New goal kick trick
- Thread starter Jorik0907
- Start date
No they don’t, it’s called debateSome experts on here seem to have egg on their face. Don’t you just love it
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
As I understand the history of the GK, the reason the "must leave the PA" was to prevent the pass to the GK to pick it up. So we seem to have come full circle.
At the professional level, where we are going to see delays is the initial slow GK, leaving the GK with the ball in his hands waiting for his 6 seconds (which really means 12) to elapse, then putting the ball on the ground, forcing an opponent to come to him, and finally playing it out to a defender. (Which, I suppose, will lead to opponents harassing the GK more on these plays.)
But where it is going to be really messy is in youth games, where we know they emulate the pros. In the US, our younger players are banned from heading (and even without the ban, many lack the skill to pull this off with the head), so it will have to be to the chest or thighs (or perhaps even sitting down so the GK can bounce it off the teammate's back and pick it up). Is there a line somewhere? If so, where is it? Are refs going to have different lines so its a high risk strategy? And we'll have to be watching the cutsie-poo stuff to see if they use a foot/angle on the pass back? How many times is this going to result in a PK because they can't chest the ball well?
The problem, in my mind, is that the trickery caution was put in as a response to blatant actions to circumvent the new law. It's virtually never used (as should be the case) because players know they can't do that. A cleaner solution would have been to get rid of the "with the foot" limit--all of this would go away. (Yes, that would be at the expense of defenders in pressure being able to head the ball to the GK--would that be so awful?)
At the professional level, where we are going to see delays is the initial slow GK, leaving the GK with the ball in his hands waiting for his 6 seconds (which really means 12) to elapse, then putting the ball on the ground, forcing an opponent to come to him, and finally playing it out to a defender. (Which, I suppose, will lead to opponents harassing the GK more on these plays.)
But where it is going to be really messy is in youth games, where we know they emulate the pros. In the US, our younger players are banned from heading (and even without the ban, many lack the skill to pull this off with the head), so it will have to be to the chest or thighs (or perhaps even sitting down so the GK can bounce it off the teammate's back and pick it up). Is there a line somewhere? If so, where is it? Are refs going to have different lines so its a high risk strategy? And we'll have to be watching the cutsie-poo stuff to see if they use a foot/angle on the pass back? How many times is this going to result in a PK because they can't chest the ball well?
The problem, in my mind, is that the trickery caution was put in as a response to blatant actions to circumvent the new law. It's virtually never used (as should be the case) because players know they can't do that. A cleaner solution would have been to get rid of the "with the foot" limit--all of this would go away. (Yes, that would be at the expense of defenders in pressure being able to head the ball to the GK--would that be so awful?)
The Referee
Well-Known Member
Anyone contacted the IFAB about this?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
An ESPN reporter tweeted that IFAB told him it was legal. I would imagine that was an inquiry to David Elleray
For those of you astounded by my question about where is the trick...I repeat where is it? Fhe keeper 'flicks' (your term) the ball to a defender, I prefer the word chip but this is just semantics, what actually happens is the keeper kicks the ball....no offence play on.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I’d like to hear it from the horse’s whatsit
Hi
My tuppence worth
I agree with Peter Grove that the only way that a trick can be committed is through the initiator. No kick / flick no trick. Also it has to be a caution for circumventing Law 12 irrespective of the use of hands or not.
Now there has been much comment about circumvention here. As the law 16 is currently framed there is no restriction in a defender playing the ball inside the penalty area. The goalkeeper has 6 seconds to release the ball which he does.
For me I would allow it as it is not circumvention of the law and strictly enforce the 6 second rule. Seven seconds and the whistle goes.
I also think that attackers will delay exiting the penalty area if they want to stop this activity. Quick close down when the ball is kicked and then the 6 seconds gets enforced.
It looks contrived and to be honest I see little benefit in this other than getting it into the GK hands for a throw rather than a kick. The opponents seem to be unconcerned about it and get on with play.
The test will be if the action gets repeated on the throw by the GK.
My tuppence worth
I agree with Peter Grove that the only way that a trick can be committed is through the initiator. No kick / flick no trick. Also it has to be a caution for circumventing Law 12 irrespective of the use of hands or not.
