A&H

Shot myself in the foot

mikedn said:
The ball was kicked back to the defenders..... not a back pass..... the kicker meant it to reach the defenders..... not a back pass....... at this point the referee must realise the ball was meant for the defenders..... not a back pass...... it followed through to the keeper (bearing in mind the referee had made his mind up its a pass to the defenders) the keeper picks the ball up..... not a back pass... Definately one of those you have to be there to see if there was intent.
Click to expand...

Yes, which the OP was, and his initial thoughts were that the GK should not pick it up.....i.e. BACKPASS!

So everything was indicating to them that the ball was played deliberately back to the GK......and nothing that has been posted since has suggested it was anything other than that, apart from the OP having some self doubt over their initial decision.

My point is that not only is your first instinct rarely wrong when it comes to these things, but that once you have communicated that decision, you stand by it.
 
The Referee Store
If his initial thought was that the GK should not pick it up the referee has already made his mind up it was a back pass, but for me as i already stated, got to be there to see intent..... did the defender try to reach the ball? did he let it run to the keeper? if so the defender has turned that into a backpass.......but end of the day the keeper should err on the side of caution and kick the ball away.
 
DB said:
Just learn from it. Don't dwell on it too much. We all have these moments.

What you have to understand is that the payers are rightfully going to get a bit frustrated. You understand that and you have accepted that. That's the hardest bit done.

Next game will be here before you know it and this one will be a distant memory.
Click to expand...

Spot on DB, and as it so happened both my games this weekend contained strong performances from myself to round off the promotion season. Onwards and upwards!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
Thanks for all your thoughts and the onsuing discussion, guys.
I guess even if we were all there to witness it, there would be some of us thinking back pass and others not. As some of you have said I should have just stuck to my initial reaction, particularly after verbalising it. Lessons learnt which can only improve my refereeing.
 
I have not had an incident when a goalie has asked " can I pick this up", It is obvious what is a pass to the GK and what is a slice, clearence riccochet deflection or last ditch tackle. I am not sure how to respond if it occured but if I said no you can't and he did it would be an IDFK all day long
 
I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with answering the question. Although don't make the mistake I did of shouting "don't pick it up" and letting the GK claim he didn't hear the "no".

It's OK to hesitate until you've decided for sure, but I don't think it's OK to change your mind once you've said something. If it had been the other way round, (you shouted "yes", the keeper picked it up, but you'd decided in the meantime it was a backpass) would you have given the IFK? I think not - in that case, most refs would stick with the decision that was vocalised. As you allude to in your OP, I think that would have been better for your match control in this incident too.
 
We all learn through adversity, and this is just another example. As Padfoot says, this sounds like it was a back pass anyway. Rather like the handball criteria, I think a referee has to be less sympathetic to a goalkeeper in such a situation as this one, where the ball has travelled a long way, and indeed been kicked by a team-mate. Moreover, I feel the interpretation of this law is often insufficiently focused on the goalkeeper. I would argue that a 'deliberate kick' does not require an intended recipient, but the goalkeeper certainly becomes that (illegal) recipient when he picks the ball up. I see no mistake in applying retroactivity here.
 
DB said:
The only thing that matters in any of this is whether the referee believes that the ball was played to the goalkeeper deliberately. Did the defender want the ball to end up in the possession of the goalkeeper? You had to be there I recon.
Click to expand...

Had a situation on Saturday similar...defender 40 yards out facing his own goal plays the ball back...not even close to where the centre backs are but straight towards the keeper...keeper believing because it wasn't two yards away picks it up that I blow for a IDFK....it wasn't a backpass ref he is to far away? Sorry who was the ball played to? You, if in doubt shout me and I would have told you....actually couldn't believe he picked it as he had plenty of time to take a touch and pass it to the centre half who was now 20 yards away? As the ref said on Sunday in the England v Italy rugby match...I am a referee I am not here to coach you!
 
A Freethinker said:
Had a situation on Saturday similar...defender 40 yards out facing his own goal plays the ball back...not even close to where the centre backs are but straight towards the keeper...keeper believing because it wasn't two yards away picks it up that I blow for a IDFK....it wasn't a backpass ref he is to far away? Sorry who was the ball played to? You, if in doubt shout me and I would have told you....actually couldn't believe he picked it as he had plenty of time to take a touch and pass it to the centre half who was now 20 yards away? As the ref said on Sunday in the England v Italy rugby match...I am a referee I am not here to coach you!
Click to expand...

if the centre back was in line with the keeper and he steps over the ball to let it run through, would you (we) factor that in and say that it wasnt originally intended as a backpass, but that the defenders action has turned it into one effectively?
 
