The Ref Stop

Deliberate kick to the GK

C

cdsman

Member
Apologies for what appears to be a simple question, but I gave an indirect free kick for the scenario below over the weekend, and the manager of the defending team disagreed with my decision. Nothing new there, but it got me questioning myself!

Defender took a goal kick to the goalkeeper who was stood outside of the penalty area. GK dribbled the ball back into the area and picked it up… I awarded IDFK against the GK for touching the ball with his hands after it had been deliberately kicked to him by a team mate..

Is this still correct when the ‘kick to the GK’ is the goal kick? Even writing this out makes it seem more obvious, but I'm always told that there’s no such thing as a stupid question!
 
The Ref Stop
100% correct. A+ for effort for the keeper trying to avoid kicking from the floor though!
 
cdsman said:
No sorry - he was manager of 'team taking the GK'... so didn't believe it was an infringement at all.
Click to expand...

ahh yes sorry! my bad, i didnt read the post carefully enough.
I played in a game where our GK did exactly the same... what happened was that he'd run off to fetch the ball after a shot, threw it back to our CB who took the kick as the GK was running back to the PA. The pass left the PA and the keeper dribbled it back in to the PA, and picked it up. Our ref on the day did nothing.
 
The offending team always go mental when penalised for keeper picking up up after a deliberate pass from teammate, whatever the circumstances.
 
On the subject, if a deliberate kick by a defender takes a deflection off an attacker, can the GK handle?

I had a good look for this in the laws but couldn't find it...
 
santa sangria said:
On the subject, if a deliberate kick by a defender takes a deflection off an attacker, can the GK handle?

I had a good look for this in the laws but couldn't find it...
Click to expand...

It's there in Law 12:

"touches the ball with the hands after:
...
••it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate"

Since the last player to touch it (however briefly) was not a team mate, it means the keeper can safely handle the ball.
 
Ganajin said:
It's there in Law 12:

"touches the ball with the hands after:
...
••it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate"

Since the last player to touch it (however briefly) was not a team mate, it means the keeper can safely handle the ball.
Click to expand...
I agree that the keeper can safely handle the ball in this scenario, but that's not actually what the law says. A defender can deliberately kick the ball to his GK, and an attacker can make an attempt to intercept that ball. If the attacker gets a touch on the ball, that doesn't nullify the fact that a defender deliberately kicked the ball to the GK. So we have a spirit of the game interpretation of the law, where we would allow the GK to use his hands, although strictly by the letter of the law, the GK shouldn't handle.
 
xPositor said:
I agree that the keeper can safely handle the ball in this scenario, but that's not actually what the law says. A defender can deliberately kick the ball to his GK, and an attacker can make an attempt to intercept that ball. If the attacker gets a touch on the ball, that doesn't nullify the fact that a defender deliberately kicked the ball to the GK. So we have a spirit of the game interpretation of the law, where we would allow the GK to use his hands, although strictly by the letter of the law, the GK shouldn't handle.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. there is no spirit of the game involved at all, but only a literal reading of the Law. A ball touched by an opponent has ipso facto NOT been "kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate"

Askasoccerreferee.com in a question from 2011 explained it succinctly:

The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
– The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
– This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and
– The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)

When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.
 
Last edited:
That also goes by some of the USSF's OLD interpretation which was that a ball simply needed to be kicked to somewhere a GK could play it in order for it to be an infringement. Indeed, their old Advice to Referees essentially dropped the "to the goalkeeper" clause, stating that if a ball was deliberately kicked by a teammate, then any time a GK handled it after that (with no intervening touches), it was an offence.
 
Ganajin said:
I respectfully disagree. there is no spirit of the game involved at all, but only a literal reading of the Law. A ball touched by an opponent has ipso facto NOT been "kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate"

Askasoccerreferee.com in a question from 2011 explained it succinctly:

The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
– The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
– This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and
– The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)

When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement :) - you're saying that this wouldn't be an offence: a player stood just inside his own half turns, shouts to his keeper "keeper, coming back to you" and kicks the ball to his keeper. He hasn't seen an opposition player in an offside position (but not committing an offside offence), who is sideways on and doesn't see the ball being played. The ball catches that attacking player a glancing blow, and rolls through to the GK. Did the defending player directly kick the ball to his goalkeeper?

Let's look at the actual wording of the law as it currently stands:
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
    • receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
Click to expand...

"directly" is not used for when the ball is deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate, but is used for when the GK receives the ball from a throw-in taken by a team-mate. We must therefore take the view that it has been intentionally omitted from the deliberately kicked to the GK condition, because it has intentionally been included in the throw-in clause. Especially as the word is used to indicate that there is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
  • a goal kick
  • a throw-in
  • a corner kick
When the term "directly" is not clear enough, and to ensure the intent of a law is better understood, IFAB have now gone to the trouble of changing "directly" for another phrase, as in the dropped-ball law - now using "If a dropped ball enters the goal without touching at least two players" rather than "If a dropped ball directly enters the goal". Their explanation for this change is "Replacing 'directly' with 'without touching at least 2 players' is clearer...".

So if IFAB specifically use "directly" throughout the laws of the game, and intentionally change the word directly for something else to better clarify a law, they fully understand when they are - and are not - using it. Therefore the only valid interpretation of law 12.2 is that regardless of whether or not the ball touches another player, if the ball was deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate, quod erat demonstrandum an offence has been committed.

Now either the law is wrong, or common practice dictates that we use common sense and apply the spirit of the game (as we are expected to do) and choose not to award the IDFK.

I agree with your application, just not the strictly legal interpretation.
 
If the gnomes of Zurich had meant the deliberate kick to be reset by a touch by an attacking player, they'd have said so. I don't care what askasoccerreferee.com says 6 years ago, they aren't a recognised authority. The laws were re-written by the IFAB and extensive clarification was given and nowhere does it mention a reset by an attacker's touch.

IDFK.

Also to the OP, well done for picking up the original offence described.
 
I realise that we both apply the Law the same in practice, but the theory here is rather interesting.

And I am sorry xpositor but I must respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement with my disagreement. "The Spirit of the Game" is not a catch all get out that allows referees to cherry pick which laws they want to follow or which to disregard. It is there to allow a referee in certain exceptional one-off circumstances (lack of corner flags in a grassroots game for example), to accept shortfalls from the requirements of Law. We cannot have a Law that everyone consistently breaks and cries "spirit of the game": if the IFAB wanted that, then they would just change that Law.

So that leaves just two choices: 1) either the Law ought to be read the way you suggest, and we should all ignore deflections from attackers: or 2) the way just about everyone applies it is right, and the Law is merely badly worded.

Is this second option at all likely? Remember you are talking about the IFAB, a body who for years never even laid down in the Laws that a red carded player was expelled from the rest of the game and could not return. Who for about 20 years never even stated anywhere in the Laws that the team with the most goals scored won the game. Who until recently had an offside Law that actually read that a player had to interfere with play AT THE EXACT SAME MOMENT that the ball was played to him by a team-mate.

The IFAB have many times released circulars to clarify badly written Laws that referees were mis-interpreting. But they have never said a word about this particular element of Law 12. Whiles I agree that the Law would read better if the word directly were included, sometimes we just have to accept that common practice (not Spirit of the game) in football, outweighs exact legal shades of meaning.

And the only reason I make such a fuss over such a seemingly trivial point, is that once we accept "spirit of the game" as a reason to ignore admittedly muddy Laws, it very soon becomes a reason for referees to creatively start altering Laws which are plain and set in concrete...a habit we already see and read far too much of in this very site.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
If the gnomes of Zurich had meant the deliberate kick to be reset by a touch by an attacking player, they'd have said so. I don't care what askasoccerreferee.com says 6 years ago, they aren't a recognised authority. The laws were re-written by the IFAB and extensive clarification was given and nowhere does it mention a reset by an attacker's touch.

IDFK.

Also to the OP, well done for picking up the original offence described.
Click to expand...
Brian, given Peter's quote here, are you staying with this reasoning?

(I am so interested because I gave an IFK for a deliberate back pass that took a slight deflection off an attacker last week, and I want to know if I was correct)
 
Hi
A touch by an attacker means that the ball has longer been deliberately kicked by the defender it is a touch / play by the attacker which lifts the restriction on the GK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top