Deliberate Kick (not) to the goalkeeper
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
)
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
A lot of room for nuance on a play like this. The defender is playing with fire I. Hoping the R sees it the same way.
one
RefChat Addict
So... if they do that several times in a game, it can't be penalised as per your interpretation, correct?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Not exactly. The list of cautions under USB are examples. So the deliberate trick explanation is an example, not the exclusive way an act of circumvention could be USB. That said, a referee has to be sure there is something truly unsporting about an act where it is not expressly spelled out. That said, I sure wouldn’t be going there on a single event like this. On multiple events? I think I’d probably conclude the first touch was being played to the keeper and simply give the IFK rather than going the USB route.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It can't be penalised under the provision about using a deliberate trick to circumvent the law (as @Johnson says, it doesn't meet the criteria) but I think if they do it several times then it changes the calculation of whether it was a deliberate action using foot contact (which the law says is a kick) in order to get the ball to the goalkeeper.
I have to say that I'm not totally in agreement with the IFAB answer on this. I don't believe you can make a definitive answer in the way they do here, in a part of the law that requires judging intent.
The key question here is whether the referee believes the player has done this deliberately, in order to allow the keeper to pick the ball up. For me, that's not something that can be decided in the abstract, it can only be done by the referee after observing everything that the player does - body language, gestures (if any) to the keeper, context of the game etc.
We've actually discussed this exact scenario several times before on the site and I've always said that if happens only once, I'd be inclined not to penalise it as it would be difficult to be sure if it was deliberate or not, but that if it's repeated then I'd be more likely to judge it differently.
one
RefChat Addict
I was going to post this same point. But then kind of thought "I can't bother anymore". As you say we have we discussed this before. We have also discussed numerous IFAB Q&As where they give a 'careless' answer to a question which has consequesnses beyond their intent. The OP maybe an innocent auction and no offence but it could also be an offence.
Agree that it can't be penalised under the specific "trick" clause. However I would put forward a different argument when it happens several times in a similar fashion (especially after I/you warn them not to do it). If you deemed it a deliberate kick and they clearly are not doing it in a simple deliberate kick but in a way they think it would work around the law, would that be then trying to deceive you? Or not respecting the game? Or a generic unspecified unsporting act? It would would be for me. In which case the offence is a more serious USB and not "backpass". @socal lurker
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I wouldn’t fight you on going that route. But I would go with the initial kick having been to the keeper (due to the evidence of repetition) and just give the IFK. For my money, that is enough to put an end to the problem, the attacking IFK is sufficient punishment, and from a management perspective we aren’t adding insult to injury with the card.