A&H

Shot myself in the foot

Rubadub

Rubadub

New Member
Had a match this afternoon - Blues v Maroons. A maroon player inside the blues half is under pressure and can only really play the ball backwards towards his deep defence. He does so but hits it hard enough for the ball to go all the way back to the keeper. Maroon central defender is asking if his GK can pick it up, my initial reaction is no so say so.
Having an extra second of thought, it appeared highly unlikely he was trying to pass it back to the keeper specifically, it seemed more of a kick in panic so as to not concede possession. But that's fine because the keeper isn't under pressure so surely won't pick it up.
He picks it up.
By now of course I believe the pass wasn't intended for the GK so signal to play on. Cue arguably justified hysteria from blues saying it must be a IDFK as I had recently said it would be. I talk to the biggest moaners and say I had changed my mind and it wasn't a deliberate pass to the keeper. But they're having none of it; bye bye integrity and, I suspect, club marks from blues.
Could I have handled this better? Should I have waited an extra second or two before answering the defender's question or perhaps have ignored it? Or should I have gone with my initial gut feeling and give the IDFK? Or just maybe did I not do a lot wrong at all? Would appreciate your thoughts.
 
The Referee Store
From the way you have described it (even without you saying 'no' when the player asks) it does sound like it has to be given as a backpass.

Moral of the story, don't change your mind.
 
The decision itself is YHTBT - as you know it's changing your mind that was the problem.

Did the goalkeeper hear the question and answer?

don't you hate it when you have to agree with the arguments of one of the teams in response to your decision? :p
 
Rubadub said:
Had a match this afternoon - Blues v Maroons. A maroon player inside the blues half is under pressure and can only really play the ball backwards towards his deep defence. He does so but hits it hard enough for the ball to go all the way back to the keeper. Maroon central defender is asking if his GK can pick it up, my initial reaction is no so say so.
Having an extra second of thought, it appeared highly unlikely he was trying to pass it back to the keeper specifically, it seemed more of a kick in panic so as to not concede possession. But that's fine because the keeper isn't under pressure so surely won't pick it up.
He picks it up.
By now of course I believe the pass wasn't intended for the GK so signal to play on. Cue arguably justified hysteria from blues saying it must be a IDFK as I had recently said it would be. I talk to the biggest moaners and say I had changed my mind and it wasn't a deliberate pass to the keeper. But they're having none of it; bye bye integrity and, I suspect, club marks from blues.
Could I have handled this better? Should I have waited an extra second or two before answering the defender's question or perhaps have ignored it? Or should I have gone with my initial gut feeling and give the IDFK? Or just maybe did I not do a lot wrong at all? Would appreciate your thoughts.
Click to expand...
At least this is a great answer to the thread about whether to help a team by telling the GK if he can pick up or not... this is a massive tick in the "don't do it" box.
 
Just learn from it. Don't dwell on it too much. We all have these moments.

What you have to understand is that the payers are rightfully going to get a bit frustrated. You understand that and you have accepted that. That's the hardest bit done.

Next game will be here before you know it and this one will be a distant memory.
 
The OP said " A maroon player inside the blues half is under pressure and can only really play the ball backwards towards his deep defence. He does so but hits it hard enough for the ball to go all the way back to the keeper. "so for me it was not a back pass to the keeper, i would not have answered the defender if he asked if his keeper could pick it up, if the keeper wasn't sure then he should have cleared it and not picked it up... maybe it's me, but i'm not doing the keeper's job for him...... and the ensuing melee proves the point.
When the keeper picked it up,and when the shout goes up " BACKPASS" my reply " not it wasn't... play on !!"
 
I don't understand why anyone would consider this not to be a backpass?

Deliberately played towards the GK with enough force to reach them.......unless it was an obvious miskick (shank or slice) then I'm giving that all day long......

Your initial gut reaction was spot on....as they normally are when it comes to refereeing......it's only when we allow ourselves to start thinking about a decision that we normally talk ourselves into trouble.......
 
