The Ref Stop

Fleetwood v Leicester

J

JD1

New Member
Wondering if someone could help with this.

For those who may not have seen it, I will try paint the scenario.

Defender has, with clear intent, attempted to pass back to his goalkeeper, the ball then travels beyond the goalkeeper and towards the goal line, the goalkeeper uses his hand to prevent (or deny) the ball from crossing the line.

Other than the clear award of an IFK, (which wasn't called, but also funny to hear Dan Walker comment 'Would have been interesting to see the IFK so close to the goal!')

Can this be looked at in the context of denying a clear goal scoring opportunity? There was no opposition player in the vicinity of the goalkeeper at the time.

Interested to hear your thoughts.
 
The Ref Stop
Saw it on motd, has to be penalised for me, it's an intentional pass which is then handled by the keeper. Can't be further penalised with red / yellow card though
 
Here are two really crappy views of it:

https://streamable.com/bwrxt

https://streamable.com/6czrf

I've not seen anything better, but my take from both of these is that the player takes that ball coming toward him, and just hits it toward his goal line to clear it away from where he is. Yes, he gives the GK a "thumbs up" after, but my gut feel is that's a "thank you for saving my ass on that almost own goal".

I don't see this as being a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper.
 
For me that is 100% a deliberate kick to the keeper, no doubt whatsoever. He wasn't under pressure, and if he was going to blindly clear it then it would have gone to the touchline or back up field.
 
JD1 said:
Wondering if someone could help with this.

For those who may not have seen it, I will try paint the scenario.

Defender has, with clear intent, attempted to pass back to his goalkeeper, the ball then travels beyond the goalkeeper and towards the goal line, the goalkeeper uses his hand to prevent (or deny) the ball from crossing the line.

Other than the clear award of an IFK, (which wasn't called, but also funny to hear Dan Walker comment 'Would have been interesting to see the IFK so close to the goal!')

Can this be looked at in the context of denying a clear goal scoring opportunity? There was no opposition player in the vicinity of the goalkeeper at the time.

Interested to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...
I asked this very specific scenario from David Elleray a few months ago.

There has been many arguments here and other places about if the the save is considered a handling related offence which the keeper can't be sanctioned for. The counter argument is you are sanctioning for a 'back-pass' offence and not a handling related offence so the sanctioning is valid. I was in the second group and hence my question to David Elleray to clarify.

David Elleray's response considered this a handling related offence within the current law interpretation with no sanction (but he wished to change it in the future).

The fact that there is no opponent in the vicinity makes no difference after the change of DOGSO definition ..."denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity"... in the 17/18 lotg (confirmed by Mr Elleray).
 
As luck would have it, yesterday I gave my first IDFK for this offence in over three years! Ball deliberately kicked to GK who miscontroled it, ball starts spinning towards goal and he dives to touch it round the post! Indirect free kick just outside the goal area, always a nighmare to manage but got there eventually and keeper made a great save to spare his blushes ... :)

Interestingly no complaints about the decision from anyone involved, neither the IDFK itself or the lack of further sanction ... was two Under 16 academy teams though, so good to see they are well drilled!
 
Russell Jones said:
As luck would have it, yesterday I gave my first IDFK for this offence in over three years! Ball deliberately kicked to GK who miscontroled it, ball starts spinning towards goal and he dives to touch it round the post! Indirect free kick just outside the goal area, always a nighmare to manage but got there eventually and keeper made a great save to spare his blushes ... :)

Interestingly no complaints about the decision from anyone involved, neither the IDFK itself or the lack of further sanction ... was two Under 16 academy teams though, so good to see they are well drilled!
Click to expand...

Well done - I agree on course of action but guessing the lack of argument equates to lack of knowledge about LOTG!;)

I had to explain to an U16 player yesterday how coming from inside the goal onto fop to play the ball meant he was offside.

Seemed to accept it in the end!
 
I think it can often be instructive to go back and look at how and why a particular law change was brought in, to get a better feel for the intent behind the law which can then (in my opinion) sometimes lead us to a better understanding of the 'spirit of the game' in relation to the issue in question.