richard ramjane said:
if the centre back was in line with the keeper and he steps over the ball to let it run through, would you (we) factor that in and say that it wasnt originally intended as a backpass, but that the defenders action has turned it into one effectively?
Click to expand...
I would, if the central defender was in the vicinity I might excuse it as a poor pass, if he steps over it I would assume the pass was for him ...however in my example was quite clear for the intended target.
 
yup @A Freethinker , your example was clearly intended for the keeper, but it just got me thinking of a 'what if' situation.
@Padfoot ... spirit of the game, i.e a slight circumvention of the laws maybe ? i could go for that ... a sensible keeper wouldnt pick it up ... however....
 
Stepping over the ball could be viewed as a deliberate trick, thus an indirect free kick anyway. - is that where you are coming from padfoot?
 
Paul March said:
Stepping over the ball could be viewed as a deliberate trick, thus an indirect free kick anyway. - is that where you are coming from padfoot?
Click to expand...
It would be a IDFK and a mandatory caution - I think that's very harsh.

If the ball is coming towards you fast with a risk of miscontrolling it and you're being closed down, stepping over the ball and letting it run to the keeper is a fairly standard thing to do. If we're viewing it as "circumventing", then the offence is the act of stepping over the ball (as opposed to the act of picking the ball up after this) and I don't think it's reasonable to caution for stepping over the ball anywhere on the pitch.
 
I'm just saying that by stepping over the ball you now have exactly the same situation as if the defender had never been there......for all you know it might actually be a rehearsed tactic....

Considering the "Spirit of the game", the defenders actions has resulted in exactly the scenario the LOTG is trying to penalise.....a keeper being able to pick up the ball after it's passed by his own team.....resulting in the same advantage that would be gained if the defender wasn't there....so why shouldn't it be treated the same? The defender has deliberately allowed the ball to go back to the GK......

Just a thought.......seeing as how we are now allowed to officially use the "spirit of the game" in our decision making.
 
If the ball is played very quickly the argument about it being even a backpass exists.

I have never come across a defending stepping over the ball and may react differently should it happen. Much depends on the circumstances and temperature of the game
 
Padfoot said:
I'm just saying that by stepping over the ball you now have exactly the same situation as if the defender had never been there......for all you know it might actually be a rehearsed tactic....

Considering the "Spirit of the game", the defenders actions has resulted in exactly the scenario the LOTG is trying to penalise.....a keeper being able to pick up the ball after it's passed by his own team.....resulting in the same advantage that would be gained if the defender wasn't there....so why shouldn't it be treated the same? The defender has deliberately allowed the ball to go back to the GK......

Just a thought.......seeing as how we are now allowed to officially use the "spirit of the game" in our decision making.
Click to expand...
OP stated.... " A maroon player inside the blues half is under pressure and can only really play the ball backwards towards his deep defence. He does so but hits it hard enough for the ball to go all the way back to the keeper." Nothing deliberate in passing back to the keeper there.... is there? This is where the difference lies, not played back to the keeper but back to the defence...........
 
I am happy to be corrected, but wouldn't it be much easier to interpret almost all of these scenarios if we just asked two simple questions? First, was it a deliberate kick? Second, did the keeper, after no subsequent interference, touch the ball? If both these conditions are fulfilled, I will give the indirect free kick. Every reference to 'intent' invariably leads to a nightmare of ambiguity. For the sake of clarity, I don't think clubs would object if their players were subjected to slightly more stringent criteria.
 
SLI39 said:
I am happy to be corrected, but wouldn't it be much easier to interpret almost all of these scenarios if we just asked two simple questions? First, was it a deliberate kick? Second, did the keeper, after no subsequent interference, touch the ball? If both these conditions are fulfilled, I will give the indirect free kick. Every reference to 'intent' invariably leads to a nightmare of ambiguity. For the sake of clarity, I don't think clubs would object if their players were subjected to slightly more stringent criteria.
Click to expand...
I agree with you......... that important word you are looking for is "intent"
 
I just don't see why we are expected to read minds on this issue. Judging intent is difficult enough for handballs and other forms of misconduct, but we can often tell when something is out of the ordinary in these cases. However, for a completely legal act such as a pass, which only becomes a problem when it is touched by the keeper, for me it makes no practical sense to impute intention after the fact. In the spirit of Occam's razor, go with what is in front of you, and you'll have sufficient information to make a satisfactory decision; I'm not saying you'll always be right, but there's probably a better chance. Deliberate kick--yes or no? Goalkeeper handles--yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top