A&H

Keith Hackett, You are the Ref, 10th January Observer

S

SLI39

Well-Known Member
Of today's scenarios the one chosen to win the shirt prompted some confusion. For those who haven't seen it yet, a defender has miskicked a pass to the goalkeeper, who must avert the own goal by any legal means necessary. In the end, he heads the ball against the post, then palms the rebound over the bar. Hackett has stated that it's a corner, so not to be penalised as a back-pass, which was obviously the crux of the question. What I don't understand is his use of terminology and the apparent contradiction with other aspects of goalkeeper handling in law.
First, he writes that play has entered a 'new phase' once the goalkeeper heads the ball/the ball hits the post (not clear which). I do not have the most experience, of course, but I have never encountered these terms except in cases of offside; and in any case, that's where I believe they should remain for the sake of clarity.
Also, isn't the point precisely that striking the woodwork cannot be treated as a phase-altering play? Otherwise, why is an indirect free-kick awarded the moment a set piece taker makes contact with the ball after it hits the post (with no other involvement)? It is surely equivalent to touching the ball twice; and therefore, how is this scenario, where intention is explicit, different from a goalkeeper who heads the ball into his own hands from a back-pass?
 
The Referee Store
I remember one 'on TV' incident that came up on the other forum a year or two back. Clear kick back to the keeper, he tries to clear it, ball goes straight up in the air, down, he catches it. Ref allows play to continue, nobody complains, most on the forum argued along the same sort of 'new phase of play' nonsense.

It's no different to the keeper dribbling the ball around or even juggling it if he's so inclined. There's no 'phase of play' here. It's an IFK.

Anyway, not sure what the OP was looking at - I can't see Keith providing his answer anywhere.
Concerning how many people are saying 'corner' though.
 
Ok, thanks for the reassurance. I had serious doubts from the beginning, and was trying to figure out (with immense trouble) how he could justify such an interpretation. With pure fabrication of law, it would appear!

Strangely, the Guardian has not yet provided his answers on the website, but they were published in today's newspaper, including for this scenario:
"It's a corner. The goalkeeper rightly tried to avoid handling the ball from the deliberate back pass--he only intervened with his hand in a second phase of play (my italics), after the ball had rebounded off the post. It's a great scenario that shows you how alert and quick-thinking you have to be."
 
I'd go for the IDFK to the attacking team. I can't see how the header and the palm over the bar can be separated into different phases of play - both actions are as a direct result of the pass back.

You might consider, if the miss kick from the defender was so bad could it still be classed as a deliberate pass back?
 
"2nd phase" on a backpass?!!! That's a new one to me. :confused:

They say "Badly scuffs backpass", but for me the only thing that needs to be determined is was it an intentional back pass or not. If so, has to be an IDK.
 
So rare I'd not worry. I'm more concerned about EPL referees calling an obvious "parry" a "save" and letting GKs touch the ball twice (happened in Manchester City v Leicester City).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top