A&H

Deflected "pass-back" in Chelsea match

deusex

deusex

RefChat Addict
From the BBC live match updates:

"Backtrack time. The Gary Cahill pass-back that had the Norwich fans so irate when it was picked up by Thibaut Courtois actually took a tiny flick off Cameron Jerome. Well done Lee Mason."

I haven't seen the incident, but that sounds a lot like an offence has been committed.
Does a tiny flick allow the GK to handle the ball? From the LOTG wording I would suggest no
 
The Referee Store
The text of the LOTG would suggest that even a significant deflection might not be enough for no - there's no mention of whether or not the ball has to go 'directly' to the keeper, only that he's the intended target. Fairly common interpretation though that any opposing touch nullifies the kick to the keeper, so I think the right decision has been made. Given that it's a common interpretation amongst referees, consider that the keeper's decision to handle the ball may also be because he saw the deflection.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Fairly common interpretation though that any opposing touch nullifies the kick to the keeper, so I think the right decision has been made.
Click to expand...
I agree - if we don't assume that an intermediate touch by an opponent negates the "ball deliberately kicked to the keeper" rule then as Capn B says, even a significant deflection wouldn't matter. Extending the same logic, even several intermediate touches by different players wouldn't alter the decision either - the ball would still have been deliberately kicked by a team mate who intended it for the keeper.

It would basically mean that once a defender kicks the ball deliberately, intending it to go to his keeper, the keeper can never subsequently touch the ball with his hands, no matter what happens in between. So even though the word "directly" isn't there, I think it has to be assumed, otherwise the possible permutations rise to the level of the ridiculous.
 
I'm not sure why that matters. LOTG states:
"An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate."
Click to expand...

Nothing about slight deflections, nor in the interpretation. I wonder where the idea has come from?
 
Peter Grove said:
It would basically mean that once a defender kicks the ball deliberately, intending it to go to his keeper, the keeper can never subsequently touch the ball with his hands, no matter what happens in between. So even though the word "directly" isn't there, I think it has to be assumed, otherwise the possible permutations rise to the level of the ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point.
I think you have swayed me. If taken literally the GK would never be allowed to handle the ball for the rest of the match. An opposition touch "resetting" the play has to be assumed.
 
I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. Can you do a winky or something please?
 
Last edited:
frank_ref said:
I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. Can you do a winky or something please?
Click to expand...

The literal reading in the laws does imply a ball deliberately passed back to a Gk can not be picked up. It gives no time limit or other limiting factors. I therefore have to assume an opposition touch resets the play.
Certainly not black and white
 
At least according to an answer about this incident on the asktheref.com website, FIFA gave an official ruling some years ago that if the ball touches an opponent on the way to the keeper, this negates the deliberate kick by the team mate and the keeper may use his hands.

The actual answer went (in part) as follows:
[...] a Scottish referee who got into a similar situation many years ago. He awarded the INDFK for a deliberate kick of the ball by a team mate to the keeper after the ball had bobbled over an opponent's outstretched leg on the way back to the keeper. Raised this same question and FIFA sorted it out that an opponent's touch makes the keeper's actions ok.
Click to expand...

You are free to make of that what you will.
 
Can you link to the answer on the asktheref.com site please? Would be interested to try and follow this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top