RefSix

Triple save and...

#21
Shocked people are even considering giving this. Absolutely nothing wrong
Not so quick there. This is very, very close to one of the two specific sets of actions that the IFAB ruled as deliberate tricks to circumvent the law when this amendment was brought in. According to FIFA circular 488:
Examples of such tricks would include: a player who deliberately flicks the ball with his feet up onto his head in order to head the ball to his goalkeeper; or, a player who kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with his knee, etc.
What I would say is that while it's not as clear an example as the player who, with a ball that is stationary or hardly moving, actually gets down on all fours and heads the ball along the ground, it's fairly close to it. I think what would be the player's saving grace for me here, is the further provision in the circular that:
the referee must only be convinced that [circumventing the law] was the player’s motive.
In this particular incident, I think it's difficult to be totally convinced as to what the player's motive was. On balance, I'd say it maybe wasn't done solely with the motive of circumventing the law (partly because there probably wasn't enough time for him to really consider it) but I don't think it's quite as clear-cut a case as some are making it out to be.
 
Last edited:

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#22
Veratti got done for something very similar. The difference there was the ball was passed to him not rebounded from a save. With little to no reaction time. I wouldn't condemn a referee who penalised this if they were sure it was intentionally done to circumvent the law.
However I don't think that I would penalise it myself in this scenario.
 
#23
I think the consensus opinion on here is being VERY kind to the defender! Despite the excitement in the build up, the reality is that it would have been far easier / normal for the defender to have simply kicked the ball to the keeper rather than heading it as he did. And the only plausible explanation for him choosing to act this way is to enable the keeper to pick the ball up. The fact that thisSo, for me, this is a pretty clear case of circumvention.

Would I have penalised it? I hope so but I fear not. With everything else going on, all too easy to miss it in the moment and for the opportunity to pass by.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#26
There's no trick there, just as there wouldn't have been had he knelt down and played it with his knee.

Trick really means flicking it up and then heading it back. Don't look for problems that don't exist would be my advice.
Agree with this and would also add if he stops it dead with his foot and then get down and passes with head, it's a yellow
Veratti got done for something very similar. The difference there was the ball was passed to him not rebounded from a save. With little to no reaction time. I wouldn't condemn a referee who penalised this if they were sure it was intentionally done to circumvent the law.
However I don't think that I would penalise it myself in this scenario.
The more significant difference for me was that Veratti had full control of the ball with his feet and the ball effectively was passed from his feet to his head, then to the keeper.

Had the OP stopped the ball with the foot and then passed with the head then yellow for me. But as it is now I would interpret it as taking advantage of what he CAN do and not circumventing what he can't.
 
#27
No trick here, it’s a cushioned header. Move on...
Oh, it's definitely a cushioned header - but that's hardly the point. The question isn't what has he done, it's why. Why has he headed it rather than kicked it? It was closer to the ground than it was to head height. Now, as I said, I'm not sure that there's quite enough here for a referee to be absolutely convinced that he has done this solely to avoid the restriction on kicking the ball to the keeper but as far as I'm concerned, it's still a question that needs considering.

There's no trick there, just as there wouldn't have been had he knelt down and played it with his knee.
No, absolutely no. Kneeling down and kneeing the ball to the keeper is one of the actions clearly and specifically outlawed by the amendment. There is absolutely no reason why a player needs to go down onto their knees and knee the ball to the keeper, other than to avoid the restriction on using the foot.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#28
Oh, it's definitely a cushioned header - but that's hardly the point. The question isn't what has he done, it's why. Why has he headed it rather than kicked it? It was closer to the ground than it was to head height. Now, as I said, I'm not sure that there's quite enough here for a referee to be absolutely convinced that he has done this solely to avoid the restriction on kicking the ball to the keeper but as far as I'm concerned, it's still a question that needs considering.


