The Ref Stop

What's the restart?

The Ref Stop
Ciley Myrus said:
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
Click to expand...

It's all they practiced on the training ground.

They also got government subsidies and bought only (Scottish) strikers that were experts at pass backs.

At the time Liverpool's boot room was a shrine to the back pass. The back pass secret was hidden from the rest of the footballing world for decades while Liverpool dominated domestic and international competition.

Bob Paisley - back pass king - they call him
Bill Shankley - lord of the back pass - they call him

Dalgleish to Hansen to Grobbelaar
St John to Hughes to Clemence

It's all you could hear Motty saying in the 70s and 80s.

You are so right!

(Liverpool's success was nothing to do with scoring more (a lot more) than the opposition. And definitely nothing to do with (I know) my hero: Terry McDermott: a god walking this earth. Around whom the universe revolved in those heady times.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Alan Hansen and Gary Gillespie Steve Nicol never got a game for Scotland despite being gods at Liverpool....are they omitted from the history books?
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Coincidence since 92 Liverpool no longer the dominant team in England?
Click to expand...

Liverpool actually ceased to be the dominant team in England after the 1989-90 season.

It was the end of an era that's all.

Just like Man Utd's dominance ended after Sir Alex Ferguson left. Every dog has it's day - and they'd had theirs.

What's your reasons for Spain no longer dominating international football then - VAR? :rolleyes: :p
 
Kes said:
Liverpool actually ceased to be the dominant team in England after the 1989-90 season.

It was the end of an era that's all.

Just like Man Utd's dominance ended after Sir Alex Ferguson left. Every dog has it's day - and they'd had theirs.

What's your reasons for Spain no longer dominating international football then - VAR? :rolleyes::p
Click to expand...


How about a manager being appointed a day before WC starts and having a squad he never picked, trained or did tactics with?
 
Kes said:
That's more like it Scotland. You see, you're learning. .... ;):D
Click to expand...

Learning? Probably forgotten more about football then you have ever learnt about it, no need to be condecending,
Fact, as the Spanish waiter would say, since the backpass outlaw, Liverpool have been an average EPL team, with one almighty European effort in Istanbul, least say, Forest can attribute thier demise to Cloughs regime coming to an end, Blackburns two min at the top due to the wallet being empty, Leicesters moment of fame being that rare Greece Euro win like freak and Rangers dominating Scotland due to illegal EBT input.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Learning? Probably forgotten more about football then you have ever learnt about it, no need to be condecending,
Fact, as the Spanish waiter would say, since the backpass outlaw, Liverpool have been an average EPL team, with one almighty European effort in Istanbul, least say, Forest can attribute thier demise to Cloughs regime coming to an end, Blackburns two min at the top due to the wallet being empty, Leicesters moment of fame being that rare Greece Euro win like freak and Rangers dominating Scotland due to illegal EBT input.
Click to expand...

If you're going to accuse me of being condescending - at least learn to spell it mate. Lol. ;) :D

Well if you don't reckon that Liverpool's dominance was down to the likes of Shankly, Paisley, Keegan, Dalglish, Souness, Clemence, Grobelaar, Rush, Barnes and Co, but instead was down to them being "masters" of the backpass then you crack on son. I used to watch them too. Your statement is laughable. :p :p :p
 
Kes said:
If you're going to accuse me of being condescending - at least learn to spell it mate. Lol. ;):D

Well if you don't reckon that Liverpool's dominance was down to the likes of Shankly, Paisley, Keegan, Dalglish, Souness, Clemence, Grobelaar, Rush, Barnes and Co, but instead was down to them being "masters" of the backpass then you crack on son. I used to watch them too. Your statement is laughable. :p:p:p
Click to expand...


Sorry spelling police. Spelt correctly or not, you got the message
Maybe you should go on a spelling forum
Coincidence the last recorded backpass is....Nicol to Grobelaar. How apt
 
one said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, not only can I not see it, it is manifestly not so. Here is the law regarding circumvention as it stands, in its entirety:
uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
Click to expand...

Apart from the free kick scenario (which was added later) there is no part of this law that makes it in any way dependent on who the ball comes from. The intent of the law is to prevent a player using a deliberate trick to avoid the restrictions in Law 12 on kicking the ball to their goalkeeper. Once again, there is nothing in the intent of the law that is in any way affected by who played the ball last, before the defender received it.

It is entirely possible that a player can receive the ball from an opponent and then use a deliberate trick to circumvent the law. The classic examples of circumvention (and the only ones i have ever seen) are those given by the IFAB in circular 488:
a player [..] deliberately flicks the ball with his feet up onto his head in order to head the ball to his goalkeeper; or, a player [..] kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with his knee, etc.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly possible for either one of these deliberate tricks to be utilised, no matter who the ball comes from.

