The Ref Stop

Deliberate Trick?

The Ref Stop
one said:
Not a deliberate trick for me. Had he stopped it with his foot first and then passed it with the knee, then I'd call it.
Click to expand...
OK, so answer me this question. What do you think is the reasoning behind the player's choice of going down onto his knees to play it to the keeper, instead of just kicking it to him, which would surely have been a much simpler action to perform?
 
Peter Grove said:
OK, so answer me this question. What do you think is the reasoning behind the player's choice of going down onto his knees to play it to the keeper, instead of just kicking it to him, which would surely have been a much simpler action to perform?
Click to expand...
Not to circumvent the law but to use its provisions to his benefit. (Similar to some player use the provision that it is not an offence to be in an offside postion to their benfit). The law allowing use of knee has not qualified it by saying provided simpler options are not available. Uncommon action does not make it illigal.

If the ball is at say knee high, a defender bend down and uses head, or just use knee to pass to keeper, we all accept it even if kicking it first time or trapping and then kicking is a simpler action. They are just using the provisions in law to their benefit.

We need to go back to when the law was brought in and the reason for it to see that this was not meant to be an offence. All my opinion of course.
 
I accept the opinions that for some this isn't (and/or won't be) a deliberate trick, but I believe that it is which in this case would mean an IDFK and a caution for the player who kneed the ball.
 
Gabriel said:
I accept the opinions that for some this isn't (and/or won't be) a deliberate trick, but I believe that it is which in this case would mean an IDFK and a caution for the player who kneed the ball.
Click to expand...
To be clear, passing the ball to the keeper not using foot, with a deliberate trick is not always an offence.

So just believing this is a deliberate trick (and I also believe it is) does not neccessarily make this an offence.
 
one said:
To be clear, passing the ball to the keeper not using foot, with a deliberate trick is not always an offence.

So just believing this is a deliberate trick (and I also believe it is) does not neccessarily make this an offence.
Click to expand...
I understand that. But I do believe that in this case it was an offence as it was clearly done to gain an unfair advantage with the ball being virtually on the goal line.
 
Gabriel said:
I understand that. But I do believe that in this case it was an offence as it was clearly done to gain an unfair advantage with the ball being virtually on the goal line.
Click to expand...
Define unfair in this context. Then we can de ide if it is illegal or not.

To give you an apology, some attackers deliberately stay in an offside position, wait for another attacker to run through for a through ball and cut it back to them. Does it give them an advantage, yes in more than one level. Is it unfair (illegal) in the eyes of the law? No.
 
one said:
Define unfair in this context. Then we can de ide if it is illegal or not.
Click to expand...
If that trick isn't made, the France number 12 (and possibly 26 as well) has a decent opportunity to challenge for the ball directly in front of goal, and potentially score. I know it isn't a referees job to judge what could happen if something else doesn't, but I do believe that on this occasion there was a clear opportunity (not necessarily an attack, just an opportunity to attack) for the attacking side which was prevented by a deliberate trick to circumvent the laws.
 
Gabriel said:
If that trick isn't made, the France number 12 (and possibly 26 as well) has a decent opportunity to challenge for the ball directly in front of goal, and potentially score. I know it isn't a referees job to judge what could happen if something else doesn't, but I do believe that on this occasion there was a clear opportunity (not necessarily an attack, just an opportunity to attack) for the attacking side which was prevented by a deliberate trick to circumvent the laws.
Click to expand...
All true but none of which (except for the last three words) is a criteria and hence does not make the trick illigal. If the last three words are true then you don't need any of the other elements.

If it is your opinion that this trick was to circumvent the law then so be it. We can disagree on that. For me it was to benefit from it's provisions, just like the offside example I made.
 
one said:
All true but none of which (except for the last three words) is a criteria and hence does not make the trick illigal. If the last three words are true then you don't need any of the other elements.

If it is your opinion that this trick was to circumvent the law then so be it. We can disagree on that. For me it was to benefit from it's provisions, just like the offside example I made.
Click to expand...
I think it’s not a valid comparison. If anything both have specific provisions in the LotG that make it clear that this is an offence and “being in an offside position” is not an offence.
 
santa sangria said:
I think it’s not a valid comparison. If anything both have specific provisions in the LotG that make it clear that this is an offence and “being in an offside position” is not an offence.
Click to expand...
Agreed with provision about offside.

Disagree about provision that makes "this is and offence". What do you mean by "this"? If you mean "deliberate trick" agree that it is one but no provision makes a deliberate trick an offence on its own. If you mean it also is circumventing law, then I disagree that it is. But that is subjective so we can have differing opinions. What we can't say is that law makes it 'clear' this an offence.

In any case the offside reference had more to do in responding se to gaining an advantage from the act.
 
This is a trick. The only way I can imagine a player being able to play a ball along the ground without using their foot and it not be a trick is when the player has fallen to the ground for some other reason.

For those saying not a trick, would that still be the case if the player deliberately went down on their hands and knees and then headed the ball along the ground?

It seems most consistent to me if we consider a trick to be any deliberate changing of ball or body height in order to avoid using the foot.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
This is a trick. The only way I can imagine a player being able to play a ball along the ground without using their foot and it not be a trick is when the player has fallen to the ground for some other reason.

For those saying not a trick, would that still be the case if the player deliberately went down on their hands and knees and then headed the ball along the ground?

It seems most consistent to me if we consider a trick to be any deliberate changing of ball or body height in order to avoid using the foot.
Click to expand...
I think pretty sure everyone here agrees with you and everyone thinks it's a trick.

What everyone doesn't agree with is if it is an offence, hence a caution and indirect free kick.

Edit: read back through the posts, and I have said it is not a trick :D . The intent was to say it is not an offence.
 
Last edited:
I think we perhaps need to remember why the law was introduced. Players were flicking the ball up and heading it back, or the keeper was throwing it to a defender who was heading it back. They were very obviously deliberate tricks, I personally don't think this was.
 
Defender has clearly intentionally circumvented the law. Had the ball been knee-high and he kneed it back to the GK, it's not a trick. Dropping to your knees to play the ball back to your GK to pick up is a trick.

I think there's enough doubt over whether the attacker or GK would have got to it first to not go red for DOGSO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top