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?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.
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.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?
To be clear, passing the ball to the keeper not using foot, with a deliberate trick is not always an offence.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.
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.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.
Define unfair in this context. Then we can de ide if it is illegal or not.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.
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.Define unfair in this context. Then we can de ide if it is illegal or not.
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 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.
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.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.
Agreed with provision about offside.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.
I think pretty sure everyone here agrees with you and everyone thinks it's a trick.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.
I
Edit: read back through the posts, and I have said it is not a trick. The intent was to say it is not an offence.
Great point, it is definitely a DOGSO.In the spirit of the game is it an offence?
If it is an offence I'm struggling to see why it's not DOGSO.