A&H

What's the restart?

I missed blowing for a player heading a ball along the floor as a back pass back to his keeper. It riled me all game that I knew something was wrong but at the time I failed to act! In honesty, it was a low key game and would have called WW3 so Ignorring it was a bad call and against my ethos. I completely regretted my decision later. Never happened again so never got the chance to put my error behind me so it’s slways nagged me as an error!

Can't actually picture the above Yorkshire, for two reasons:

1. To head the ball along the floor to his GK - the guy must have only been a yard away anyway (?)

2. I simply can't imagine that anything would ever nag your conscience for more than a split second. Like ever. Just saying like .... ;) :D
 
The Referee Store
or two defenders at the edge of the penalty area flicking it up for the other to head back.

Can't see how you'd ever make that stick either mate. The guy flicking it up is simply passing to a team mate, and the team mate is heading an airborne ball passed to him back to his GK.
 
They wanted to significantly reduce the size of the book in 16/17 changes and anything redundant was taken out. Not sure if this was taken out then or before.
The mention of the location of the restart was taken out in 2006, the mention of the restart itself was taken out in 2016.
Circumventing being a mandatory caution seems a little harsh.

I don't think it is, if you understand the history of it and how it came about.

The law prohibiting a goalkeeper from using his hands on a deliberate kick from a team mate was introduced in 1992. The scenario that led to it can be found in one of the 1990 FIFA Q&A's which went as follows:

''A goalkeeper kicks the ball to a player of his team. This player passes the ball back to the goalkeeper, who then returns it once more, either to the same player or another. This action is repeated several times. Should this conduct be regarded as time-wasting …?''

While in 1990 the advice was that the referee should be left to make his own mind up (including awarding an indirect free kick if he thought it necessary) by 1992 the problem had become so prevalent and so much time was being wasted that the IFAB decided to outlaw the practice by introducing an amendment saying that a goalkeeper may not touch the ball with the hands if it is deliberately kicked to them by a team mate.

However, players quickly came up with ways to get around the new law (circumvent it). I can remember that period and the main tricks used were to flick the ball up from the ground to the knee or head, or to get down on all fours and knee or head the ball to the keeper. What this amounted to was players basically thumbing their noses at the authorities, showing they didn’t care to go along with the law change and were going to find ways of making a mockery of it.

This happened so quickly that although the amendment to Law 12 had only come into force on July 1 1992, FIFA was forced to take the unprecedented step of changing the lawbook just over 3 weeks after it came into effect by issuing circular no. 488 on July 24 of the same year to address the circumvention problem. The circular stated (in part) as follows:

''Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick in order to circumvent the amendment to Law 12, the player will be guilty of unsporting behaviour and will be punished accordingly in terms of Law 12; that is to say, the player will be cautioned and an indirect free-kick will be awarded to the opposing team from the place where the player committed the offense.

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.

In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the text and the spirit of Law 12, and the referee must only be convinced that this was the player’s motive.''

If FIFA had not acted to prevent this kind of circumvention they might just as well have abandoned the amendment they had only just brought in.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered unsporting behaviour to do something, the sole purpose of which was to avoid the restriction in the laws that had just been adopted.

As for it being somehow skillful, I don't think there's any skill involved in getting down on all fours and nudging the ball back to your keeper with your head (which was one of the more popular methods).
 
Can't actually picture the above Yorkshire, for two reasons:

1. To head the ball along the floor to his GK - the guy must have only been a yard away anyway (?)

2. I simply can't imagine that anything would ever nag your conscience for more than a split second. Like ever. Just saying like .... ;):D
Hi Kes, yes he actually got on all fours to head it back to the keeper! I sh1t you not!
There were a few people laughing etc and there wasn’t an attacker that close either. I was a younger and less experienced ref back then and knew that it didn’t seem right but didn’t put the circumvent thing together right in my head to call it. Had I called it I’m sure Ieith the home team WW3 would have ensued as they were a handful back then!
 
The mention of the location of the restart was taken out in 2006, the mention of the restart itself was taken out in 2016.


I don't think it is, if you understand the history of it and how it came about.

The law prohibiting a goalkeeper from using his hands on a deliberate kick from a team mate was introduced in 1992. The scenario that led to it can be found in one of the 1990 FIFA Q&A's which went as follows:

''A goalkeeper kicks the ball to a player of his team. This player passes the ball back to the goalkeeper, who then returns it once more, either to the same player or another. This action is repeated several times. Should this conduct be regarded as time-wasting …?''

While in 1990 the advice was that the referee should be left to make his own mind up (including awarding an indirect free kick if he thought it necessary) by 1992 the problem had become so prevalent and so much time was being wasted that the IFAB decided to outlaw the practice by introducing an amendment saying that a goalkeeper may not touch the ball with the hands if it is deliberately kicked to them by a team mate.

However, players quickly came up with ways to get around the new law (circumvent it). I can remember that period and the main tricks used were to flick the ball up from the ground to the knee or head, or to get down on all fours and knee or head the ball to the keeper. What this amounted to was players basically thumbing their noses at the authorities, showing they didn’t care to go along with the law change and were going to find ways of making a mockery of it.