The law prohibiting a goalkeeper from using the hands when the ball is deliberately kicked to them by a team mate was brought in to prevent the chronic time-wasting that had become common in the late eighties and early nineties. The situation it was designed to combat was reflected in the 1990 FIFA Q&A which talks about the scenario which was all too prevalent at the time, in the following words:

''A goalkeeper kicks the ball to a player of his team. This player passes the ball back to the goalkeeper, who then returns it once more, either to the same player or another. This action is repeated several times. Should this conduct be regarded as time−wasting ...''

Although the description does not make it clear, the way this worked was that the goalkeeper would always pick the ball up (so the opponent had no chance of challenging for possession) before returning it to another defender and repeating the same sequence over and over to waste time, since the law allowed the keeper to use their hands whenever the ball was in the penalty area, no matter how it got there. This would normally occur towards the end of the game, when a team was narrowly ahead and trying to hang on to a lead.

Although the Q&A response at the time said that this could either be penalised by the award of an IFK or not, based on whether the referee considered it constituted time wasting, by 1992 (and following an experiment in a FIFA U17 tournament in Italy in 1991) the so-called 'back pass rule' was adopted since, in the words of the IFAB, it had proved to be ''a very successful measure against timewasting.''

Based on the wording used both in the Q&A and in the IFAB meeting, it seems clear to me that the intent of the law was to prevent a specific type of time wasting. It was not intended to be a prohibition on a goalkeeper fulfilling what I think is the main reason why goalkeepers exist in the first place, which is to be able to use their hands to prevent a goal being scored against their team.

So for me, penalising a keeper for using the hands when the ball, although deliberately kicked, has ended up being unintentionally directed towards the defender's own goal, and the only way the keeper can stop it is by diving full length to tip it round the post, is not accord with the spirit of the law as originally intended by the IFAB, even if it could indeed be judged as against the letter of the law as it stands.
 
Peter Grove said:
I think it can often be instructive to go back and look at how and why a particular law change was brought in, to get a better feel for the intent behind the law which can then (in my opinion) sometimes lead us to a better understanding of the 'spirit of the game' in relation to the issue in question.

The law prohibiting a goalkeeper from using the hands when the ball is deliberately kicked to them by a team mate was brought in to prevent the chronic time-wasting that had become common in the late eighties and early nineties. The situation it was designed to combat was reflected in the 1990 FIFA Q&A which talks about the scenario which was all too prevalent at the time, in the following words:

''A goalkeeper kicks the ball to a player of his team. This player passes the ball back to the goalkeeper, who then returns it once more, either to the same player or another. This action is repeated several times. Should this conduct be regarded as time−wasting ...''

Although the description does not make it clear, the way this worked was that the goalkeeper would always pick the ball up (so the opponent had no chance of challenging for possession) before returning it to another defender and repeating the same sequence over and over to waste time, since the law allowed the keeper to use their hands whenever the ball was in the penalty area, no matter how it got there. This would normally occur towards the end of the game, when a team was narrowly ahead and trying to hang on to a lead.

Although the Q&A response at the time said that this could either be penalised by the award of an IFK or not, based on whether the referee considered it constituted time wasting, by 1992 (and following an experiment in a FIFA U17 tournament in Italy in 1991) the so-called 'back pass rule' was adopted since, in the words of the IFAB, it had proved to be ''a very successful measure against timewasting.''

Based on the wording used both in the Q&A and in the IFAB meeting, it seems clear to me that the intent of the law was to prevent a specific type of time wasting. It was not intended to be a prohibition on a goalkeeper fulfilling what I think is the main reason why goalkeepers exist in the first place, which is to be able to use their hands to prevent a goal being scored against their team.

So for me, penalising a keeper for using the hands when the ball, although deliberately kicked, has ended up being unintentionally directed towards the defender's own goal, and the only way the keeper can stop it is by diving full length to tip it round the post, is not accord with the spirit of the law as originally intended by the IFAB, even if it could indeed be judged as against the letter of the law as it stands.
Click to expand...


