario, #1 is met. Nobody else has played the ball since the keeper miskicked it. The last person to play the ball to the keeper was a teammate, and it was kicked. Then you say the keeper touched the ball with his hands. That satisfies #2. There are no exceptions written into the law. It doesn't matter if the keeper dribbles the ball the entire length of the field and back, then picks up the ball, he is still guilty of this violation. I'm not sure where Merk finds support that a misplay somehow changes the fact the ball was not kicked to the keeper by a teammate.
With all due respect Statesman I know how the law reads but the key word is “deliberateâ€. As the keeper has errantly mis-kicked the ball how is that “deliberateâ€? PS I'm applying the law of common sense on this one.