A&H

'Back pass'

WilliamD

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
incident in my game yesterday. Green defending a corner with white the attacking team. Corner comes in after a few missed kicks etc the ball squirts out back towards the touchline and a defender takes control of the ball close to his own goal line but still in the box. He controls the ball with his feet and doesn't really move forward - for some strange reason nobody from white team pressures him as they are all running back from the failed corner - and then the keeper shouts "I'll deal with it" and comes over and picks up the ball.

Que calls for 'back pass ref'. I immediately start shouting no "needs to be a deliberate pass". That actually shut everyone up pretty quick as the defender who originally had the ball looked to everyone to be pretty surprised to see his keeper grabbing the ball.

I'm 99% sure I got this right but I had never really considered a keeper snatching the ball off his own defender using his hands and weather that could be considered a deliberate pass if the defender allows it. Thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
Well a well-known ref quiz website has this as IDFK but I have looked this up in the latest laws and the relevant wording is limited to:

"An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area,
commits any of the following offences:
touches the ball with the hands after:
it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate"

Wiser hands than mine have to tell if there has been extra guidance on this from IFAB or elsewhere...
 
You were right, he didn't play the ball towards the keeper, the keeper picked it up from where he was controlling it, had he touched it towards the keeper as he came across then whistle IDFK, but given your description this didn't happen.
 
If the defender trapped it for the purpose of the keeper picking it up then this still counts as a backpass.
This sounds like the sort of scenario that isn't quite covered clearly in the law - I think you could argue either way based on how the text is written. I think your interpretation of law is a legitimate interpretation, and it was fine on the day.
 
I want this to be a backpass but as @CapnBloodbeard says your interpretation is fine and as the law is currently written it doesnt seem like an offence.

I think a simple line of "or if the keeper picks up the ball after it has been deliberately controlled by a team mate" would cover this scenario.
 
Secondary thought....

Could we view this as a deliberate trick to circumvent the law?
 
Secondary thought....

Could we view this as a deliberate trick to circumvent the law?

Going from what was said...I suspect that the defender kinda went what's happening when no one challenged him and the goalie pounced on it. I don't think they tried to circumvent the law just as @TopCat says good goalkeeping. The law is open to interpretation but given the scenario I wouldn't be penalising just my opinion though.
 
Going from what was said...I suspect that the defender kinda went what's happening when no one challenged him and the goalie pounced on it. I don't think they tried to circumvent the law just as @TopCat says good goalkeeping. The law is open to interpretation but given the scenario I wouldn't be penalising just my opinion though.
To me I feel like the law has been circumvented whether this is deliberately or not is another matter. I see what you are saying though as the defender has probably been surprised by the keeper.
 
Secondary thought....

Could we view this as a deliberate trick to circumvent the law?
It is very similar to when a defender knocks it up then heads it yes but probably an oversight that it isn't specified in law as someone mentioned above
 
It is very similar to when a defender knocks it up then heads it yes but probably an oversight that it isn't specified in law as someone mentioned above
@TopCat would disagree in that scenario there is a clear circumvention of the law...here it appears that the keeper s has came to claim the ball having been controlled by the defender which to me isn't circumventing just good goalkeeping.

Think of a defender getting the ball just inside the box both he and keeper going for it defender controls the ball and keeper screams mine and pounces on it. There is no deliberate act to play the ball to the keeper rather it is quick thinking by the keeper.

Interesting though if you go with this scenario a midfielder plays the ball back in the direction of a defender keeper shouts leave it....the defender steps over the ball in a deliberate act and allows ball to go to keeper, has he tried to circumvent the law?
 
Secondary thought....

Could we view this as a deliberate trick to circumvent the law?
No. If you're stopping play to give a caution for a deliberate trick, you would still stop play and give the caution whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands. Here there would have been no decision to make had the goalkeeper not picked the ball up, so it's not a deliberate trick.

As for whether it's a 'passback' or not, unless it's obvious that the defender has controlled the ball with the intention of the GK coming for it, or the defender then plays the ball again while aware of the fact that the GK is coming for it then I wouldn't be penalising.
 
Secondary thought....

Could we view this as a deliberate trick to circumvent the law?
No. It was played with the feet, so it's either backpass or it isn't.
The 'circumvention' one is such because you can't possibly call an IFK any other way. Here, you can just interpret the scenario to fall under backpass and award an IFK if you so desire.
 
Cheers folks. You can tell I really want to penalise this can't you. I really think once the defender has controlled it the keeper should then not be able to pick it up. Its one of those scenarios where the keeper is able to achieve what I think the law sets out to prevent.

We can talk about interpretation but as Alex says I think that it has to be that in the opinion of the referee the player deliberately controlled the ball for the keeper to collect or played it again to be an offence.

Thankfully, this is a rare occurrence that I havent seen before.
 
Back
Top