Fulham vs Leeds
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
That is p1ss poor
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I don’t think you see it from the above, but I was watching Australian (?) TV (ahem) and the ref gave a big “arm in the air” gesture after the defender played the ball.
I am going to presume that the ref thought that it was some kind of “challenge” situation, not a deliberate back pass, and so signaled - being proactive - no surprises - and that’s why the goalie picked up.
Obvs the surprise was it was obviously a back pass !
I am going to presume that the ref thought that it was some kind of “challenge” situation, not a deliberate back pass, and so signaled - being proactive - no surprises - and that’s why the goalie picked up.
Obvs the surprise was it was obviously a back pass !
one
RefChat Addict
The signal was immidiately after the keeper picked it up. Have no idea what the signal could mean but it does indicate he possibly didn't actually miss the offence.
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
The post above yours indicates the ball deflected off the Leeds player so the correct decision was made.
It definitely took a deflection, and you can see Peter Bankes pointing at Rodrigo who it deflected off. Does that slight deflection mean that Tim Ream didn't deliberately kick the ball to the keeper though? I think that could probably be viewed either way, but the fact it deflected off his foot technically means that he was the last person to kick the ball, not Ream.
I think this should have been penalised despite the deflection? Law 12 says:
An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area...
...touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked
or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:
• it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
The ball was certainly deliberately kicked to the GK by a team-mate.
An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area...
...touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked
or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:
• it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
The ball was certainly deliberately kicked to the GK by a team-mate.
No, it shouldn’t.
The ball has subsequently been played by another player so it has not been deliberately kicked to the GK by the defender.
Think of it in the same way as any attacking touch counting in relation to offside yet a defensive one must be deliberate. So, if the goalkeeper was an attacking player in an offside position here they would be penalised for offside due to the attacking touch yet without it they wouldn’t. In effect, this is the reverse, the potential offence is negated by the touch by the attacker.
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
It is an interesting discussion. I would take a deflection to mean no back pass can be penalised as the ball has no longer been directly kicked by the team mate to the goalkeeper. If for instance a striker intercepted a underhit backpass which was clearly intended for the goalkeeper and had a shot saved by the goalkeeper then I don't think anyone would suggest a back pass should be given. But it's an interesting point and perhaps another example where the LOTG aren't as clear as they ideally would be?
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
We've had this debate before. The question was asked of the IFAB whether any deflection or touch by an opponent negates the "backpass" and their reply was that it does. See below.
But this only makes sense when you think about it. If one small deflection doesn't count, why should two tiny deflections count? What about 3 deflections (if they're sufficiently minor)? How about four deflections (really, really small ones)? Once you start saying that deflections don't count, you've opened up a Pandora's box of possibilities.
But this only makes sense when you think about it. If one small deflection doesn't count, why should two tiny deflections count? What about 3 deflections (if they're sufficiently minor)? How about four deflections (really, really small ones)? Once you start saying that deflections don't count, you've opened up a Pandora's box of possibilities.
one
RefChat Addict
Playing devils advocate here as I also believe deflection should reset it.
If deflection of an opponent counts how about deflection of a team mate? Can this be misused by defenders? Is a deflection defined the same as offside which is somewhat different to the English definition?
All of this can be a lot easier if the laws added the word 'directly' (as per the reply to the email). There will be a lot less room for confusion.
If deflection of an opponent counts how about deflection of a team mate? Can this be misused by defenders? Is a deflection defined the same as offside which is somewhat different to the English definition?
All of this can be a lot easier if the laws added the word 'directly' (as per the reply to the email). There will be a lot less room for confusion.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Very difficult to control a deflection off a team mate. The whole thing about a deflection is that it's not a controlled or deliberate play of the ball so you don't really know where is going to go. If you play the ball so it rebounds off a team mate it could go somewhere completely unintended, such as to an opponent.
It causes confusion that 'directly' is explicitly stated when the GK receives from a throw-in, but is not stated when it's kicked.
one
RefChat Addict
The point I made. One can argue that if IFAB wanted a deflection to reset a kick backpass they would have added 'directly' for it, just as they have for a throw in.
But anyone who knows IFAB would know it is more of an oversight rather than deliberately omitting it.
Last edited: