Heading the ball back to keeper repeatedly (pass back / timewasting ?)

[Mintyref]

The trick is the combination of one player lifting it (or throwing it) to the other player's head and the second player heading it back. If you want to stick to the wording of the law and say the law says "a player" then I'd say the fact they are using more than one player to avoid getting caught is on its own circumventing the law.

In other words they know one player can't do it, so they use more than one player to circumvent it. How much more crafty (tricky) can you get.

View attachment 2866


The first one who meant it as a trick. In the OP its clear they both did so i'd say the keeper. But TBH I won't be too upset if you deservedly caution them both because the both take part in circumventing the law and making a mockery out of it. But that wont help game control.

This is clearly circumvention.... Are people seriously claiming it isn't? Warn once, then card. Some people are getting way, way too hung up on the word 'trick' and trying to find hidden meanings that aren't there.

So two defenders take possession of the ball near to their own goal line and repeatedly pass the ball between themselves to waste time..........is this an offence? I think not.....
In either scenario its up to the opposition to do something about it......
Get real people, stop creating problems for yourselves....

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

So two defenders take possession of the ball near to their own goal line and repeatedly pass the ball between themselves to waste time..........is this an offence? I think not.....
In either scenario its up to the opposition to do something about it......
Get real people, stop creating problems for yourselves....

Now you're being ridiculous. When 2 defenders pass the ball between themselves there isn't a 20 second pause at each instance where the player can't be challenged.

Did I actually have to spell out that key difference or are you just being facetious?

If it's as simply as being up to the opposition, then I guess the flick up and head back isn't actually an offence then. After all, opposition could have intercepted.

 

[Big Cat]

I've had this quoted to me in the past:
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player;
The list is not inclusive, hence if players do not act within the 'spirit of the game', we do have recourse to discipline them for behaviour not otherwise envisaged by the LOTG
The problem with this play, is the keeper gets 6s (or 30s in the pro game), every time the ball is nodded back. That's not what the 6s was intended for

 

[Mintyref]

Now you're being ridiculous. When 2 defenders pass the ball between themselves there isn't a 20 second pause at each instance where the player can't be challenged.

Did I actually have to spell out that key difference or are you just being facetious?

If it's as simply as being up to the opposition, then I guess the flick up and head back isn't actually an offence then. After all, opposition could have intercepted.

I've had this quoted to me in the past:
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player;
The list is not inclusive, hence if players do not act within the 'spirit of the game', we do have recourse to discipline them for behaviour not otherwise envisaged by the LOTG
The problem with this play, is the keeper gets 6s (or 30s in the pro game), every time the ball is nodded back. That's not what the 6s was intended for

Why would I be facetious?
I'm making a valid point that the players are using the laws of the game for their own benefit. Whether this is unsporting is a very moot point. In my view, if the defenders wish to play patsy with the ball on the edge of their own area, just let them get on with it.....rely on the opposition to go and get the ball.....
C'mon people stop overthinking this ****.

 

[bester]

The goalkeeper could just bounce the ball off the defenders head every 6 seconds, as the goalkeeper can’t be challenged in the process of releasing the ball the attackers couldn’t do much about it.

 

[xPositor]

Surely this is binary, and as such you shouldn't be warning a player or players not to be doing something again. A bit like OFFINABUS: if a player has screamed language you don't like, you shouldn't be warning them to moderate their language. What the OP describes either is an offence, in which case IDFK and a caution, or it isn't - play on, let the opposition sort it out. Me - I'm for the latter in _this_ scenario.

 

[one]

The law clearly says a 'deliberate' trick. You knowing if it is a deliberate trick on the first occurrence is not binary. There will be some doubts. You can give them the benefit of doubt in the first occurrence. By warning them, you make sure there wont be a second one.

 

[Russell Jones]

If, like me, you genuinely think this isn't an offence but simply rather unsportingly using the laws to the defending team's advantage --- then you'as the referee, always have the option of using the laws to your advantage by enforcing the 6 second rule EXTREMELY stringently in this scenario! The ensuing IFK would likely make them think twice in the future

 

[one]

We have had plenty of similar discussion here in the past.

Another similar one is when a defender passes the ball to another defender in the PA. The second defender leaves the ball and the keeper comes in and picks it up. If you see it the first time you can't be sure they are using a ruse to circumvent the law or not. But if they do it repeatedly its a cunning scheme (refer to meaning of trick in post #17). Why not warn them after the first time to avoid having to deal with a bigger issue later. Prevention is better than cure.

 

[Peter Grove]

Another similar one is when a defender passes the ball to another defender in the PA. The second defender leaves the ball and the keeper comes in and picks it up. If you see it the first time you can't be sure they are using a ruse to circumvent the law or not.

That's not using a deliberate trick to circumvent the law on a team mate kicking the ball to the keeper, that's just deliberately kicking the ball to the keeper while trying to make it look that you're not.

The 'using a deliberate trick' clause requires that "the head, chest, knee etc" (and not the foot) is used to propel the ball to the keeper. If a player kicks the ball, whether another player leaves it or not, circumvention as the law defines it can not have occurred.

 

[one]

USB is not limited to the ones listed in the law.

While the law does define one example of circumvention which is USB, for me (and I think so should for anyone else) any circumvention of any law is USB. In my opinion what they did in my example, if deliberate, is a ruse/trick to circumvent the the law and is a more serious offence than the 'backpass' offence and the one to punish.

while trying to make it look that you're not

That is basically what a trick is. Doing something but making it look like you are doing something else.

 

[Boonjj]

You are contradicting yourself:
"The intent is clearly to waste time because their team is leading by a goal".

It's not standard. It's what the LotG describes as a "deliberate trick to pass the ball to the goalkeeper with the head".

(My bold by the way)

My confusion here is with the word "trick", because passing the ball with your head after receiving a head height pass may not nessescarily be classified as a "trick".

If you take away the word "trick" from the rule, it would read:

"uses a deliberate pass to pass the ball to the goalkeeper with the head, to circumvent the Law"

This new reading would prevent any headed pass back to keeper from occuring altogether. But we know that is not the case, as "normal" headers are allowed.

So, as I understand, it all comes down to the definition or interpretation of the word "trick".

And if you are for punishment in this instance, then you would need to classify the entire maneuver (not just the headed pass) as a "trick".

But then, what is the whole maneuver "tricking"? The keeper played a legal pass, and the defender played a legal header. Right? So on what grounds would you be issuing the punishment under?

P.S. I appreciate all the responses put forward so far. It has certainly made for interesting reading.

 

[Boonjj]

The goalkeeper could just bounce the ball off the defenders head every 6 seconds, as the goalkeeper can’t be challenged in the process of releasing the ball the attackers couldn’t do much about it.

I agree this is a more egregious example.

Thats why in my example I stated that goalkeeper kick the ball, as that would require more skill and accuracy, along with more potential for the opposing team to contest it.

I'm not sure if the law specifically differentiates between a kick and a throw in this type of situation, though.

 

[one]

But then, what is the whole maneuver "tricking"? The keeper played a legal pass, and the defender played a legal header. Right? So on what grounds would you be issuing the punishment under?

Now apply this to a player who plays the one that everyone agree as a trick? What is tricking about a player kicking the ball head high? its just a legal kick at the ball in an upward direction.

As I said in my previous post, a trick is when you do something but you make it look like you are doing something else (or as defined by Cambridge dictionary " an action that is intended to deceive"). You correctly pointed out, in the OP it is the entire manoeuvre.

 

[Big Cat]

I'd be concerned about the consequences of the 'do nothing' option
Whilst I get that the the LOTG does not specifically preclude this play and I wouldn't class it as a 'trick' as such, it is unsporting and it is likely to lead to a bad ending. Therefore, I'd warn against it. If the warning was unheeded and confrontation between the teams became likely, I'd caution both players either for 'lack of respect for the game' or USB unspecified. So much is spouted about player safety by referees, yet some are willing to allow behaviour which may lead to VC etc

 

[RustyRef]

Realistically it wouldn't be done more than once anyway, as no self respecting opponents would let it happen again and they'd be right on top of any player who could possible receive the ball in this manner.

Interesting question, but falls into one of those "has anyone ever seen it happen" category.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

the above is along my mind set too, can you really see the opponents sitting back and watching this happen???

 

[socal lurker]

As I read the responses here, I wonder if part of the difference is different pictures we all drew in our heads from the OP. What is "close by"? The closer the teammate who heads it back, the more likely this would be considered trickery (with the inches away being the very extreme case). Conversely, the farther away the teammate is, the more likely it is to be permissible tactics within the Laws that the opponent needs to contest.

 

[santa sangria]

As I read the responses here, I wonder if part of the difference is different pictures we all drew in our heads from the OP. What is "close by"? The closer the teammate who heads it back, the more likely this would be considered trickery (with the inches away being the very extreme case). Conversely, the farther away the teammate is, the more likely it is to be permissible tactics within the Laws that the opponent needs to contest.[/QUOTE

“Permissible tactic” can you see what you’ve done there?

If it’s a deliberate ploy, the LotG calls it a trick, it’s an offence.

I think we should be asking ”under what circs can a gk pick the ball up after kicking the ball to a def who plays it back to them?”

I think the answer is it can’t be deliberate. So it’s only OK if the def plays the ball to the GK unintentionally.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I'm on the road, what have I missed?? Can i have a brief synopsis please!! Ta!