'Backpass'
- Thread starter one
- Start date
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Here's where we use our understanding of the law. Why would you be allowed to use your arms and not your hands? Makes no sense. Sounds like BS or a misunderstanding.
No here's where we carry out the Laws as written. The "backpass" Law clearly says "hands", so why on earth include arms at all? The Law was brought in to stop timewasting (ie a goalkeeper picking up the ball from a team mate and holding on to it ) so forbidding hands only makes sense. Let's not confuse this with a Deliberate Handling offence where the Law DOES say "hands or arms"
one
RefChat Addict
Would you consider the keeper to be in control of the ball if the ball is on the ground and the keeper is holding it down with his forearm on it?
Maybe they should consider the hands & arms touch question differently. Its always been strange that the hand rule extends up as far as it does!!
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I think there's a few posts on here now that have adequately responded to this. One of the problems with the laws is that they never appear to have been proofread.
Additionally, if there was a specific law change to permit the keeper to use their arms but not their hands, this would be noted along with where all the other law changes are noted. It hasn't been, ergo there's no law change. The only logical conclusion, then, is that it's example #43532532634 of poor writing in the LOTG.
one
RefChat Addict
Can he be challenged while in control of the ball in that manner?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Would you allow them to remain in that position for more than 6 seconds?
one
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
Control, backpass and challenge, in regards to goal keepers are all defined in the same context. Clearly from the 6 second clause and the challenge clause 'hands' also includes arms. They wont make sense as a whole if it didn't. Its only logical that the backpass clause works the same. We either use the clear wording as its written literally or we don't (in this case we don't). Specially when all written in the same context.
As Capn pointed out, yet another case of poor wording causing unnecessary debate and confusion.
As Capn pointed out, yet another case of poor wording causing unnecessary debate and confusion.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Sorry. I'll try to be less thunderous from now on.You are stealing my thunder @CapnBloodbeard
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
As I recall how that went, someone did email the IFAB, involving a slightly unusual scenario where the keeper had not tried to use the hands/arms but where the ball had bobbled up just as the keeper had tried to kick it and deflected accidentally onto the keeper's arm. They initially got a response simply stating that using the arms would not be an offence because the law only mentions hands but when this was queried and further examples given, a somewhat ambiguous 'clarification' followed which more or less said that using the arms would probably be an offence in most circumstances although not if totally accidental as in the original scenario that had been posited.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I remember that query being sent, and maybe my memory is off but I thought the reasoning was that, even though the LOTG doesn't specify deliberate handling in this offence, that an accidental handling should still be let go. I thought it was the intent that was the issue, not which body part was used.
In otherwords, the LOTG stating that it's an offence if the keeper handles the ball rather than if the keeper deliberately handles the ball is an omission and we should effectively apply the latter.
In otherwords, the LOTG stating that it's an offence if the keeper handles the ball rather than if the keeper deliberately handles the ball is an omission and we should effectively apply the latter.
Diverting the topic a bit (I do apologise);
I saw a bizarre example of a backpass given over on reddit - there's a video somewhere, but it's not very clear.
Basically the defender kicks the ball deliberately to the keeper, but rather than pass it, it was more like a shot. The keeper had to dive and punch it away. The referee called it as a backpass.
I thought that was a bit harsh. Any thoughts on that?
I saw a bizarre example of a backpass given over on reddit - there's a video somewhere, but it's not very clear.
Basically the defender kicks the ball deliberately to the keeper, but rather than pass it, it was more like a shot. The keeper had to dive and punch it away. The referee called it as a backpass.
I thought that was a bit harsh. Any thoughts on that?
You basically answered your own question. I'd need to see the video but if it wasn't a mis-kicked clearance then it's probably the right decision.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
You can't see much in the video.
Now, at first I thought 'I can't be sure it was intended for the keeper rather than a bad attempt at clearing it over the goal line' ,so no offence. But the OP then said that the defender actually called out 'keeper' before he did it. So, it was a deliberate kick with the keeper as the intended recipient. The fact that it was going in the goal is irrelevant. You'd award it, smile at the keeper and tell him he made the right decision!
I recall the debate about the use of the shin in the backpass debate which after many years was clarified to only include the foot. I argued that if it looked like a kick it should be called. I still think at speed refs will struggle with a shin kick as not the use of the foot!
This is somewhat similar in that backpass Law only mentions hands not arms. I recall the IFAB clarification and what I took from it was that if a GK elbowed a bouncing ball on a backpass there was no offence and that only the use of the hands was illegal. The outlier situations that were put to IFAB clearly where advised as offences of "holding" the ball with the arms only. Those could not be ignored and perhaps circumventing the hands not being used.
In this video does the goalkeeper use his hands?
I would say not as it is at best arms yet the referee has no hesitation in calling the IDFK. The GK certainly does not agree with the call as he believes he uses his body with the hands not used. I would say most if not all referees would call this as it looks Like the use of hands and arms.
This is somewhat similar in that backpass Law only mentions hands not arms. I recall the IFAB clarification and what I took from it was that if a GK elbowed a bouncing ball on a backpass there was no offence and that only the use of the hands was illegal. The outlier situations that were put to IFAB clearly where advised as offences of "holding" the ball with the arms only. Those could not be ignored and perhaps circumventing the hands not being used.
In this video does the goalkeeper use his hands?