This happened so quickly that although the amendment to Law 12 had only come into force on July 1 1992, FIFA was forced to take the unprecedented step of changing the lawbook just over 3 weeks after it came into effect by issuing circular no. 488 on July 24 of the same year to address the circumvention problem. The circular stated (in part) as follows:

''Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick in order to circumvent the amendment to Law 12, the player will be guilty of unsporting behaviour and will be punished accordingly in terms of Law 12; that is to say, the player will be cautioned and an indirect free-kick will be awarded to the opposing team from the place where the player committed the offense.

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.

In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the text and the spirit of Law 12, and the referee must only be convinced that this was the player’s motive.''

If FIFA had not acted to prevent this kind of circumvention they might just as well have abandoned the amendment they had only just brought in.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered unsporting behaviour to do something, the sole purpose of which was to avoid the restriction in the laws that had just been adopted.

As for it being somehow skillful, I don't think there's any skill involved in getting down on all fours and nudging the ball back to your keeper with your head (which was one of the more popular methods).

I’m a little to young to remember Keepers being able to pick up back passes hense wouldn’t know the reasoning behind circumventing.

As for skill I meant quickly under pressure flicking a ball up and heading it back not on all fours.

Now you have explained the back ground to it & the period of time that followed the outlawed backpsss rule it makes more sense but like myself anyone young enough to never see a back pass collected by the keeper will probably find circumventing a bit odd of a rule & especially a mandatory booking.
 
I missed blowing for a player heading a ball along the floor as a back pass back to his keeper. It riled me all game that I knew something was wrong but at the time I failed to act! In honesty, it was a low key game and would have called WW3 so Ignorring it was a bad call and against my ethos. I completely regretted my decision later. Never happened again so never got the chance to put my error behind me so it’s slways nagged me as an error!
This can only be an offence if the defender had touched the ball by his feet to control it first (or passed by a team mate). If the ball is kicked along the ground by an opponent and the defender kneels and uses his knee or get on the ground to use his head to pass it back to the keeper it is not circumvention. To me the latter is no different to if the ball was airborne and the defender did the same which is commonly done.

Here is an example where it is an offence.
 
This can only be an offence if the defender had touched the ball by his feet to control it first (or passed by a team mate). If the ball is kicked along the ground by an opponent and the defender kneels and uses his knee or get on the ground to use his head to pass it back to the keeper it is not circumvention. To me the latter is no different to if the ball was airborne and the defender did the same which is commonly done.

Here is an example where it is an offence.
Cheers, Baby you're the @one :p Definitely had a foot touch, then the head to floor touch so has to be a circumvent I guess!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I disagree with @one here, if player goes to ground and heads it to keeper's hands, only reason why he did that was to circumvent the back pass law. Of course, it's different if he goes to the ground and heads the ball during his natural movement during the game. And where did you get the "can only be an offence if the defender had touched the ball by his feet to control it first" part? Going down to head the ball is "deliberate trick" for me
 
Liverpool dominated the late 70s early 80s based on the pass back

Game is certainly all the better for keepers not being able to play them with the hands etc
 
Liverpool dominated the late 70s early 80s based on the pass back

Game is certainly all the better for keepers not being able to play them with the hands etc

I agree I’ve seen footage of it & it’s so dull & boring.

I’m yet to be convinced that flicking a ball up & heading it back to the keeper is as bad as the back pass rule though.
 
This can only be an offence if the defender had touched the ball by his feet to control it first (or passed by a team mate). If the ball is kicked along the ground by an opponent and the defender kneels and uses his knee or get on the ground to use his head to pass it back to the keeper it is not circumvention. To me the latter is no different to if the ball was airborne and the defender did the same which is commonly done.
Sorry, but I would have to disagree. There is no requirement for the defender to have to touch the ball with the feet before using anther body part to play the ball. The decisive consideration is whether the player is in a situation where, if there were no restrictions, you would normally expect them to play the ball using the foot but where instead, the player has done something contrived or unusual, in order to use a different body part to play the ball.

One way to look at this, I think is to ask what the player would normally have done if the same ball had come to them in a different part of the field and they had to get it quickly to another outfield player. If the answer is that the player would have normally used the foot to pass the ball to their team mate then you have to ask the next question, "Why has the player contrived a situation here so they can use a different body part, to get the ball to the keeper?" If the logical answer that presents itself, is that the only reason the player has done this is to get around the restriction on using the foot, then they have deliberately used a trick to circumvent the law and should be penalised for it.

I think the askareferee site (which used to be the semi-official mouthpiece of the USSF at one time) put it quite well:
One clue to the correctness of the player’s action is whether it is a natural part of play or is clearly artificial and intended only to circumvent the Law. In such cases, the action is considered misconduct whether it ultimately is touched by the goalkeeper or not.
 
