The offence here is TRICKERY. By the defender. And it doesn't matter if the GK picks up the ball or not... trickery has occurred.
You're actually stopping the play to caution the defender for the trickery (since the GK can legally handle that ball within his/her own penalty area), which is why the IFK is at the point where the defender committed said trickery...
Here's the only example of trickery I've ever seen in the professional game (and the ref actually screws this up completely... no caution, IFK halfway between the defender's position and the GK's position):
Trickery is not a cautionable offence entirely, skills and tricks are part of the game.. Trickery to circumvent the laws is the offence.. There's a difference (obviously you're aware of that).
The following are the extracts from the LOTG that will have an effect on a referee's judgement:
IDFK - Pg 38 - touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
IDFK - Pg 38 - commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player
UB - Pg 125 - uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee, etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick
uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper to circumvent the Law while he is taking a free kick (after the player is cautioned, the free kick must be retaken)
Now, I think the way that this law is written is pretty poor. The reason being, here's a scenario: the defender is on the goal-line outside of the penalty area, two attackers are incoming at a rate of knots, one heading straight towards the player and one to the players right hand side. His only option to get the ball away and safe is to pass back to his goalie who has advanced to a position where he can successfully receive a pass. The defender has a weak left foot, therefore he opts to do a cheeky little flick to the goalie, who then clears the ball by putting a foot through it... This then enters the UB realm; the defender has used a trick to get the ball to the keeper, who has then cleared the ball. You will never see a ref blow for that. If they did, you'd think he was mad. But clearly, the player has used a trick to get the ball to the keeper..
My question above, I've kind of answered myself with the above quote from pg 125. The offender is the defender. My way of thinking is what if that trickery is the only way he can get the ball to the goalie, it wouldn't neccessarily be unsporting... In my scenario above, I'd attempt a cheeky flick with my right foot because using my left, it could go anywhere.
I think that it entirely down to referee interpretation
@Russell Jones to determine if that piece of play was a deliberate trick or not. When I read my post back, I think I put it across the wrong way in my "defender juggles and passes the ball back" scenario. Obviously that is a clear trick, but it may be showboating and not an attempt to circumvent the laws, does it affect the spirit and letter of the law? I think its all down to interpretation.
@AlexF that video, you're right, the player should be cautioned. But, had the keeper not have picked the ball up or even touched it with his hands, do you think the ref would have blown up? Obviously, in accordance with the LOTG, that pass would be a breach in law. Even if he had done a few kick ups and flicked it with his chest back to the keeper, would he risk the wrath of every person in that stadium if the keeper didn't pick up? I don't know.
I think I've put my point across quite poorly on my last two threads, I know what I'm trying to say but I don't think its coming across properly
