today and the back pass

Discussion in 'Referee' started by blech, Sep 20, 2003.

  1. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    a couple of interesting scenarios came up for me in today's game. (i'll add that the back pass rule remains the one that i struggle with the most, perhaps since it wasn't around when i was playing competitively). to the extent it matters, these are rec games.

    1. the goalie collects the ball on a through ball. he goes to punt it and it literally goes up in the air about two or three yards to his right. a defender is fortuitously standing right there and sticks out his leg. the ball strikes his mid-shin, and rolls directly back to the goalie. the goalie picks it up to try punting it again.

    i know a part of the rule is deliberate, but i still don't completely understand how you make that determination when you can't get into his head. the defender certainly didn't whiff on the ball entirely or anything like that. it sure seemed that he was playing it back across the goal, and no one else was there but the goalie. also, does it matter that it came off his shin, rather than his foot? would it be different if it was his knee? his chest? his head?

    and, as an aside, what if the ball in this situation had been passed back to the goalie by the defender with his head - this would otherwise be legal, right, but does this restart the 6 seconds? obviously, a unique, unlikely scenario, but is there anything in the rules about that?


    2. a ball is played into the goal area. the defender is equal to the nearpost, two or three yards off the line. he doesn't do the best job of trapping it, and ends up with the ball at his feet, but turned around and facing the goal. he doesn't touch the ball again, and the goalie now comes racing out and scoops the ball up from his feet, while the defender is now (legally) shielding the offensive player on his back.

    as noted above, my read was that the defender didn't intend the ball to go the goalie when he was initially trying to trap it, although he certainly knew the goalie was coming to get it when he left it for him and focused on shielding the offensive player.


    i heard from the coaches on both sides about each of these scenarios, and my calls. any thoughts on the correct calls. let me know if you need more info.
     
  2. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    1. Did the ball exit the PA? The old LOTG required a ball released into play to be touched by an opponent anywhere or by a teammate of the 'keeper outside the PA. I'd still apply that to this situation.

    2. This happens alot. Generally I allow it, unless I see the defender making significant eye contact with the 'keeper.
     
  3. Pokeden

    Pokeden New Member

    Jul 20, 2003
    Remember: in the opinion of the Referee

    point 1:
    This was a keeper collecting a through ball---so, this does not apply---just on goal kicks.

    point2:
    It is one of those "be there" things. Good point about eye contact; also, watch body language and listen very closely to verbals.
     
  4. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's why I refered to the "old LOTG", prior to the "foot pass rule". One of the IFK offenses in the old Law XII penalised a 'keeper for handling the ball if it came back to him from a teammate without exiting the PA.
     
  5. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    passback opinion of each referee in each situation

    #1 spot on reminder! Monday night quarterbacking or 2nd quessing is not a luxury enjoyed during a match.

    (or ANY free kick taken by defenders from inside the penalty area must exit the area to be in play)
    But the point this was just a miskick during regular play is made. Off the shin is not the foot so no problem in my opinion.

    YHTBT. I think the clues are valid as well. Tough one but once the ball was being sheilded that is a play on the ball and if it was deliberatly touched with the foot this could easily qualify for a pass back in my opinion it that the ball was left TO the keeper. We are certainly not into gotcha and I would have to be certain not just I wonder?
     
  6. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    Re: passback opinion of each referee in each situation

    can someone please clarify/confirm, if the referee believed it deliberate, must the back pass be with the foot?


    to give a little more information, in this particular instance, my immediate opinion at the time was that the ball had been played directly back to the goalie. the part that was odd -- separate from the play as a whole -- was that it was played with the shin, not the foot. leaving aside the issue of the ball not leaving the box, or the potential for abuse of the 6 second rule via another immediate possession by the keeper, does the shin versus the foot make a difference if the referee's opinion is that is was deliberate? (i understand that the referee would be taking into account that the ball was played with the shin and not the foot in determining whether or not the result was "deliberate").
     
  7. Pokeden

    Pokeden New Member

    Jul 20, 2003
    Re: Re: passback opinion of each referee in each situation

    In order for it to be a foul, the foot needs to be involved. This being without trickery to circumvent the law! It is legal to pass to the keeper using the thigh, chest and head.
    Keep in mind, a player can legally pass back to the keeper using the foot---the keeper just can't use their hands!
     
  8. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    Re: Re: passback opinion of each referee in each situation

    For this judgement the shin is considered part of the foot.
     
  9. Gary V

    Gary V Member+

    Feb 4, 2003
    SE Mich.
    Re: the "old" LOTG, Advice to Referees still documents the restriction that the ball must pass outside the PA before the keeper can touch it again after it is played by a teammate:
    In my opinion, this is one of the least-known parts of the "old" Laws that remain in effect.

    Re: the so-called "pass-back"
    So if a player traps the ball with the foot and deliberately leaves it for the keeper, an infraction can be called. It is in the opinion of the referee if this occurred or not.
     
  10. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Re: Re: passback opinion of each referee in each situation

    I realize I'm not a high level referee, but I've never seen or heard this before. Any referee discussion or written instructions have used the terms foot or kick (which implies by the foot). The shin is NOT part of the foot, it's part of the leg. Do you have any sources for this assertion?

    Any other experts on this issue?

    THANKS!
     
  11. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    Jim Allen is the source of that information.
     
