today and the back pass

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

  1. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    jkc, I believe you are the one misreading Jim's reply. If a player i-n-a-d-v-e-r-t-a-n-t-l-y kicks the ball and the keeper handles it, it's not a violation whether it is struck with the shin OR the foot. That is what Jim is getting at. Not that the shin is not considered part of the foot. If the player deliberately plays the ball back to the keeper with his shin, that is still a violation whether the ball actually hitting the shin instead of the foot was inadvertant or not.

    It's very easy to make this confusion:

    Question: "A player inadvertantly plays the ball back to the keeper with his shin instead of his foot. Is this a violation?"

    Answer: "No, the ball has to be deliberately played to the keeper."

    Question: "A player deliberately plays the ball back to the keeper, but inadvertantly hits it with his shin instead of the foot. Is this a violation?"

    Answer: "Yes, the distinction between a shin or foot in this case is not important."

    Honestly jkc, think about the spirit of the law and common sense here. Whether you meant to hit the ball with your shin or not, you still kicked it to your keeper.
     
  2. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    I guess I am slow cause I just do not get it??

    So in the final balance if a ball bounces 10 inches of the ground and a player uses his shins to deflect a ball back to his keeper the same as if a 4 foot bounced ball would deflect off my chest we have no infraction?

    However if I swing the leg in a kicking motion and I catch the ball just below the knee it becomes a deliberate foot pass to the keeper?

    Those that can control the ball with their shins are a lot better than many I have seen. I was taught that the use of the ankle on a volley is a foot pass. I can see a ball contacting near the top or side of of the foot as part of the shin given the size of the ball it will contact both at once but a ball contacting below the knee is no where near the foot and deliberate or inadvertant should make no difference. Every defender has a perfect right to get the ball to his keeper whether he heads it chests it, thighs it, knees it, hips it, bums it, calves it or shins it back it still has nowhere near the control of the foot. I fail to see how you manage to incorperate a 16 inch or so piece of the shin into a deliberate foot pass to the keeper. The law does not just say deliberately kicked the ball to the keeper it SPECIFICALLY addresses the foot.
    If we get into this like an handling case where the hand extends to the shoulder I suppose it is not unreasonable to stretch the foot to the knee. I was mostly curious but we can agree to disagree on this very minor point.
     
  3. BentwoodBlue

    BentwoodBlue New Member

    Sep 20, 2003
    Dela-where?
    Club:
    Ipswich Town FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Where does the law say foot? I read the post and then did some "bathroom reading"..
    "touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked by a team-mate"
     
  4. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    I did. That's his quote on the spelling
     
  5. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Re: I guess I am slow cause I just do not get it??

    Sorry Grizz. We'll just disagree. Jim did not intend for the shin to become a part of the foot. It it'll make everyone happy, I'll email him again and be even more direct. BTW you could use the same logic for the knee
     
  6. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    So you're saying if a U12 rec player winds up to kick the ball back to his keeper and inadvertently hits it with his knee, it's also a passback because of his intent? I'm still confused and don't see anywhere where it says the shin is part of the foot like the arm is part of the hand.
     
  7. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    The knee isn't considered part of the foot. If the U12 player hit the ball back to the keeper with his shin and the keeper picked it up, the keeper would be guilty of an IFK offense. I'm not sure what the source of your confusion is. Foot or shin, it is the same. Knee is something else, as is the thigh. Also excluded is the torso, head, buttocks, or back. Of course it the player used his hands, arms, or shoulder he would be guilty of handling.

    So, just for you, a recap:

    Not allowed for pass back: foot and shin.
    Not allowed for handling: hand, arm, shoulder.
    Allowed: Knee, thigh, pelvis, torso, neck, face, head, back, buttocks.

    Let me know if you still need further clarification.
     