Although this is an extremely rare offence, I would say that in several of the cases I can recall, the ball was played through by an opponent, arrived on the ground at the defender's feet and the defender then proceeded to kneel down and either knee or head the ball to their goalkeeper. In all these cases, the defender was quite correctly penalised for using a deliberate trick to circumvent the law.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain your reasoning in detail, as to why circumvention is impossible when the ball comes from an opponent. I can see neither reason nor justification in either the letter or the intent of the law, as to why this would be so.
 
Never mind the points, I think it is an interesting and educating discussion at times. @Peter Grove writes rather nicely and logically. Teacher perhaps? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Peter Grove said:
No, not only can I not see it, it is manifestly not so. Here is the law regarding circumvention as it stands, in its entirety:


Apart from the free kick scenario (which was added later) there is no part of this law that makes it in any way dependent on who the ball comes from. The intent of the law is to prevent a player using a deliberate trick to avoid the restrictions in Law 12 on kicking the ball to their goalkeeper. Once again, there is nothing in the intent of the law that is in any way affected by who played the ball last, before the defender received it.

It is entirely possible that a player can receive the ball from an opponent and then use a deliberate trick to circumvent the law. The classic examples of circumvention (and the only ones i have ever seen) are those given by the IFAB in circular 488:

It is perfectly possible for either one of these deliberate tricks to be utilised, no matter who the ball comes from.

Although this is an extremely rare offence, I would say that in several of the cases I can recall, the ball was played through by an opponent, arrived on the ground at the defender's feet and the defender then proceeded to kneel down and either knee or head the ball to their goalkeeper. In all these cases, the defender was quite correctly penalised for using a deliberate trick to circumvent the law.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain your reasoning in detail, as to why circumvention is impossible when the ball comes from an opponent. I can see neither reason nor justification in either the letter or the intent of the law, as to why this would be so.
Click to expand...
I'll give this one more try.

An over hit cross comes in at about head high to an isolated defender who directly heads it to his keeper. We all agree there is no offence here.

The same situation, cross comes in, the defender bounces the ball up off his chest, bounces it up again of the top of left shoulder, then the right shoulder then heads it back to the keeper. Now it's clear he has used a deliberate trck here to pass the ball . For me this is still not an offence. If you think it's an offence then we are in disagreement of the intent of back pass / deliberate trick law. If you think it's not an offence, whatever reason you use here (given the wording of the law) I would also use it for the other scenario in debate.
 
one said:
I'll give this one more try.

An over hit cross comes in at about head high to an isolated defender who directly heads it to his keeper. We all agree there is no offence here.

The same situation, cross comes in, the defender bounces the ball up off his chest, bounces it up again of the top of left shoulder, then the right shoulder then heads it back to the keeper. Now it's clear he has used a deliberate trck here to pass the ball . For me this is still not an offence. If you think it's an offence then we are in disagreement of the intent of back pass / deliberate trick law. If you think it's not an offence, whatever reason you use here (given the wording of the law) I would also use it for the other scenario in debate.
Click to expand...
The trick is not an offence. There's no offence because he's not circumventing anything by doing that trickery. At no point in your scenario would it have been the logical move to kick it, and he never did any trickery to avoid kicking it.

You have to look at the whole law. "Trickery" is not an offence. "Trickery in order to circumvent the law" is an offence.
 
GraemeS said:
The trick is not an offence. There's no offence because he's not circumventing anything by doing that trickery. At no point in your scenario would it have been the logical move to kick it, and he never did any trickery to avoid kicking it.

You have to look at the whole law. "Trickery" is not an offence. "Trickery in order to circumvent the law" is an offence.
Click to expand...
At a previous post I had another example for a knee high ball which was kneed back where the logical/easier (more controlled) move would have been to kick it.

Direct knee back, no offence. Knee it up to his shoulder then head it back. What would you do?
 
Surely the spirit of the Law is such that a 'trick' to circumvent the rule, is any defensive pass to the keeper using any part of the body other than below the knee, when kicking the pass would obviously have been the natural easier mode of action
 
Good luck to any public park ref penalising what they deem a trick, and then cautioning the player and saying the words
"Number 4 you circumvented the laws of the game"

Hope you left your car engine running....
 
one said:
At a previous post I had another example for a knee high ball which was kneed back where the logical/easier (more controlled) move would have been to kick it.

Direct knee back, no offence. Knee it up to his shoulder then head it back. What would you do?
Click to expand...
Depends if I think he's employed trickery to get around the backpass law or not.

I know that sounds glib, but unfortunately I think it's actually the correct response. The law gives some examples of what trickery might be, but it does not even attempt to present an exhaustive list. Which means that there is always going to be an element of ITOOTR, which means trying to exhaustively determine every possible response on a forum is ultimately a futile exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top