Whose not still not felt his bumps and played on yet??
Passback or not?
- Thread starter RobOda
- Start date
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
This. As I said before, the whole idea of this part of the law, is that when the player kicks the ball (which according to the Laws definition, means any time a player makes contact with the ball using the foot, including trapping it) it has to have been done with the deliberate intention that the ball should end up with the keeper. If the player does a slide tackle where the referee judges that the player's only motive was to clear the ball and the ball goes to the keeper accidentally, that is not a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper as envisioned by the law.
Similarly, if a player traps the ball but the referee's opinion is that the player was not aware the keeper was going to come up from behind him and grab it, that's not an offence either, which is why I would always err on the side of caution in such a scenario unless it's somehow overwhelmingly obvious.
Nicktheref
Fixtures: 0 Cautions: 0 Sending offs: 0
Pass back for me on the condition that the attacking team are in close proximity and are going to be challenging the defender who controlled the ball.
If the attacking team are 20+ feet away, play on.
If the attacking team are 20+ feet away, play on.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It has nothing to do with how far away the opponents are. It depends solely on what the referee judges the defender's intentions were. The opponents could be 60 yards away but if the referee decides the intention was for the ball to go to the keeper, it's still an offence.
Nicktheref
Fixtures: 0 Cautions: 0 Sending offs: 0
That is exactly my point, as if the attacker is near, the keepers intention jumping on the ball would be a misconduct and therefore an indirect free kick.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
You're quite missing the point. The keeper's intentions are not relevant. The keeper's ability to use her hands depends upon whether the ball was deliberately kicked to the keeper by the teammate. (Not does this have anything to do with misconduct--misconduct is behavior that earns a caution or a send off.)
Nicktheref
Fixtures: 0 Cautions: 0 Sending offs: 0
Are you telling me that;
A defender controls the ball on the penalty spot - controlled down from a high ball
No team mates are anywhere within range
Three attackers are sprinting at him
The keeper runs out and dives on the ball - that you would not give an indirect freekick?
You would cause a riot.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I'm telling you what the Laws say and the criteria that actually apply when referees make these decisions. You are deciding what you think the outcome should be without reference to the law or an understanding of the criteria.
You can mis-characterize what I wrote all you want. I'm done responding to your posts.
You can mis-characterize what I wrote all you want. I'm done responding to your posts.
In your scenario, the ball has not been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team mate
We've had this out on here before. I thought the GK handling the ball in such a manner is circumventing the Law, but I was in the minority
Strictly speaking, your scenario is not an IDFK according to most interpretations
By the way, a riotous reaction is likely whichever outcome you decide (I know because I've awarded an IDFK in similar circumstances)
Nicktheref
Fixtures: 0 Cautions: 0 Sending offs: 0
Just like you were mis-characterizing my comments by picking out one word each time and saying I am wrong. I'm sure we can all agree that the law, literally one bullet point is far too vague around the pass back rule and here lies the problem. It allows individuals to have there own approach, rather than a blanket decision.
I stand by, that in this instance if a keeper dived on the ball it would be
On the basis of what law? Because the only one that might come close is the rule against the goalkeeper handling the ball when it has been deliberately kicked to them by a team-mate.
But since that didn't actually happen, the closest you could then get is circumventing the law using a trick, in which case you're calling the act of merely controlling the ball a trick in this sense, which does not at all according with the views of most other referees.
So, why do you believe this is the right decision to make, when most referees (ostensibly with much greater experience than yourself i.e. any at all) think it is not?
The law is not vague at all, in this case. It says exactly what it means, and means exactly what it says, and gives one specific action in that bullet point. With it, an IFK is awarded; without it, there is no offence.
There are quite a few referees on the forum who interpret the book very literally. I don't believe this is how the authors intended it because IFAB have clearly tried to keep the book concise. The grammar is poor and the book has evolved into a compendium of disjointed contributions.
That's why we have senior referees and coaches the world over, spouting Bible teachings which seem to differ markedly on a regional basis.
