A&H

Is trapping the ball a deliberate kick to the GK?

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
From a quiz: A defender stops the ball with his foot inside his own penalty area. His goalkeeper, seeing an opponent approach, picks up the ball with his hands. What decision should the referee make?

Has it been "deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate?"

What is the guidance on this?
 
The Referee Store
Not sure if there's specific guidance, but my view would be that it's ok. The player hasn't kicked the ball if he's just trapped/stopped it.
 
Very hard to be definitive about this. However, the majority of the time, I think I'm giving this as a deliberate kick to the GK ... generally, if you trap the ball, it is with a view to then kicking it .. if instead of doing so, you 'step aside' and let the GK pick it up, then almost inevitably you have turned it into a deliberate act.

However, if it's not a trap but instead a block or 'save' then for me that would change the nature of the situation.
 
A trap is not a pass. Any intention to pass not carried out is completely irrelevant.
 
I'd say play on. Not deliberately played to keeper from a teammate. Keeper goes to get a the ball.
 
In general, it seems like the LOTG should be interpreted quite literally (there was an example discussed on the forum not long ago, but can't remember now what it was exactly), so in this case I'd say it's ok as there's no deliberate kick to the goalkeeper (even if the defender "deliberately stops the ball to leave it for the goalkeeper" or if the defender "stops the ball and deliberately leaves it for the goalkeeper").
 
I think I would generally be tempted to give the IFK for this. If a player deliberately uses his foot to put the ball in a position where it's easier for the GK to pick it up, I think the spirit of the law is that he's gained an advantage by doing so and should be penalised.

Conversely, if he traps the ball with the clear intention of passing it after, but the GK takes it on himself to come forward and claim the ball, I think you can argue that the player's attempt wasn't to give the GK the ball and so it shouldn't be penalised.
 
Last edited:
What's the intention of the 'backpass' law? It's to stop delays from the keeper handling the ball after it's been kicked to him, to prevent that timewasting behaviour of players not being able to challenge the ball after a player has fully controlled it for the keeper.

The text of the law talks about a 'deliberate kick' to the goalkeeper.

And we know that any strike of the ball with enough force to simply move it counts as a kick (as opposed to something forceful under the colloquial definition).

So in terms of the intent of the law, what's the difference between trapping it, and passing it a foot to the keeper? Nothing really, I assume nobody disagrees with that point?

It's only a question of how precise we think the law is. I don't think there's a fundamental difference in terms of kick and trap, especially not in terms of the outcome against the law. Also, what are you going to do if it's a poor trap that goes a few feet to the keeper? Are you sure it's not a pass? This is introducing another judgement call which may be a difficult one.

So, yes, I think that trapping the ball and leaving it for the keeper certainly falls under the 'backpass' law - as long as the keeper is the intended recipient.

sometimes in a heavily packed penalty area a defender may trap the ball and the keeper just sees a ball near him and dives on it at the feet of the defender. In that scenario you can't be certain the keeper is the intended recipient, so no offence. Different to an unpressured PA when the defender looks at the keeper, traps it then runs away for the keeper to collect the ball.

Then of course there's everything in between those 2 extremes
 
Poorly written question for me.

'Kicking the ball to' as used in LOTG implies intent. "stops the ball' as used in the question leave it open if there was intent for the goal keeper to pick it up or not.

The outcome of a similar discussion in the past was to see the intent. Generally at higher level games players get crafty and if you deem it that way then its a IDFK. You can even caution the player or the keeper for unsporting behavior if you can sell it.

I had a similar situation many years ago in a low division all age ladies grassroots team with no opponents around the ball. At the time I thought there was no intent but still had a quiet word with the keeper no to do it again.
 
Last edited:
What possible reason could you have for cautioning a defender in this scenario??
Also bear in mind it's completely illegal to caution a goalkeeper for any handling related offence in the PA.
 
I'd be focussing on whether this was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the LOTG concerning back pass to the goalkeeper. If the ball was trapped with the expectation/intention that the goalkeeper would then pick it up I'd be blowing the whistle.
 
How can a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper be circumventing the law about a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper???
:wall:
Either trapping the ball is covered by a kick, or it isn't. And if it isn't, it's not even close to being an unsporting attempt to get around the law by a completely unnatural and unreasonable method of playing. It would be a perfectly normal part of play that isn't covered by the backpass law - like kneeing it or heading it.
 