Liverpool dominated the late 70s early 80s based on the pass back

So it was the back pass that allowed them to dominate in both the league and Europe for around 10 years then? Lol. Thanks for putting us straight on that one Miley. There was me thinking it was them winning loads of football matches and Bill Shankly's and Bob Paisley's coaching/management that did it. :rolleyes:

Maybe Liverpool were the only team allowed to pass it back to the GK in those days. was that it? :p :wall:
 
So it was the back pass that allowed them to dominate in both the league and Europe for around 10 years then? Lol. Thanks for putting us straight on that one Miley. There was me thinking it was them winning loads of football matches and Bill Shankly's and Bob Paisley's coaching/management that did it. :rolleyes:

Maybe Liverpool were the only team allowed to pass it back to the GK in those days. was that it? :p:wall:


Maybe they were better drilled at scoring a goal then playing keep ball at the back than other teams. Which of course was perfectly legal and if that was your strength, then no harm in concentrating on it

Coincidence since 92 Liverpool no longer the dominant team in England?
 
Last edited:
@Peter Grove and @Robbe1 a fair point. However to make my point clearer, I think you are focusing on the wrong side of "circumventing the law". Instead of focusing on "circumventing", focus on "the law". There are two posts earlier in the thread that explained back-pass, its history and the reason behind it (one was from you @Peter Grove ). If the ball is coming from an opponent, neither the wording nor the intent of the law has been broken.

One way to look at this, I think is to ask what the player would normally have done if the same ball had come to them in a different part of the field and they had to get it quickly to another outfield player.
That argument quite stand. A bouncing knee/thigh high ball is almost always passed to an outfield team mate using the inside of the foot bringing the ball down. Passing the same ball to the goalkeeper using the knee or the thigh is perfectly acceptable by any referee (and the law).
 
If the ball is coming from an opponent, neither the wording nor the intent of the law has been broken.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. There is nothing whatsoever in the law to suggest that it has anything to do with which team the ball comes from. The only thing the letter (or the spirit) of the law refers to and the only thing the referee has to decide is whether the player has used a deliberate trick to circumvent the law which prohibits them from kicking the ball to the keeper. Or, as the wording of FIFA circular puts it, "the referee must only be convinced that this was the player’s motive.'' Who the ball comes from is totally irrelevant to the player's motive in not using the foot.
A bouncing knee/thigh high ball is almost always passed to an outfield team mate using the inside of the foot bringing the ball down. Passing the same ball to the goalkeeper using the knee or the thigh is perfectly acceptable by any referee (and the law).
This is true and is perfectly in accord with what I said. If the ball is at thigh or knee height and the player wants to move it on quickly, it's perfectly natural and normal for them to play it with the thigh or knee. They would only bring it down if there was time and space to do so. And once again here, it makes no differences if the ball comes from an opponent or a team mate.

I have discussed this issue many, many times down the years with other referees and in various fora and I have to say this is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that whether a player has decided to use a deliberate trick to circumvent law 12 is conditional on who passed the ball to the player who then utilises the deliberate trick.
 
I'm not sure where you're getting this from...
And then you follow it up by explaining about the deliberate trick and circumventing. I qualified my comment by asking to focus on "the law". The law being the back-pass law and the focus on its intent (spirit) and not just the wording.
Now to quote your own post on why this law was brought in:
''A goalkeeper kicks the ball to a player of his team. This player passes the ball back to the goalkeeper, who then returns it once more, either to the same player or another. This action is repeated several times. Should this conduct be regarded as time-wasting …?''
However, players quickly came up with ways to get around the new law (circumvent it).
This scenario or circumventing it is impossible if the ball was last kicked by an opponent. Hope you can see what I mean by intent of the (back-pass) law is not broken if the ball is kicked by an opponent.

If the ball is at thigh or knee height and the player wants to move it on quickly, it's perfectly natural and normal for them to play it with the thigh or knee. They would only bring it down if there was time and space to do so.
This also applies when passing back to goal keepers. Defenders often do have enough time to bring the ball down but deliberately use knee/thigh because they know its legal and doing so means keeper can pick it up.


I have discussed this issue many, many times down the years with other referees and in various fora and I have to say this is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that whether a player has decided to use a deliberate trick to circumvent law 12 is conditional on who passed the ball to the player who then utilises the deliberate trick.
Likewise. The topic almost always discussed is when either the defender uses foot to get the ball to his head or a team mate does it. Rarely when a ball is kicked by an directly opponent.
 
Quick question does the ball have to be in the penalty area to give a pen?

So ball is on halfway in general play, it’s brought to your attention that a defender has struck an opponent in the box?

You would stop play & deal with the incident, drop ball from where the ball was on half way.

Does the ball have to be in the area to award a penalty? If not what is the restart if you stopped play?
 
Quick question does the ball have to be in the penalty area to give a pen?

So ball is on halfway in general play, it’s brought to your attention that a defender has struck an opponent in the box?

You would stop play & deal with the incident, drop ball from where the ball was on half way.

Does the ball have to be in the area to award a penalty? If not what is the restart if you stopped play?

No it doesn't, as long as ball is in play only position of the offence matters (PK/(I)DFK)
 
Back
Top