The Ref Stop

Back pass that wasn't but now is - (to GK)

Murri O

Murri O

Well-Known Member
Defender decides to square the ball across the box to another defender. GK, who is in between those 2 decides to run forward a couple of metres and picks up the ball.

Is this deemed a back pass as the ball wasn't 'deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate'?

(My initial thought is yes, probably a back pass. GK should have been aware of the situation. Though I could see why you wouldn't give it either.)

Thanks.

Excerpt from 12.2

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:

  • controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
  • touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player
  • touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:
    • it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
    • receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate


Edit: Apologies if this has been brought up before.
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
For me, yes. Likewise, if the defender for whom the pass was originally meant decides to leave it to the GK behind then it 'becomes' a deliberate pass to the GK
 
Russell Jones said:
For me, yes. Likewise, if the defender for whom the pass was originally meant decides to leave it to the GK behind then it 'becomes' a deliberate pass to the GK
Click to expand...
Fair enough but I'm thinking more that he passes it across the GK so at no stage is it going to the keeper until the keeper decides to run forward and get it.

Then what?
 
This has been discussed here a number of times. The other variation is the the defender is on the ball first but lifts his foot over it without touching it to let it through to keeper who is behind him.

Two school of thoughts depending how you interpret 'deliberate'.

1. Was it 'deliberately' kick for a pass, and did the keeper pick it up? If yes IFK
2. Was the pass deliberately to keeper, if no, no IFK.

For me, I warn the first occurance of the incident and say I give them benefit of doubt. But after that it's IFK.
 
We’re not mind readers, how do know who the pass was intended for?

I think football would expect an IDFK in the example above.
 
Will_A said:
We’re not mind readers, how do know who the pass was intended for?
Click to expand...
I get this. But lotg expects us to be able to 'mind read', that is to know if something a player does is deliberate. The clearest example of it for handball.
 
one said:
I get this. But lotg expects us to be able to 'mind read', that is to know if something a player does is deliberate. The clearest example of it for handball.
Click to expand...
Hmm, not sure I agree with you on this. The way HB is now interpreted, we don't actually need to know (for certain) what was in a player's head or why they did what they did. We just need to decide a) was there a clear movement of the hand/arm toward the ball or b) is the hand / arm in an unnatural position for the body movement being undertaken. Both of these things can happen either in a pre planned 'deliberate' way or in a thoughtless / involuntary way ... the decision is still the same :)
 
Will_A said:
We’re not mind readers, how do know who the pass was intended for?

I think football would expect an IDFK in the example above.
Click to expand...
There's no mind reading needed. The right fullback decides to switch play by squaring the ball across the penalty spot to the left fullback. You can clearly see what the intent is. The GK has a brain explosion and decides to come off his line and grab it.

Now what?
 
Russell Jones said:
That was the first part of my answer :). For me, yes this is a deliberate pass to the GK
Click to expand...
My footballing/LOTG brain tells me that's wrong when read in conjunction with what 12.2 actually says:

it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper

Having thought about it though, I suppose the offence takes place at the moment the GK actually picks up the ball, not when the team mate kicks it so I can go with that.

I'd probably not give that in my Saturday game though. More likely do what @one said and let it go first time with a warning.
 
Kes said:
My footballing/LOTG brain tells me that's wrong when read in conjunction with what 12.2 actually says:

it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper

Having thought about it though, I suppose the offence takes place at the moment the GK actually picks up the ball, not when the team mate kicks it so I can go with that.

I'd probably not give that in my Saturday game though. More likely do what @one said and let it go first time with a warning.
Click to expand...

Am not giving that either, one, there is too much doubt to make it credible, and two, setting up those idfk in the box is prob the worst task we can encounter
 
Russell Jones said:
Hmm, not sure I agree with you on this. The way HB is now interpreted, we don't actually need to know (for certain) what was in a player's head or why they did what they did. We just need to decide a) was there a clear movement of the hand/arm toward the ball or b) is the hand / arm in an unnatural position for the body movement being undertaken. Both of these things can happen either in a pre planned 'deliberate' way or in a thoughtless / involuntary way ... the decision is still the same :)
Click to expand...
You made me doubt myself there for a minute until I checked the Lotg. 'Deliberate' in isolation is a conduction. It has to be judged in isolation without any other conditions if other points in the criteria fail. So I'd still say we have to judge if a player had touched the ball deliberately. What the law has given in this point is an example not a pre-requisite.
Screenshot_20220622-205731.jpg



Edit: to add to this point, the word 'deliberate' is mentioned in law 39 times (and more if you count intent), deliberate trick, leaving/reentering without permission... It's a long enough list for us to be asked to judge intent.
 
Last edited:
In situations like this where it didn't look like a "back pass" but it ends up being picked up by the keeper the first thing I'd be looking for is any appeals by the other team. No appeal and there is absolutely no way I'm giving it, we all know that players appeal for "back pass ref" even when it deflects off someone.

You're then looking at could it have been avoided. In the example of the right back trying a cross field pass to the left back but getting it wrong I'd be comfortable with the keeper picking it up, but not when the ball is clearly passed to a defender who then leaves it for the keeper.
 
It also depends how you read the law itself.

Eg is the LOTG meant to mean
- That ball has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper.
- Or that the ball has been “deliberately kicked” (eg not an accident) and ended up with the keeper.

Either way, I think in this instance, as described, most people would expect an IDFK and that’s what I would likely give.
 
This is one of the many, many examples in the law where the referee is absolutely required to judge intent.

As @one points out, the law uses the words "deliberate" (or "deliberately") nearly 40 times - this is just one of them.

To judge this the way several people seem to be saying they would, means that you are rewriting the law, in effect taking out the words "to the goalkeeper" and making it read that it is an offence for the goalkeeper to touch the ball with the hands after it has been deliberately kicked by a team-mate (which would still, by the way, require you to make a judgement on intent, just on a slightly different aspect of things).

The law here absolutely requires a referee to make a judgement on whether the player intended the ball to go to their goalkeeper. You may not like it - you may say it requires you to be "a mind reader" (though I think that's an unhelpful phrase - the law simply asks you to make a judgement on intent, as many other parts of the law do) but it's what the law instructs us to do.

As the obviously ironic phrase goes, "That's why they pay us the big bucks." :D

I've said this in discussions about this several times before, but I like to borrow the phraseology from FIFA circular 488 here, which while it wasn't intended for the deliberate kick to a goalkeeper scenario but the related "circumvention" law is still (IMHO) entirely apt in this scenario.

The phrase in question is that:

the referee must only be convinced that this was the player’s motive
Click to expand...

So for me, if the referee is not convinced that the player intended the ball to go to their goalkeeper, there is no offence here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top