The law says that it is an indirect free kick offence if a goalkeeper:
The only way this could mean that it is still an offence even if the ball was not intended for the goalkeeper, is if you remove the words, "to the goalkeeper."
So if the law said that it is an offence if a goalkeeper "touches the ball with the hand/arm after it has been deliberately kicked by a team mate" then those who think that any deliberate kick, whether intended for the keeper or not, should be penalised, would be right.
However it doesn't say that - it says that the ball must be deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper. I don't think the law could be much clearer as to what it's intent is.
It's also worth noting that this is the way the law has always been interpreted ever since it was introduced in 1992 (except in the US of course where for many years their official guidance was to act as if the words "to the goalkeeper" were not part of the law).
I've said this before but I think there's a phrase that the IFAB used in a circular in 1993 that although it was intended for a slightly different part of the law (circumvention) is highly applicable here.
The phrase was that:
So if we apply this to a "back pass" then the referee has to be convinced that the player's motive in kicking the ball, was to direct it to their goalkeeper.
If that wasn't the player's motive/intent then there is no offence.
You also have to be alert for cases where the player kicks a ball that doesn't necessarily go straight to the keeper, but where you judge that the player's intent was to get it to their keeper nonetheless.