So, I believe that you're not remiss to decide for yourself how this rule should be understood because every scenario can't be foreseen or covered explicitly in Law. That said, I would not try to fill in the gaps too much because observers will want quotes from the book. It makes me laugh that forumites pick the bones out of exact meaning with some parts of the book, whilst we all completely ignore various sections of the same script.
In summary, IDFK is a minority call, but I'll spare you the oneupmanship to express this view
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The IFK would probably have more support in the US than most places. For some time, USSF taught that "deliberate" attached to the kick, but not the "to the keeper." So as long as the ball was deliberately kicked to a place it was available for the keeper to pick up, that was enough to satisfy the criteria. The biggest advantage of the model was not guessing what players intended. But the USSF Advice to Referees was withdrawn, and that advice was not repeated, bringing the US more in line with the rest of the world, though I think that old interpretation has a lingering effect for some.
As others have noted, "kick" in the LOTG is defined more broadly than what most of us visualize. A trap with the foot clearly can constitute a "kick."
But I would also suggest, as others have alluded to, that the "pass back" is not a call we should be looking for--it should be a call that looks for us. Gotcha calls are not our friend. For me, that means unless there is some indication that the ball is being trapped for the keeper, I've got nothing on a trap by a defender that the GK happens to pick up. Just as I have nothing on a shanked clearance or an "anywhere but here" play on the ball.
Yup, originally, I'd have given an IDFK in this scenario, but a similar previous discussion led me to have a rethink. I agree with avoiding the 'gotcha' approach. We don't want to involve ourselves in any of that
one
RefChat Addict
Spirit of law/game is used when the intent of the law was not quite spelled out by it wording. The intent (spirit) of the 'back-pass' law is very well known. It was brought in after the 1990 world cup to "discourage time-wasting and unduly defensive play". Do you see any of that in your scenario?
Ah, I disagree on this one. I think this is enough differentiation from what I posted in the OP to be a different case. IIRC, the major influencing factor for me on that day was that the defender deliberately moved away once he brought the ball down in order for the keeper to pick it up. That makes it a deliberate kick to the keeper, whereas if he brings it down and the keeper immediately takes it off him, that's generally going to be a technical miscommunication that I wouldn't be in a rush to penalise.
But, at the end of the day, even though the assessor says I rightly argued my case in Law, this was the outcome:
Basically, it is unlikely the players will even register it as an offence. So overlook it. Of course, if you do have savvy players and they ask you the question, then maybe it's time to put the thinking cap on, but otherwise, benefit of the doubt etc.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
There are some scenarios that are not dealt with explicitly and the law specifically states that in these instances the referee can use "the spirit of the law."
However this is not an example of that. The law quite clearly and unequivocally states that there's only an offence here if the ball is deliberately kicked by a team mate to the keeper. So there's really no doubt here that the goalkeeper's intentions have absolutely no bearing on the referee's decision. There's no ambiguity in the part of the law related to the goalkeeper's conduct that needs a referee's interpretation. In terms of the goalkeeper, the only thing the referee is to consider is whether the keeper touched the ball with the hands or not.
Also, this is not a question of taking the law too literally, it's a question of not making up new laws that simply bear no relationship to what the law says. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the goalkeeper's intentions have any bearing whatsoever here.
The intent or 'spirit' of the law, the whole reason it was brought in is, as @one mentioned, to prevent the defenders from wasting time by repeatedly passing the ball to the goalkeeper (who before this law came in, could pick the ball up and then throw it to another defender to repeat the ploy). So whether you're talking about the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, it's the defender's intentions that count, not the goalkeeper's.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
To expand the discussion - just seen recently - QPR U23s
Deliberate kick to the GK (It WAS deliberate) no arguments there - ball possibly, but not clearly (GK was level with pen spot & not enough power on the kick to be sure it was obviously going in) going in the goal. GK touches ball with hands - FK AND caution for the GK
Correct?
Deliberate kick to the GK (It WAS deliberate) no arguments there - ball possibly, but not clearly (GK was level with pen spot & not enough power on the kick to be sure it was obviously going in) going in the goal. GK touches ball with hands - FK AND caution for the GK
Correct?
