The Ref Stop

Passback or not?

The Ref Stop
one said:
Are you saying if the defender brings the ball down to the ground with the purpose of goalkeeper to pick it up you would not penalise?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I'd have to be sure that was the intention of the defender (as Peter pointed out in his post).

Remember though, it's the GK you're penalising in this instance.

If he sees one of his defenders cleverly bring the ball down in his own area and then either shouts to his defender to leave it so he can handle it or even if he just falls on it without any shout, why on earth would you penalise it?

It's like I said, the law is fairly black and white on this one. If it ain't clearly and obviously kicked to him by a team mate, then there's no case to answer and you should stop looking for ways to bolt something else onto it in order to penalise.
 
Kes said:
Not necessarily. I'd have to be sure that was the intention of the defender (as Peter pointed out in his post).

Remember though, it's the GK you're penalising in this instance.

If he sees one of his defenders cleverly bring the ball down in his own area and then either shouts to his defender to leave it so he can handle it or even if he just falls on it without any shout, why on earth would you penalise it?

It's like I said, the law is fairly black and white on this one. If it ain't clearly and obviously kicked to him by a team mate, then there's no case to answer and you should stop looking for ways to bolt something else onto it in order to penalise.
Click to expand...
Agreed. As long as we are clear on that. So you can give benefit of doubt on intention first time you see it. But if they do it again then for me, it's pre planned they won't get that benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Another poorly worded Law has us squabbling over the finer meaning. It wouldn't take a genius to rewrite this one sentence (in the book) to sidestep misunderstanding, but no; we need the whole 'football expects' thing to do that for us :mad:
p.s. I ain't emailing the numpties responsible
 
Big Cat said:
Another poorly worded Law
Click to expand...

Poorly thought out glossary term I'd say.

Makes me think: Assume the defender goes for an interception, he does a slide tackle and uses his foot to play it and it goes back to the keeper. 9/10 no one is penalising that (I assume?), but it fits the criteria now.
 
RobOda said:
Poorly thought out glossary term I'd say.

Makes me think: Assume the defender goes for an interception, he does a slide tackle and uses his foot to play it and it goes back to the keeper. 9/10 no one is penalising that (I assume?), but it fits the criteria now.
Click to expand...


Hopefully 11/10 dont penalise it !!
 
one said:
View attachment 3154
View attachment 3155

It's definitely a "deliberate kick". The "to the goalkeeper" part is up for interpretation though. Similar scenarios have been discussed here a few times. At grassroots, they could get the benefit of doubt (if I am not sure) and one warning from me if I see it, . At pro or semi pro no benefit of doubt, IFK, they would/should know better, especially the keeper.

You have to watch out for the crafty players who pretend they are about to play it themselves but the keeper still picks it up (planned ruse). So even if they don't step away, it could still be a back pass.
Click to expand...
I think if you don't penalise controlling it for the goalkeeper or putting their foot on the ball for the goalkeeper, whats to stop them abusing it?
 
Sometimes you just have to referee. The "passback" rule has, in many ways, already served its purpose. It took out ugly, boring time wasting in a certain way from the game. In today's game, it is usually a solution searching for a problem. Call the obvious. When it doubt, just let it go and play the game.

I do think that deliberately trapping or controlling the ball with the foot for the GK is 100% within the scope of the rule--the rule wants the ball to be in active play rather than having defenders help get the ball out of play by sending it to the keeper. But, again, let it be really clear before you call this.
 
RobOda said:
Poorly thought out glossary term I'd say.

Makes me think: Assume the defender goes for an interception, he does a slide tackle and uses his foot to play it and it goes back to the keeper. 9/10 no one is penalising that (I assume?), but it fits the criteria now.
Click to expand...
I don't thing it fits the whole definition for backpass. It is "deliberately kicked" but not "deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper".
 
JH said:
I think if you don't penalise controlling it for the goalkeeper or putting their foot on the ball for the goalkeeper, whats to stop them abusing it?
Click to expand...
Precisely my point. But you have to be reasonably sure it was "for the goalkeeper".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top