Circumvention

[Southend-ref]

In the case of an ordinary back pass, the IDFK is taken from where the 'keeper picks it up as that is where the offence has taken place, so in the case of circumvention, is it taken instead from where the player circumvents the law as this is the offence?

 

[Mick.]

Oooh. Good exam question. Im going for where the circumvention happened as that I'd the offence.

 

[MattyontheWhistle]

Oooh. Good exam question. Im going for where the circumvention happened as that I'd the offence.

Depends on the circumvention.........

If, as has been discussed on other threads, the defender gets on his knees to head the ball to his GK, is that an offence if the GK doesn't pick it up?

 

[Southend-ref]

Depends on the circumvention.........

If, as has been discussed on other threads, the defender gets on his knees to head the ball to his GK, is that an offence if the GK doesn't pick it up?

I'd say it is - the intentions are there so he is still circumventing the law.

 

[MattyontheWhistle]

I'd say it is - the intentions are there so he is still circumventing the law.

Can see that the intention is there, but is 'attempting to circumvent ' punishable, and has the law been circumvented if the keeper uses his feet instead of hands? What advantage has been gained by the header?

 

[Southend-ref]

I've found the answer to both my question and the subsequent question on page 123:

"uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and spirit of Law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick"

 

[Mick.]

Yeah. That's what I meant

 

[Ryan Owens]

No, the offense is still the GK handling the ball when it has been played back to him. The circumvention is simply a case of misconduct, not a foul in and of itself.

 

[Southend-ref]

No, the offense is still the GK handling the ball when it has been played back to him. The circumvention is simply a case of misconduct, not a foul in and of itself.

See page 123, I am quoting directly:

"the offence is committed by the player"

 

[Ryan Owens]

Yes the misconduct offense. However the foul is still the GK handling the ball after it has been played by a teammate.

 

[Southend-ref]

Yes the misconduct offense. However the foul is still the GK handling the ball after it has been played by a teammate.

But you will penalise the circumvention before the keeper does or does not pick up the ball, so it is out of play then so it isn't actually an offence.

 

[Ryan Owens]

No, because we don't know that he is circumventing the laws until the other law is broken.

 

[Southend-ref]

Read the law again, "irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands"

 

[Top man in the parish]

Southend Ref is bang on Ryan, it matters not if the GK ever touches the ball, the 'trick' is the offence, ifk + yellow in this corner.

There's no such thing as a 'back pass' by the way, that's a myth, direction plays no part, it's just 'played by a team mate', bringing it under control and walking away from it for the gk to pick up, circumvention? 'back pass'? or both?