Now there has been much comment about circumvention here. As the law 16 is currently framed there is no restriction in a defender playing the ball inside the penalty area. The goalkeeper has 6 seconds to release the ball which he does.
For me I would allow it as it is not circumvention of the law and strictly enforce the 6 second rule. Seven seconds and the whistle goes.
I also think that attackers will delay exiting the penalty area if they want to stop this activity. Quick close down when the ball is kicked and then the 6 seconds gets enforced.
It looks contrived and to be honest I see little benefit in this other than getting it into the GK hands for a throw rather than a kick. The opponents seem to be unconcerned about it and get on with play.
The test will be if the action gets repeated on the throw by the GK.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think part of the problem is that trickery has never really been well defined. I think this concept is, more or less, if the R sees something happen and says "that's bull$h!t to get around the pass back rule." he can caution and give the IFK. The most obvious case being the player that flicks the ball up to himself or that has the ball at his feet and gets down on his hands and knees. But the problem with at "that's bull$h!t" standard is that (as can be seen here) we have a wide variety of senses of what constitutes "bull$h!t." For most things with circumventing, the problem really doesn't come up--but with this, if it's permissible, it will clearly be emulated in a variety of forms--is there any form where it crosses the line?
(FWIW, I think this meets the intent when the circumventing concept was put into place--it clearly included from a free kick. I don't know what they would have contemplated from a FK other than a chip to the head, just as took place here.)
(FWIW, I think this meets the intent when the circumventing concept was put into place--it clearly included from a free kick. I don't know what they would have contemplated from a FK other than a chip to the head, just as took place here.)
The Referee
Well-Known Member
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
That escalated quickly
That's a no from me!!!
ESPN... "Reporter". Yeah, I don't know.
The Referee
Well-Known Member
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Been thinking about this overnight as regards the 'Spirit of the Game'
'Backpasses' to the GK hands were prohibited to speed up the game and avoid delaying tactics. Players sought to get round this by trickery so this then became outlawed. Now the change to the goal kick law has reopened the possibility of player + GK getting round the 'backpass' law in a new way (or at least made it WAY easier than when defenders needed to stay outside the area).
Now in the OP, the defending team did NOT use this new tactic as a way of materially delaying the game ... hence they did not offend the spirit of the 'backpass' law. This would be the argument for not penalising on this specific occasion. However, why this has driven such debate is that it has highlighted a loophole which easily could (and therefore almost certainly will) be used to delay games. It's for this reason that I reckon the simplest thing would be for IFAB to just advise that ALL plays of this type should be treated as trickery ...
'Backpasses' to the GK hands were prohibited to speed up the game and avoid delaying tactics. Players sought to get round this by trickery so this then became outlawed. Now the change to the goal kick law has reopened the possibility of player + GK getting round the 'backpass' law in a new way (or at least made it WAY easier than when defenders needed to stay outside the area).
Now in the OP, the defending team did NOT use this new tactic as a way of materially delaying the game ... hence they did not offend the spirit of the 'backpass' law. This would be the argument for not penalising on this specific occasion. However, why this has driven such debate is that it has highlighted a loophole which easily could (and therefore almost certainly will) be used to delay games. It's for this reason that I reckon the simplest thing would be for IFAB to just advise that ALL plays of this type should be treated as trickery ...
one
RefChat Addict
Just an update on this. Looks like the account administrator hasn't refereed a game before (or account has been hacked). When asked if in the OP the ball was to the defender's feet who then flicks it up and headers it to the keeper (a bit of google translate), he responds it is also allowed. So I'd say not a reliable source to get refereeing advice from.
one
RefChat Addict
In open play back-pass can be repeated multiple time to waste time (waste 6 seconds over and over again once in possession). But when it happens from a restart, time wasting can't happen because once it's restarted and in the keeper's hand the most they can waste is 6 seconds which is insignificant. Yet "from a free kick" is explicitly mentioned in the circumvent clause (which means you can't do it even if the intent is not wasting time). The same reason for putting a FK in circumvent clause should apply to all restarts, TI, CK and now a previously not possible goal kick.
EDIT: Note: as "from a free kick" is included in circumvention, and a player can't touch the ball again after they have restarted, it simply implies more than one player can be involved in the trick and it is still not allowed.
Last edited: