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

[one]

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."

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:



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.

I liked this post because it's senseable. But haven't you just opened up the possibility of another offence? Circumventing the law. You see it once, you are not convinced. It happens again and again then you can't give it for a 'backpass' but for the bigger offence of circumventing the law. Why not be preventive and nip in the bud first time you see it.

 

[Peter Grove]

I liked this post because it's senseable. But haven't you just opened up the possibility of another offence? Circumventing the law. You see it once, you are not convinced. It happens again and again then you can't give it for a 'backpass' but for the bigger offence of circumventing the law. Why not be preventive and nip in the bud first time you see it.

We've discussed this same scenario several times before. I didn't repeat all the same arguments as I did on every previous occasion for fear of sounding like a broken record but as I've pointed out before, it's really only on the first time it happens that you have to be a lot more circumspect and probably give the benefit of the doubt to the player (possibly along with a warning).

If it happens again, especially if you had doubts in the first place (and even more so if you'd given a warning) then I think you'd be entitled to penalise it as a pattern would have been established which would be indicative of intent.

However, this doesn't have anything to do with circumvention, that's a separate and specifically-defined offence where the player uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball to their keeper with a body part other than the foot.

Here we're just talking about a regular kick of the ball, using the foot, that ends up with the keeper - there's no hint of circumventing the law in what we're discussing.

 

[Anubis]

We've discussed this same scenario several times before. I didn't repeat all the same arguments as I did on every previous occasion for fear of sounding like a broken record but as I've pointed out before, it's really only on the first time it happens that you have to be a lot more circumspect and probably give the benefit of the doubt to the player (possibly along with a warning).

If it happens again, especially if you had doubts in the first place (and even more so if you'd given a warning) then I think you'd be entitled to penalise it as a pattern would have been established which would be indicative of intent.

However, this doesn't have anything to do with circumvention, that's a separate and specifically-defined offence where the player uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball to their keeper with a body part other than the foot.

Here we're just talking about a regular kick of the ball, using the foot, that ends up with the keeper - there's no hint of circumventing the law in what we're discussing.

100%

The event sounds like a kick, which happens to end up in the gk hands

this is not an offence

 

[CapeTownRef]

• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player

I saw a referee give an IDF against a goalkeeper because he bounced the ball and caught it before throwing it out to a teammate. A literal interpretation of the law which caused a huge melee from the "offending" team.

 

[JamesL]

• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player

I saw a referee give an IDF against a goalkeeper because he bounced the ball and caught it before throwing it out to a teammate. A literal interpretation of the law which caused a huge melee from the "offending" team.

Well that would be completely wrong in law, as the keeper hasn't released it. When bouncing the ball he remains in control and cannot be challenged, or penalised for releasing it from his control as per

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
...
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air"

 

[CapeTownRef]

You are correct. It was just that the ref in question didn't know and thought that bouncing and catching the ball was a literal offence. He should never have penalised the keeper

 

[Quarryref]

You are correct. It was just that the ref in question didn't know and thought that bouncing and catching the ball was a literal offence. He should never have penalised the keeper

This one is black and white. There are of course other GK offences that are routinely ignored - 6-second release and deliberate parry that's not really a save and regather, but those are the subject of much debate on other threads.

If his bouncing technique was up the spout and he lost control whilst doing it (clearly there are different degrees of losing control from a momentary fumble to bouncing it on his big toe and picking it up 5 yards away), that would put it into greyer territory - 'release' is not defined or qualified by having to be deliberate

 

[Kes]

This one is black and white. There are of course other GK offences that are routinely ignored - 6-second release and deliberate parry that's not really a save and regather, but those are the subject of much debate on other threads.

If his bouncing technique was up the spout and he lost control whilst doing it (clearly there are different degrees of losing control from a momentary fumble to bouncing it on his big toe and picking it up 5 yards away), that would put it into greyer territory - 'release' is not defined or qualified by having to be deliberate

Yep.

I think the higher the level you're doing, the expectation (and the knowledge of the players and coaches) for nuances like you describe changes.

At 7-5 (grass roots) level though, unless it's blatantly obvious (in which case there'll be appeals all round) we tend to do what the game expects and just play on. Rightly so.