Padfoot said:
I don't understand why anyone would consider this not to be a backpass?

Deliberately played towards the GK with enough force to reach them.......unless it was an obvious miskick (shank or slice) then I'm giving that all day long......

Your initial gut reaction was spot on....as they normally are when it comes to refereeing......it's only when we allow ourselves to start thinking about a decision that we normally talk ourselves into trouble.......
Click to expand...
OP states " can only really play the ball backwards towards his deep defence. He does so" ........this would tell me he played the ball to his defence, suppose one would have to be there to see if there was intent...... but judging by the text given i'd still not give it as a back pass
 
The question is... in the opinion of the referee, was it deliberately played back to the goalkeeper? I didn't get that feeling by reading the original post.
 
Last edited:
Andy A said:
Moral of the story, don't change your mind.
Click to expand...

I think the moral of the story is don't provide players with advice on the laws while the ball is live.

It sounds to me as if the correct decision was made in the end, but that's not really the point. Players are not entitled to expect the referee to advise them on what courses of action they can safely take in advance. I would ignore the question.

My rule of thumb is to ignore anything players say to me while the ball is live unless they are alerting me to a serious injury. If the ball is in the keeper's hands and they want to know how many minutes are left I'll make an exception. Otherwise I need to concentrate on play. I'll happily talk to players when the ball is out of play.
 
The initial reaction of the OP is not to allow the GK to pick it up....so clearly thinking backpass.....its only afterwards that they start to doubt themselves...when it comes to the point of actually having to penalise the offence.

Its a backpass....played deliberately with enough force to reach the GK.....who picks it up.
 
Padders, just because a player hits a ball with enough force to reach the goalkeeper doesn't mean that he/she is deliberately playing it to him/her.

The only thing that matters in any of this is whether the referee believes that the ball was played to the goalkeeper deliberately. Did the defender want the ball to end up in the possession of the goalkeeper? You had to be there I recon.
 
Padfoot said:
I don't understand why anyone would consider this not to be a backpass?

Deliberately played towards the GK with enough force to reach them.......unless it was an obvious miskick (shank or slice) then I'm giving that all day long......

Your initial gut reaction was spot on....as they normally are when it comes to refereeing......it's only when we allow ourselves to start thinking about a decision that we normally talk ourselves into trouble.......
Click to expand...

Because the word 'to' in the law - 'deliberately kicked TO' isn't refererring to general direction but intended recipient.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Because the word 'to' in the law - 'deliberately kicked TO' isn't refererring to general direction but intended recipient.
Click to expand...

Which in this case the OP clearly felt it was.....only changing that opinion when it came to the crunch and he realised that he actually had to penalise it.

Rarely in refereeing is your first impression wrong....its only when referees start trying to find a reason not to give something do they start changing their minds.
 
The ball was kicked back to the defenders..... not a back pass..... the kicker meant it to reach the defenders..... not a back pass....... at this point the referee must realise the ball was meant for the defenders..... not a back pass...... it followed through to the keeper (bearing in mind the referee had made his mind up its a pass to the defenders) the keeper picks the ball up..... not a back pass... Definately one of those you have to be there to see if there was intent.
 
pankaye said:
Rarely, which means not always right
Click to expand...

To clarify then.....over the many years of refereeing, assisting, & assessing, I can count on one hand the amount of times that I have seen colleagues change their mind against their inital "gut" reaction and not cause themselves further problems, because they had it right the first time but then thought about it and came with something entirely different.

So when I use the word "rarely" it does allow some infinitesimally small wiggle room where on 1 occasion out of 100 the change of mind might end up with a correct decision.
Also, bear in mind there is a caveat to this......and it is that it all depends on what you saw. I'm not talking about occasions where you would have seen something different had you been in a different position on the pitch etc.....I'm talking about what you actually saw because that is what you have to base your decision on....if it transpires that had you been in a better or different position you would have seen something else which would have been a different decision, then that's a learning point for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top