No, absolutely no. Kneeling down and kneeing the ball to the keeper is one of the actions clearly and specifically outlawed by the amendment. There is absolutely no reason why a player needs to go down onto their knees and knee the ball to the keeper, other than to avoid the restriction on using the foot.
Peter, Peter, you font of all retro knowledge, what does football expect in this scenario? Really, I get your point about the circumventing but that not what happened here, now, back to those studies! 🧐 I’ll be asking questions later🙏
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#29
I certainly wouldn't be giving it myself but then I've always thought the "circumventing the law" thing was a daft and pointless inclusion in the book anyway.

Who's to say that any backpass to a goalkeeper with the knee or the shin or even the head isn't an example of a player circumventing the law?

What next?

Maybe giving an IDFK against a player for kicking the ball to a team-mate cos he's "circumventing the handball law" ... :rolleyes::D

I'll get back in my box now .... :p
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#30
Agree with this and would also add if he stops it dead with his foot and then get down and passes with head, it's a yellow

The more significant difference for me was that Veratti had full control of the ball with his feet and the ball effectively was passed from his feet to his head, then to the keeper.

Had the OP stopped the ball with the foot and then passed with the head then yellow for me. But as it is now I would interpret it as taking advantage of what he CAN do and not circumventing what he can't.
Spot on, one.
 
#31
As I am aware of the recent thread where 'If we tear out one of the pages of the laws, where do we stop' was a valid argument which I fully support, I recognise this might be quite contradictory. I wouldn't think of this as circumventing the laws but rather smart play. Verrati's case was much different with way more time to direct. However, I can understand some referees' needs to stick to the laws and punish this. Yet I reckon football applauds this act and would expect a play on wiht no one the wiser. Don't think there is the need to call these plays, but the question remains where we then draw the line, somewhere between Verrati's stupidity and this smart piece of play.
 

socal lurker

Well-Known Member
#32
I certainly wouldn't be giving it myself but then I've always thought the "circumventing the law" thing was a daft and pointless inclusion in the book anyway.

Who's to say that any backpass to a goalkeeper with the knee or the shin or even the head isn't an example of a player circumventing the law?

What next?

Maybe giving an IDFK against a player for kicking the ball to a team-mate cos he's "circumventing the handball law" ... :rolleyes::D

I'll get back in my box now .... :p
As I recall, it came in because it was too easy to circumvent, as it was completely legal to just flick the ball up and head it, which would have completely wiped out the kind of behavior it was designed to stop--repeated balls back to the keeper to pick up and hold. So some version was needed to actually make the new law work as intended. In that context, I see a very high bar to applying the trickery provision--it needs to be clear and not a "gotcha!" call.
 

ladbroke8745

Well-Known Member
#34
Only thing I'd ask is if you were refereeing this game, and was being watched by an observer - would you get marked down for not giving it, would you be given a bit of advice, or would they ignore it?
I know some may say they'd not ignore it as it's in the laws of the game but in truth, what would their actual actions be?
 

one

RefChat Addict
#35
Only thing I'd ask is if you were refereeing this game, and was being watched by an observer - would you get marked down for not giving it, would you be given a bit of advice, or would they ignore it?
I know some may say they'd not ignore it as it's in the laws of the game but in truth, what would their actual actions be?
Depends on the observer. I am sure there would be some varying opinions on it as there is here. Many observers on this forum.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#39
I need to make time and watch a few games with some of the new breed......I'm bringing my popcorn and my Iphone, YouTube and the CFAs need a few meltdown games just to keep them going in austerity!!!

You may get away with such hilarity refereeing decisions in the upper echelons (like the ludicrous HB') but I'm telling you, when you go to a lower end game and you referee looking for trouble then it will find you!!! Good luck!!!
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#40
Only thing I'd ask is if you were refereeing this game, and was being watched by an observer - would you get marked down for not giving it, would you be given a bit of advice, or would they ignore it?
I know some may say they'd not ignore it as it's in the laws of the game but in truth, what would their actual actions be?
I'd be more likely to mark down for penalising it. Not for the act of doing so, but rather for the almost inevitable lack of match control that would follow.
 
Top