  8. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Statesman. I respect your opinion and your abilities. I still think you're wrong. The shin is no more part of the foot than the knee. You posed some Q&A to help me sort out the confusion.I assume you made up the questions as a teaching aid, which I appreciate. I'm going to email Jim Allen directly with "A player deliberately plays the ball back to the keeper but inadvertently hits it with his shin instead of the foot. Is this a violation?" I will bet dollars to donuts he says no. But if he says yes, I'll forever keep my peace about this matter. If he says no, then everyone at Big Soccer should agree that he has been misinterpreted.
     
  9. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    I think that is a good idea, jkc. I eagerly anticipate his reply. I do not mean to mock or tease maliciously, I am just a little amused at the resilience in which you hold your ground on the issue. I should expect nothing less however, as that is a strength for a referee :)
     
  10. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I've got a dollar on Statesman. What odds will you give me :)

    Crowdie
     
  11. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    I just realized Jim's original post was never posted in this thread too -- here it is for those who do not wish to look it up:

     
  12. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    I'll give odds here's what else he said

    Please remember that the use of the shin must be purely
    I-N-A-D-V-E-R-T-E-N-T, not planned. That is "inadvertent,"
    unplanned, unexpected. Inadvertent FULL STOP.

    Jim Allen
    USSF National Instructor Staff
     
  13. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    What odds are you giving me for Statesman being right?

    Crowdie

    PS I'll give you a hint. There are two rules that apply to this situation:

    i) A keeper cannot handle with his/her hands a ball that has been deliberately kicked back to him/her

    ii) It is an offence to deliberately try to circumvent a LOTG
     
  14. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Hey Crowdie. Don't need a hint. I asked Jim the exact same question Statesman posed to me and asked for a simple yes or no to avoid any further confusion. Drum roll please......

    >Or this as a question
    >"A player deliberately plays the ball back to the keeper, but inadvertently
    >hits it with his shin instead of his foot. Is this a violation?"

    His answer
    No.

    Is this enough to stop the debate? Clearly,USSF does not believe the shin to be part of the foot. I asked Jim the exact same question Statesman asked me. Statesman said "yes" Jim Allen says "no". I respect Statesman immensely but I'm going with what Mr Allen says. Wish I had taken up the bet!
     
  15. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Can you do me a favour and post your exact question and Mr Allen's exact response.

    Thanks mate.

    Crowdie
     
  16. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    An English View....

    Question 16:

    Just exactly what parts of the body is a player legally allowed to use when deliberately passing the ball back to his own goalkeeper, without the goalkeeper being penalised for handling the ball.

    Answer 16:

    This is commonly known as 'the back-pass Law'. Law 12 states that a goalkeeper is penalised with the award of an indirect free kick against him, if (inside his own penalty area) he touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately 'kicked' to him by a team-mate. 'Kicked' means if the ball was deliberately passed to his goalkeeper by a team-mate using any part of his foot (or shin). The goalkeeper should not be penalised if he touches the ball after it has been passed to him by a team-mate using any other part of his body, for example, knee, thigh, chest, head or shoulder - and in these instances, the Referee should allow play to continue. For a goalkeeper to be penalised during a back-pass, the ball must be played by a team-mate's foot (or shin), it must be played back deliberately by that team-mate, and the goalkeeper must touch the ball with his hands. Note, that the direction that the ball travels is immaterial, a 'back-pass' means that the ball is deliberately passed to the goalkeeper - and not that the ball must travel in a backward direction to the goalkeeper!

    In some instances, a defender attempting to kick a ball away from his penalty area will inadvertently deflect the ball towards his goalkeeper. In such cases the goalkeeper MAY use his hands if the ball comes to him - because the defender did not deliberately kick the ball to the goalkeeper. The Referee is the sole judge as to whether a back-pass is deliberate or not. Referees are advised to be 100 percent certain before penalising for a back-pass.