 

[Peter Grove]

I thought this was asked to IFAB and the answer was no offence. I might have dreamed it tho

It may not have been a question that was sent in and an answer received and published on here, but I did find the following in the Q&A section of the IFAB app, which pretty much covers the scenario we're discussing. This may be what you're remembering?


As this response points out, the determining factor here, is that the original pass was not intended to go to the goalkeeper.

 

[socal lurker]

All of those mind reading classes are going to pay off!!

seriously, I think a key to remember is that the Game really only wants blatant offenses on this called. It‘s not something we should be looking to call; it’s something we call when we think “oh, crap, I can’t believe he actually did that!”

 

[socal lurker]

• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player

I saw a referee give an IDF against a goalkeeper because he bounced the ball and caught it before throwing it out to a teammate. A literal interpretation of the law which caused a huge melee from the "offending" team.

Um, no. It is not a “literal interpretation of the law.” It is a demonstration of gross lack of awareness of the what the laws literally say.

 

[santa sangria]

It may not have been a question that was sent in and an answer received and published on here, but I did find the following in the Q&A section of the IFAB app, which pretty much covers the scenario we're discussing. This may be what you're remembering?

View attachment 5757
As this response points out, the determining factor here, is that the original pass was not intended to go to the goalkeeper.

Yes, thank you sir!

 

[bloovee]

.....

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).
...

Notwithstanding the Q&A (what status does that have in terms of interpretation?) the French version has indeed taken out the words "to the goalkeeper"! "toucher le ballon des mains sur une passe bottée délibérément par un coéquipier" = "touch the ball with the hands on a pass deliberately kicked by a teammate".

 

[socal lurker]

Notwithstanding the Q&A (what status does that have in terms of interpretation?) the French version has indeed taken out the words "to the goalkeeper"! "toucher le ballon des mains sur une passe bottée délibérément par un coéquipier" = "touch the ball with the hands on a pass deliberately kicked by a teammate".

Well, the Q&A tells us what IFAB thinks, which seems pretty compelling. More so than the French edition, as it is the English that is the official version of the LOTG.

 

[Peter Grove]

Notwithstanding the Q&A (what status does that have in terms of interpretation?) the French version has indeed taken out the words "to the goalkeeper"! "toucher le ballon des mains sur une passe bottée délibérément par un coéquipier" = "touch the ball with the hands on a pass deliberately kicked by a teammate".

We've had this exact same discussion before.

Firstly, if there's any conflict between versions, the IFAB states that the English version is definitive. So if the French version leaves out the part about it being kicked deliberately to the goalkeeper and the English version doesn't, we have to go with the English version

Secondly, out of the four "official" language versions on the IFAB site, only the French version leaves this out. The English, Spanish and German versions all include it, which makes me suspect that it's an oversight or typographical error in the French version anyway.

 

[Peter Grove]

Anyway, I've already written to the IFAB to ask them to check this, and suggesting they change the French wording to what it clearly should be, namely:

"sur une passe bottée délibérément au gardien de but par un coéquipier ;"

 

[bloovee]

Anyway, I've already written to the IFAB to ask them to check this, and suggesting they change the French wording to what it clearly should be, namely:

"sur une passe bottée délibérément au gardien de but par un coéquipier ;"

Bonne chance.

 

[Peter Grove]

Bonne chance.

Already received a reply from David Elleray that the French text is in error and will be changed in the next edition.

They didn't use my suggested wording (which I thought was more consistent with the English version) but instead will apparently use the wording shown in the email below.

 

[bloovee]

Does French have dangling participles?

Doesn't that mean "a pass to him having been deliberately kicked by a team-mate"? Why would a team-mate kick his goalkeeper?

 

[Peter Grove]

Does French have dangling participles?

Doesn't that mean "a pass to him having been deliberately kicked by a team-mate"? Why would a team-mate kick his goalkeeper?

No, it means the goalkeeper can't use his hands, "on a pass having been deliberately kicked to him by a team mate." A more natural-sounding (if less literal) translation might be, "on a pass that was deliberately kicked to him by a team mate."

"Bottée" is a past participle with a feminine ending, which means, in this context, that it can only to refer to the pass being kicked, not the goalkeeper - "le gardien" being a male gender noun.