  12. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    you are kidding me ??

    Is this USSF interpretation it is not elsewhere that I an aware of? I suppose we include the calf too? Is it to be mentioned in the newer ATR? That if a kicking motion is made we increase the foot size? LOL ;o)
     
  13. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    Player A kicks the ball back to the keeper with his foot.

    Player B kicks the ball back to the keeper, but the ball strikes off his shin instead of his foot.

    Common sense, guys. They are the same action.
     
  14. karps

    karps New Member

    Jul 21, 2003
    Madison, WI area
    Jim Allen's answers to these questions carry the force of USSF interpretation.

    In general, for the purposes of the pass back rule, a kick is a pass or play on the ball with the foot, which Jim Allen says is considered to be the area below the knee. Thigh traps, chests, headers, etc., are all non-kicks.

    Statesman is spot on!
     
  15. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    I doubt this. Since he basically wrote Advice, and Advice is quite clear that the ball deliberately be kicked with the foot. No mention of shin
     
  16. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Where has Jim Allen ever said the foot is considered to be anything below the knee? His Sept 14 answer says INADVERTENTLY kicks with the shin. Since when is deliberate spelled i-n-a-d-v-e-r-t-e-n-t-l-y?
     
  17. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    Why don't you ask him yourself, jkc?
     
  18. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Re: Re: Re: Re: passback opinion of each referee in each situation

    In New Zealand we are taught that any part of the body below the knee is the same as the foot for the back pass rule.

    Crowdie
     
  19. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI
    Hi folks,

    New here, glad someone pointed me to these boards because I have always wanted to find a place to discuss these types of game issues. Here is my unprofessional view on things. As far as the shin issue, while with younger players it may be hard to assume the can intentionally play a ball from their shin to anywhere on the field, the end result is the same, they are delaying the game and/or taking away an attacking opportunity. So especially for older games, I would view the shin as the same as the foot.

    Again I feel this is hard to determine because there has to be intent. Just like you don't call every ball that hits an arm, you can't call this everytime the ball hits the foot of a defender and goes to the GK. The advise on watching body language and listening if there is any communication between player and GK is a good one. In my opinion, the other thing I look at is did the infraction take away an attack opportunity by the offense. For example, I did a game where the defender was on the endline near the edge of the penalty area. They played the ball directly across the mouth of the goal, not in my opinion looking to play it directly to the GK. The GK picked up the ball and I whistled it for a passback because while the player was not looking at the keeper per se, they were playing it to where they knew the keeper was, and the keeper knew it had been played by their own team, yet still picked up the ball, removing any goal scoring opportunity by the offense. Perhaps I think about things too much, but this is my opinion on the rule. It's nice to be here too! :)
     
  20. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Re: you are kidding me ??

    Read Jim's answer at his site of Sept 14, I think. He NEVER says the shin is part of the foot. What he does say is that that a player could inadvertently use the shin and inadvertently is not deliberately. Perhaps people should contact Jim directly before citing him as a source
     
  21. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    Re: Re: you are kidding me ??

    First, I started this read, and very much appreciate everyone's comments and input. It has been helpful to me in thinking about and analyzing this situation.

    Second, in response to jkc, I was certainly under the impression that Jim Allen's answer was specifically referring to this type of situation - the use of the shin during a backpass to the goalie. It is not as obvious to me as it is to you that inadvertence and deliberate have to be mutually exclusive. In my mind (and in the play that originally prompted this thread), a player can be "deliberately" passing the ball to his goalie and it can "inadvertently" go off of his shin rather than his foot. It can be both deliberate (in terms of result) and inadvertent (in terms of what body part was used).

    Also, it sure seems that this is what Jim Allen was referring to in his answer. The question was "What is the foot?" and there is a "Note" that the question is in reference to a prior question and answer about a deliberate back pass. It sure seems to suggest that you can have a deliberate pass that inadvertently goes off the shin rather than the foot. Otherwise, this answer doesn't make a lot of sense. If the inadvertence of the shin meant that the pass was not deliberate, why wasn't that stated in the answer?

    Anyway, thanks again everyone. This has been educational.
     
  22. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Re: you are kidding me ??

    Yo Grizz, Jim did NOT say this. No how, no way. His answer to a sept 14 question was that it's possible to inadvertently kick the ball with the shin. His exact words to me were, you don't spell deliberately i-n-a-d-v-e-r-t-e-n-t-l-y. These folks had best stop mis-quoting him or at least read what he says more closely. The shin is not considered to be part of the foot for restarts and only inadvertently for ball in play
     
  23. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Re: Re: you are kidding me ??

    So what you are saying is that a player can pass the ball back to his/her keeper with his/her shin (not including deflections, etc) and the keeper can handle the ball. Doesn't sound right to me.

    Crowdie.
     
  24. BentwoodBlue

    BentwoodBlue New Member

    Sep 20, 2003
    Dela-where?
    Club:
    Ipswich Town FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Right or wrong this is my take...
    Played with the shin back to the keeper, I am going to call it. 1. The player most likely used a kicking motion to play it back with the shin. Makes it a kick in my book. Secondly, we are really splitting atoms with this one. What really needs to be taken into account is the spirit of the rule. Personally I think using the shin is a cheeky attempt to circumvent the rule.
     
  25. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I agree completely.

    Crowdie
     

Share This Page