A&H

Circumvention? Atletico Madrid V United

I wouldn't be giving that - I don't think it's what's expected and you don't have to go outside the LOTG to let it go. As @Russell Jones says it all hinges on the definition of a 'deliberate trick', for which there is no clarification I've ever seen.

I've always thought of a deliberate trick usually needing either 2 players colluding (e.g. one chips it up to the other) or a player making 2 actions - e.g. chipping it up to himself. That makes it clear cut - otherwise how low do you have to stoop for a header to cross the threshold of a trick ?

I think there is another possibility, where a player does something obviously pre-meditated and ridiculous. E.g. ball is stationary at a keeper's feet and a defender walks back 10 yards, gets on his knees and plays it with his head - that would count and I'd be happy justifying that.

Having said that, I can absolutely see how you could include what this player did within the plain English meaning of the phrase deliberate trick. I just think you would need to be braver than I would choose to be and prepared to spend quite some time explaining it !
 
The Referee Store
That isn't a trick for me, a player is allowed to head the ball however he chooses to.

This came up years ago, may have even been on an older now defunct forum, and someone emailed IFAB to get clarification. Their view was this isn't a trick, the player is simply heading it back to the keeper. Had he taken a touch first, or flicked it up to head it back, it should be viewed as a trick and penalised.
 
RustyRef said:
That isn't a trick for me, a player is allowed to head the ball however he chooses to.

This came up years ago, may have even been on an older now defunct forum, and someone emailed IFAB to get clarification. Their view was this isn't a trick, the player is simply heading it back to the keeper. Had he taken a touch first, or flicked it up to head it back, it should be viewed as a trick and penalised.
Click to expand...
Ok, I hear the consensus, I'll concede gracefully on this one :) . Though obviously a player is not "allowed to head the ball however they choose" as some of the clear cut tricks conclude with a player heading it.

What's your opinion on the other scenario @Quarryref outlined Rusty? "E.g. ball is stationary at a keeper's feet and a defender walks back 10 yards, gets on his knees and plays it with his head". There's only one player involved, it's in open play and he only takes one touch. But spirit of the game suggests to me that this is not allowed / expected?
 
Russell Jones said:
Ok, I hear the consensus, I'll concede gracefully on this one :) . Though obviously a player is not "allowed to head the ball however they choose" as some of the clear cut tricks conclude with a player heading it.

What's your opinion on the other scenario @Quarryref outlined Rusty? "E.g. ball is stationary at a keeper's feet and a defender walks back 10 yards, gets on his knees and plays it with his head". There's only one player involved, it's in open play and he only takes one touch. But spirit of the game suggests to me that this is not allowed / expected?
Click to expand...
Many a time I've seen a player round the keeper before heading the the ball on the ground over the line
Well quite a few times, more than three in my Sunday League days... at a guess
Showboating... I'm far too straight laced myself for that nonsense and frown upon such frolics. But, who cares? Lying on the ground behind a defensive wall is worse IMO... PIADM IMHO, but unless the book gets forensic with wording, I won't be picking fights
 
Russell Jones said:
Ok, I hear the consensus, I'll concede gracefully on this one :) . Though obviously a player is not "allowed to head the ball however they choose" as some of the clear cut tricks conclude with a player heading it.

What's your opinion on the other scenario @Quarryref outlined Rusty? "E.g. ball is stationary at a keeper's feet and a defender walks back 10 yards, gets on his knees and plays it with his head". There's only one player involved, it's in open play and he only takes one touch. But spirit of the game suggests to me that this is not allowed / expected?
Click to expand...
By "allowed to head the ball however they choose" I meant when the ball is in play and they haven't already touched it.

If it isn't an interception or immediate reaction to a moving ball and is more "staged" I would be less tolerant, but even then you'd have to assess each situation on merit.
 
I think the key word is "initiates" a trick. Arguably he might do a trick (although if it is something that I can do myself, it is nowhere near to being a trick!), but he does not "initiate" it.

It's basically a header. If the keeper had parried it, it came out at shoulder height and he'd nodded it back we would never have made this last past the first question, let alone page 2!
 
Quarryref said:
As @Russell Jones says it all hinges on the definition of a 'deliberate trick', for which there is no clarification I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
The clarification was in the original circular, issued when this amendment was first introduced.

It was FIFA circular # 488, published on July 24, 1992 and the relevant part goes as follows:

Examples of such tricks would include: a player who deliberately flicks the ball with his feet up onto his head in order to head the ball to his goalkeeper; or, a player who kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with his knee, etc.
Click to expand...

The other important part of the circular is where it says:

The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the text and the spirit of Law 12, and the referee must only be convinced that this was the player’s motive.
Click to expand...

So I think the question to be asked here is, since the ball was coming to the player at a natural height to be played with the foot, what was his motive for not simply kicking the ball back to his keeper?

I can only think of one reason for him not to kick the ball in this situation - because he wanted his keeper to be able to pick the ball up and he knew that if he kicked it, the goalie wouldn't be able to use his hands.

For me, if taking a literal and technical interpretation of the law, this is circumvention but given that the ball was bouncing slightly, came to the player at speed and as mentioned in an earlier post, the game was all but over at this point, I can understand why it wasn't given.
 
Russell Jones said:
Ok, I hear the consensus, I'll concede gracefully on this one :) .
Click to expand...
Damned right too Tottingham. :D

It just looks odd (and therefore potentially a "trick") because the player heads it along the deck which, in truth he wouldn't normally do. He just did it because the opportunity presented itself to at that moment. It was just quick thinking rather than a trick. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top