When is a backpass not a backpass?

[DB]

@Brian Hamilton thats the part I'm confused about now, the law clearly states that it's an offence, irrespective of whether he touches the ball with his hands or not.

The way the law is written (I've never looked at this in so much detail so thanks for bringing it up in the thread) has a lot of potential for misunderstanding, as you can already see on the posts here.

@DanCohen17 back to my post you quoted, what do you class a cheeky/clever flick as? A skill? A trick?!? It's a trick in my eyes that requires skill to complete successfully.

From my years of playing, I was always under the impression that you can pass to the goalkeeper intentionally but he can't pick it up, You can head it back to the keeper and he can pick it up (from an attackers cross, shot etc). Unintentional mis-control/mis-kicks can be picked up by the goalie etc. You can't flick it up for yourself to head back to the goal keeper.

Using my example with the left backs cross to the defender who then heads back to the goalkeeper, that would be the exact same as a defender chipping a ball up to a team-mate two yards away who then nods it back to the goalkeeper to catch... I'd call that Unsporting personally. The defender knows he can't just flick it up to the goalkeeper so he purposely changes his behaviour and actions to overcome that law...

Maybe I'm looking to deep into it but this that has now confused the hell out of me lol

 

[Duncan Francis]

Remember also that a backpass isn't just when a players passes in any direction to the goalkeeper during play by his feet. It can often be misconstrued by players who aren't as "clued up" on the laws. One I've seen this season; defender receives the ball, attacker inbound to make a challenge... Defender chips the ball up and heads to the goalkeeper who controls with his hand; "I headed it back ref, how's that a passback?".

Caution the player for UB and resume with IDFK to the attacking team from the point where the keeper controlled the ball (with hands). Obviously if this is in the 6 yard box (goal area), it is to be done on the line of the area.

The IDFK should have been from the position where the deliberate trick intended to circumvent the laws happened ! That was the offence !

 

[DB]

I got my wires crossed there... Will edit now; thanks for picking that up.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

@Brian Hamilton -- you're one person I hate to try to correct. Of course, that may also be the teaching in the UK...

Here in Canada, the teaching is that the deliberate trick is the issue, not the handling.

The Laws themselves specifically say:
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
(emphasis mine)

Yes, the defender has done a skill

I disagree with you Brian. The keeper can touch that ball with his hands as the pass has been played back to him by a lawful part of the body. It is the defender who has attempted to circumvent the law, therefore USB & caution and is irrelevant as to whether the keeper actually uses his hands or not

Firstly yay for me doing the multi quote. Secondly boo for me as I have also gotten mixed up.

Let me simplify it and get it right this time.

Defender trick, USB, caution for defender, IDFK to attacking team from defender's position.
Defender skill, keeper clears, no action.
Defender skill, keeper controls with hands, IDFK to attacking team from keeper's position.

You need to differentiate between skill and trick. A trick, for me, would possibly involve the ball being made stationary by the defender before attempting the trick.

 

[Kes]

Firstly yay for me doing the multi quote. Secondly boo for me as I have also gotten mixed up.

Let me simplify it and get it right this time.

Defender trick, USB, caution for defender, IDFK to attacking team from defender's position.
Defender skill, keeper clears, no action.
Defender skill, keeper controls with hands, IDFK to attacking team from keeper's position.

You need to differentiate between skill and trick. A trick, for me, would possibly involve the ball being made stationary by the defender before attempting the trick.

So, clear as mud then Brian eh?

 

[DB]

Im still confused @Brian Hamilton . Please don't think I'm being a douchebag here but I'm genuinely in a muddle about this... Law states that the part of the body that the keeper uses is irrelevant, so how have you come to the decision that if he boots the ball away, it's okay and if he uses his hand, it's not?

Again, sorry if you're banging your head against the wall but I'm just trying to get my head around it. Is this one of those that isn't written particularly well and is all down to (I don't want to say it, but here it goes)... "Creative refereeing"? I mean, I could go into 100 games and if a defender does a trick to get the ball to the keeper on the edge of the goal area and then the keeper boots it away, 99 times out of that 190, I bet there would be no "passbackkkkkk reffff"... Yet, I'm terms of law, it actually is...

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Im still confused @Brian Hamilton . Please don't think I'm being a douchebag here but I'm genuinely in a muddle about this... Law states that the part of the body that the keeper uses is irrelevant, so how have you come to the decision that if he boots the ball away, it's okay and if he uses his hand, it's not?

Again, sorry if you're banging your head against the wall but I'm just trying to get my head around it. Is this one of those that isn't written particularly well and is all down to (I don't want to say it, but here it goes)... "Creative refereeing"? I mean, I could go into 100 games and if a defender does a trick to get the ball to the keeper on the edge of the goal area and then the keeper boots it away, 99 times out of that 190, I bet there would be no "passbackkkkkk reffff"... Yet, I'm terms of law, it actually is...