From a quiz: A defender stops the ball with his foot inside his own penalty area. His goalkeeper, seeing an opponent approach, picks up the ball with his hands. What decision should the referee make?
Here in Canada, the current directive is to penalize this with IFK.

As of 2012, that was also FIFA's directive as per the 2012 LotG Quiz they released:

2012 FIFA LotG Quiz said:
Q: A defender stops the ball with his foot inside his own penalty area. His goalkeeper, seeing an opponent approach, picks up the ball with his hands. What decision should the referee make?
Answer: The referee applies advantage and cautions the defender for unsporting behaviour at the next stoppage in play.
Correct Answer: The referee awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team as he considers the player has passed the ball to the goalkeeper with his foot.
Answer: The referee lets the game continue. There was no pass to the goalkeeper.
Answer: The referee cautions the defender and awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team.
 
What possible reason could you have for cautioning a defender in this scenario??
Also bear in mind it's completely illegal to caution a goalkeeper for any handling related offence in the PA.
So the defenders have used a deliberate ruse to deceive you and everyone else into thinking it is not a 'backpass'. If you know that this is the case would you not have a reason to caution?

Or you know they know they cant kick the ball to the keeper deliberately so they are doing this to get around the law. Would you not have a reason to caution for circumventing the law?

As for your other point, "Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction" (pdf pg82). This offence does not incur a DFK so that clause does not apply.
 
I've often thought that the 'circumvention' law is utterly ridiculous. I'm only now just realising that the reason it's so bad is only because so many referees don't understand it at all!!!
This isn't even close to circumvention. For one, this is a normal manner of play. Flicking the ball up and heading it isn't even close to normal play, which is why that can stand out. It's a completely unnatural play. Trapping the ball for somebody is a completely natural play - how could that be USB??
What, do you caution a player who knees it back to the keeper for getting around the passback law too? Or one who passes it to the keeper who's outside the PA? Or taking a TI to the keeper, based on the logic that 'you thought you were getting around the law but you didn't'???
the fact that a player thought they were doing something legal, and it wasn't, again doesn't even come close to justifying a caution.

also, the LOTG are stating that the keeper cannot be guilting of any DFK handling offence, or any handling related offence inside their PA.
They have paraphrased since last season but this has not been a law change. You're combining the 2 points into one - it's poorly written (surprise, surprise), but they're stating that the 'related sanction' pertains to handling offence, not handling offence specifically related to a DFK. The LOTg then goes on to specify that they can be guilty of IFK offences, but doesn't further specify they can be guilty of handling related for an IFK offence.
 
I am not sure if debating this any further is productive but nonetheless
I've often thought that the 'circumvention' law is utterly ridiculous. I'm only now just realising that the reason it's so bad is only because so many referees don't understand it at all!!!
I couldn't agree with you anymore. The funny thing is though, all those who don't understand it think they do and it is the others who don't understand it ;)

What, do you caution a player who knees it back to the keeper for getting around the passback law too? Or one who passes it to the keeper who's outside the PA? Or taking a TI to the keeper, based on the logic that 'you thought you were getting around the law but you didn't'???
No. No and no. All those are either explicitly allowed by LOTG or as you described them there is very little chance it is done with the intention to circumvent the law.

the fact that a player thought they were doing something legal, and it wasn't, again doesn't even come close to justifying a caution.
In almost every case when a player flicks the ball up and headers it to their keeper , they don't know they are doing an illegal move. No player in their right mind will give a free kick away in their own PA and get a caution for it that cheaply. So using your logic flicking the ball up and heading to keeper is almost never a caution either because they think its legal.
The key point here is in both cases (trapping or flicking) they know they are getting around something that is illegal (albeit using a move they think is legal).

also, the LOTG are stating that the keeper cannot be guilting of any DFK handling offence, or any handling related offence inside their PA.
They have paraphrased since last season but this has not been a law change. You're combining the 2 points into one - it's poorly written (surprise, surprise), but they're stating that the 'related sanction' pertains to handling offence, not handling offence specifically related to a DFK. The LOTg then goes on to specify that they can be guilty of IFK offences, but doesn't further specify they can be guilty of handling related for an IFK offence.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The current wording is fairly clear for me. Even with the old wording it could have been argued that the caution was not for the handling offence but for the attempted circumvention of law. In fact its the old wording that was ambiguous and this wording a made it a bit more clear.
 
Back
Top