A&H

Open Age Match Control or Coaching?

The Referee Store
In relation to the op I think it's actually really simple.

They ask if keeper can pick it up, I tell them. They don't ask I don't offer the thought.

And for me that is exactly the difference between coaching and not - coaching would be telling them without prompting.

As for the offside example, again if someone asked I'd tell them. Although the speed something like that develops the chances of a player asking and having chance to answer yes or no before the player involved made his own decision whether or not to get involved are slim.

It's not a question of offering an advantage to one team or the other if asked, just about managing the game in a sensible and cooperative manner.

Why make a difficult job even harder for yourself and be seen as a pretentious pr¡ck into the bargain?
 
Let's go back to the law, as poorly worded as it is:

"deliberately kicked to him"

My reading of this is that, in the given scenario, it is "deliberately kicked" - of that there is no doubt.

So, the "to him" part...?
My interpretation is that this does not have to be intent on the part of the defender. The goalkeeper decides that it is "to him" when he picks it up.

If the phrasing was different, the law could be different, and the interpretation could be different.
"Deliberately kicked only to him"
"Deliberately kicked in the direction of the goalkeeper"
"Deliberately kicked to him and not intercepted by him when the intention was to pass to another player"
etc etc...all would result in the opposite decision.
 
Let's go back to the law, as poorly worded as it is:

"deliberately kicked to him"

My reading of this is that, in the given scenario, it is "deliberately kicked" - of that there is no doubt.

So, the "to him" part...?
My interpretation is that this does not have to be intent on the part of the defender. The goalkeeper decides that it is "to him" when he picks it up.

If the phrasing was different, the law could be different, and the interpretation could be different.
"Deliberately kicked only to him"
"Deliberately kicked in the direction of the goalkeeper"
"Deliberately kicked to him and not intercepted by him when the intention was to pass to another player"
etc etc...all would result in the opposite decision.

So.......

What's your point??
 
So.......

What's your point??
I understand the wording to mean that it does not have to be intentional that the pass was meant for the goalkeeper.
"Deliberately kicked" is clarified in the appendices to not include a shin, knee, deflection etc.
"To him" means only that the GK gets the ball, not that it was intended for him.
IDFK for me every time.
 
I understand the wording to mean that it does not have to be intentional that the pass was meant for the goalkeeper.
"Deliberately kicked" is clarified in the appendices to not include a shin, knee, deflection etc.
"To him" means only that the GK gets the ball, not that it was intended for him.
IDFK for me every time.

I'm lost.

Out of interest @santa sangria, what's your occupation?

Are you in the law/courts game?
 
Keith Hackett’s verdict
1) The keeper cannot touch the ball after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate, but that’s not the case here – so you do not need to take any action. Keep an eye on them, though, in case they try it again – if it turns out to be a deliberate ruse to get round the backpass law, you need to have a word. Tell the keeper he will be penalised if it happens again.

--

As I said before, this just doesn't sit right with me. :confused:

"Having a word" and saying they will be penalised next time? Have they broken the laws of the game or not? If it was this easy to get around the backpass law, why haven't professional teams tried it since the laws introduction?

If this happens down the local rec at the weekend, guaranteed just about everyone will be expecting an indirect free kick and will want your head on a stick if you don't give it!
 
I get them to look at me instead of the football by announcing "There are 2 rules to this lads"

I usually have them looking at me as I say "let it bounce and don't kick me!"

It's never failed thus far!
 
I understand the wording to mean that it does not have to be intentional that the pass was meant for the goalkeeper.
"Deliberately kicked" is clarified in the appendices to not include a shin, knee, deflection etc.
"To him" means only that the GK gets the ball, not that it was intended for him.
IDFK for me every time.

I disagree. Your reasoning would have been written as 'the goalkeeper handles the ball after it has been deliberately kicked by a teammate'. Your reasoning would make 'to him' redundant

"Having a word" and saying they will be penalised next time? Have they broken the laws of the game or not? If it was this easy to get around the backpass law, why haven't professional teams tried it since the laws introduction?

If this happens down the local rec at the weekend, guaranteed just about everyone will be expecting an indirect free kick and will want your head on a stick if you don't give it!

Good thing that the referee has the knowledge and strength to give the correct decision even when it's the unexpected one, given he's the only person at the field who's ever read the laws ;-)

What Keith is saying is that given the laws specify 'to him', in a scenario like this you'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was confusion, not a sneaky way to get the ball 'to him'. If it happens more than once then that indicates that perhaps they are using it to get the ball 'to him'. So no more benefit of the doubt.
 
I disagree. Your reasoning would have been written as 'the goalkeeper handles the ball after it has been deliberately kicked by a teammate'. Your reasoning would make 'to him' redundant
At least, that would be much better wording wouldn't it...? and that is the way I would choose to interpret...

I agree with your disagreeing ;)
 
And the way you choose to interpret it is wrong, because you're just ignoring parts of the wording. The goalkeeper needs to be the intended recipient for an offence to have occurred.
 
This would be an interesting one for the lawyers...

"The lawyers" wouldn't waste more than 10 seconds on it. The law quite clearly states that it's got to be an intentional back pass to the goalkeeper for an offence to have taken place. There is no ambiguity there. It's not for a referee to make it up as he goes along.
 
Back
Top