Back pass? Initiating a deliberate trick?

[Viridis1886]

ESPN NL on TikTok

Tiki-taka 😍😉 #tikitaka #football #voetbal

vm.tiktok.com

Hmmm?

 

[es1]

I don't think either player plans to do what they end up doing to be honest. The outcome is very convenient but legal I think

 

[socal lurker]

It’s clearly not a “back pass, as it wasn’t from the foot.

And I don’t think it is even close to what is intended by tricker—the kick and the header were both long distance. Trickery (which is unsporting behavior) should jump out and grab you. This doesn’t.

 

[Wolf_Ref]

On a Sunday morning - If it looks impressive and is a potential backpass - the likelihood is that it was an accident.

 

[RustyRef]

Nothing to see here, you'd just be making a huge problem for yourself giving this.

 

[Mr Dean]

If you deem this a trick, it is the goalkeeper who initiates it. However, you can't say that the goalkeeper intended the header back to him; it looks like the goalkeeper's sole intention was to chip the attacker. If it isn't obvious, play on.

 

[Peter Grove]

I've mentioned this before, but when it comes to deciding on a deliberate circumvention trick, I like to use a phrase that was in the original circular that outlawed such tricks, back in July 1992.

The phrase goes like this:

The referee must only be convinced that this was the player's motive ...

So for me, if you're not convinced that when the goalkeeper kicked the ball, he intended for his team mate to head it back to him (and here I don't think you can be) you shouldn't give the offence.