@DB let's just say, you'll know it's wrong when you see it

 

[Peter Grove]

I'm not sure that this is really quite as complicated as some people seem to think. I find it is often helpful to go back to first principles when trying to understand something like this. That means going back to the time and circumstances that led to these amendments and looking at what was going on then, how the IFAB reacted and if possible why (usually by looking at any explanatory remarks, either in the IFAB meeting minutes or any circulars that were issued at the time). I guess it also helps to have been around at the time the changes were made although obviously this will not always be possible with laws that can date back all the way to 1863.

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 so many words) 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 …?

Although not specifically mentioned, I can attest to the fact that most goalkeepers in this situation would almost always use their hands as it made it a lot safer and easier to ensure retaining possession of the ball. 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 IFAB had decided to just outlaw the practice by introducing the so-called "back-pass" rule.

Players, being the mischievous imps that they are, quickly came up with ways to circumvent this. So quickly in fact that although the amendment had only come into force on July 1 1992, by July 24 of the same year, FIFA was forced to issue circular no. 488 to address the circumvention problem. Once again, as I can personally remember this, 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. These were specifically addressed in the circular, which stated 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.

Another way to look at it is to ask, "Is the player using the part of the body that the ball has naturally arrived at or is he artificially manufacturing a situation where he can use a part of the body other than the foot, purely to avoid the restriction on kicking the ball to his goalkeeper?" So if the ball, as a natural part of play,arrives in the air at the player's knee, chest or head level it's OK to use that part of the body but if the ball is on the ground where the player would normally be expected to use his foot but he somehow contrives a way to use the knee, head etc, it's not OK.

As to the scenario of one player flicking (or chipping) the ball up to a team mate, that is a little more of a grey area. In various debates that I have seen on different refereeing websites a common view on this is that the proximity of the two players and any opponents is probably the deciding factor. If two players are standing side by side with no opponents nearby and one flicks it up to the other to head the ball to the keeper, that should probably be seen as circumvention. If on the other hand the players are a fair distance apart and there are opponents who could intercept the ball then the chances are much less that this was a true attempt at circumvention.

 

[DB]

@Peter Grove thank you That has explained things for me (especially the previous versions of the law).

 

[Kes]

@Peter Grove thank you That has explained things for me (especially the previous versions of the law).

It's still a bloody stupidly ambiguous law......

 

[mike mcgill]

probably be seen as circumvention
getting around the law is not breaking the law lets all think and use common sense

 

[Ryan Owens]

The confusion would be cleared up if we stopped calling it a "backpass" and started referring to it as "the GK handling the ball after it was deliberately kicked to him by a teammate."

 

[DB]

I prefer the term "backpass". It's much quicker to say.

If people involved with football (players/manage etc) dedicated just 6 seconds to read the good books definition of "backpass", they'd have an understanding.

 

[xPositor]

I prefer the term "backpass". It's much quicker to say.

If people involved with football (players/manage etc) dedicated just 6 seconds to read the good books definition of "backpass", they'd have an understanding.

Unless its changed over the last few years, when I took my L1 coaching badge, there wasn't a single reference on the course to the laws of the game. This would be a very easy way of starting to address the gulf of knowledge that exists with coaches (who are responsible for educating players) on the LotG - have a section (and test) on it in the L1 coaching course.

 

[DB]

I'd wholeheartedly agree there. Coaches these days I fell are getting younger, some are still players looking for something else to do in their spare time. An education on the LOTG certainly isn't a bad thing.

One of the best coaches I've met this season was for an U16 cuo game. When I blew up on certain occasions, he would agree with me each time (against his own team) and explain to them "it's in the laws" etc. He knew the laws and was happy for them to be enforced on his team, regardless if whether they win or lose.

 

[Yampy]

If people involved with football (players/manage etc) dedicated just 6 seconds to read the good books definition of "backpass", they'd have an understanding.

And we all know how long most players and managers think 6 seconds is don't we?

 

[DB]

Depends on how quick you can say Mississippi!

 

[Kes]

Unless its changed over the last few years, when I took my L1 coaching badge, there wasn't a single reference on the course to the laws of the game. This would be a very easy way of starting to address the gulf of knowledge that exists with coaches (who are responsible for educating players) on the LotG - have a section (and test) on it in the L1 coaching course.

Did my Level 1 Course in 2010 and the FA online Laws Of The Game Test was very much a part of the assessment. We had to achieve 85% or above in it and produce the certificate.

 

[Ryan Owens]

I prefer the term "backpass". It's much quicker to say.

If people involved with football (players/manage etc) dedicated just 6 seconds to read the good books definition of "backpass", they'd have an understanding.

But it's not a term from the LOTG which, to me, means its usage should become extinct -- as with penalty box, 18-yard box, 6-yard box, intentional, and bench side.

 

[DB]

People are lazy Ryan, they will say whatever is shorter. So long as you know the meaning of the terms, it's not a problem