    If a team-mate seeks to circumvent the spirit of the 'back-pass law' by purposefully flicking the ball up in the air and subsequently heading the ball back to his goalkeeper, then if the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands, the goalkeeper should still be penalised, even though the team-mate last touched the ball with his head. In this instance, circumventing the spirit of the 'back-pass law' should not be allowed, and an indirect free kick to the opposing team should always be awarded. The same goes, if a team-mate taking a goal kick, kicks the ball outside of the penalty area to his goalkeeper who subsequently dribbles the ball back inside of his penalty area and then picks it up. In this instance, the goalkeeper is still guilty of touching the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate. It does not matter whether a colleague during a goal kick or during open play has deliberately kicked the ball to the goalkeeper. This is still an infringement of Law 12. The correct restart is an indirect free kick to the attacking team.

    A direct free kick should be awarded if the goalkeeper picks the ball up outside of his penalty area.

    From: http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/law12/law12qa.htm

    Crowdie
     
  17. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    If Jim did answer "no" then I truly do believe it is he that is mistaken. There must be something about the situation there is still confusion over, and I think I know what it is.

    FIFA usually provides definitions that apply for all aspects of the game -- such as handling referring to the hand, arm, and shoulder. The word kick is traditionally defined as a "touch by the foot." However, this definition has always been used solely in the context of restarting play -- you must touch the ball specifically with the foot or play has not been restarted properly.

    That being the case, this also seems to lock FIFA into the interpretation that "kick" refers solely to the foot during dynamic play. This provides a legal loophole on the "passback law" though, the focal point of this discussion -- using the shin to play the ball back to the keeper. As one could imagine, this is completely against the Spirit of the Law, in fact circumventing its purpose entirely.

    So essentially what it would boil down to is having multiple definitions of the word "kick" depending on whether play was active or dead. This does not sit well with many people, including myself and most others who have been students of the Laws for many decades. As a result, does Jim Allen and USSF want to make the distinction outright or simply dodge the question despite the implications? It appears the latter -- they don't want to set anything in stone unless FIFA does, and as of right now FIFA has not.

    Despite the contradiction, the referee has to ask himself: what was the purpose of the act by the defender? Putting something down on paper is one thing, but applying it on the field is quite another. My bet would be even Jim would whistle the offense if the ball was played by the shin, even if on paper he is not willing to commit that response :)
     
  18. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Tell you what. You won't take Jim's answer, that's fine with me. Perhaps you should email the site or Jim directly which is what I did. I don't have the balls to say I'm right and Jim Allen's wrong, but I'm not participating in this debate. It's not a matter of intent as you persist in saying. If it were than if you intend to use your foot but hit the knee instead, then it would be a foul yet you say no.
     
  19. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    I did Crowdie. That's in the last post. His answer was one word "no". If you're in England, this doesn't affect you at all. But for me, if Jim Allen says no, it's good enough for me. Saw your other questions especially #16 where do they come from?
     
  20. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    From Julian Carosi's website in the UK.

    What interests me about this is that if a US ref applied this interpretation in a England vs Australia game, for example, then the teams would expect it to be called. If you change the situation a little and have an Australian referee doing a England vs US game and a US player passes the ball back with his shin (thinking it is legal) then the Australian referee will award the IDK.

    Crowdie
     
  21. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI
    Well I would call it too, and I am pretty sure I am from the US :).
     
  22. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    i'm very surprised to learn that Jim Allen said "no" on the use of the shin, as i interpreted the 9/14/03 answer as responding to this specific question.

    no offense to Jim or to jkc, the fact remains that the only "official" direction that i have remains that answer, and i do not see how to reconcile it with this new answer. if Jim meant to say that the backpass can only be with the foot, he did not do that, and his answer - as proven by this thread - has caused a lot of confusion. sure seems to me that a new question and answer should be posted immediately to clarify this, and at a minimum the old question and answer should be deleted.

    will that happen? if not, Statesman very well may be right that ussf does not want to take a formal position right now.
     

Share This Page