See your logic Peter, but IMHO that's stretching 'spirit of the game' point a little too far. In this specific instance although its debateable if the defender meant to kick the ball towards the GK ( I think he did) he certainly meant to kick it towards his own goal. By not penalising in this, and similar instances, you are giving an unfair advantage to the GK - effectively saying its OK to kick the a ball to the GK as long as its not meant to waste time.

On a related law you could, by your logic, argue that we shouldn't penalising GKs for touching the ball again after its been released if its not done to waste time? I'm a fan of 'spirit of the game' but don't think we should ignore clear law to embrace it.
 
PinnerPaul said:
- effectively saying its OK to kick the a ball to the GK as long as its not meant to waste time.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying (and didn't say) that at all. In most cases when the keeper uses hands to touch the ball after a deliberate kick by a team mate, it is not done because it's the only possible way to prevent a goal being scored and I'm OK with the idea that in these situations we shouldn't have to judge whether the intent was to waste time. Whether it was or wasn't, the end result is that in most such cases the keeper would take possession of the ball and it would use up time, so it's still reasonably close to the original intent of the law.

However I am saying that in what I think is a fundamentally different scenario to the regular 'back pass' situation, if the only way a keeper can stop a goal being scored against his team is to dive full length and when even then, he can only just get fingertips to it and push it around the post for a corner, that is so far removed from the original intent of the law and moreover for me, it represents a perversion of the whole function and reasoning behind having a goalkeeper to say that they are not allowed to use the hands and that, in order to stay within the law, a keeper must therefore just stand there and watch the ball sail into the net without trying to stop it.

Incidentally, you will no doubt be aware that this is not the first time that a keeper has had to make a save like this from a back pass and not had a free kick given against them, I can recall many such instances. In contrast, I'm struggling to remember an example of a goalkeeper being penalised for using the hands in this way when it was the only way to prevent a goal being scored and I would have to think that this is because (apparently) the referees in question also felt that it would not be within the spirit of the game to penalise a goalkeeper for simply fulfilling their primary function.
 
Peter Grove said:
Incidentally, you will no doubt be aware that this is not the first time that a keeper has had to make a save like this from a back pass and not had a free kick given against them, I can recall many such instances. In contrast, I'm struggling to remember an example of a goalkeeper being penalised for using the hands in this way when it was the only way to prevent a goal being scored and I would have to think that this is because (apparently) the referees in question also felt that it would not be within the spirit of the game to penalise a goalkeeper for simply fulfilling their primary function.
Click to expand...

the defending team makes a huge **** up and the only way they can prevent a legal goal being scored is to break the laws, it has to be penalised and i would say it's not within the spirit of the game not to award it!
 
I was of the impression "spirit of the game" was for instances where there were no provisions in law.
It certainly cant and should not be used to circumvent written laws and or ignore the appropriate sanctions which, all be it not in your case Peter, I see some posts insinuate as reasoning for not doing so.
Whilst i commend you Peter for your thorough and in depth knowledge of law and its history, and I find a great deal of what you post incredibly interesting, I personally feel we should always apply the laws as they are written in the current edition. I think that it can be healthy to have an understanding of why changes were/are being introduced but we cant expect a new referee, player, club official or spectator know why the 'passback rule'was introduced in 1992 to then form a basis for an in game decision. But what we should expect is that they know current law and how it should be applied in its current form.
For me, this is a back pass. I happen to agree that the keeper should not be expected to watch it sail into his goal. But i also think that the team that ballsed up should suffer any related snction or standard restarts that come about from their mishappen just as they would / should anywhere else on field of play e.g mis placed pass can award the opposing team a corner kick for example which is a good attacking opportunity.
 
Peter Grove said:
I think it can often be instructive to go back and look at how and why a particular law change was brought in, to get a better feel for the intent behind the law which can then (in my opinion) sometimes lead us to a better understanding of the 'spirit of the game' in relation to the issue in question.

The law prohibiting a goalkeeper from using the hands when the ball is deliberately kicked to them by a team mate was brought in to prevent the chronic time-wasting that had become common in the late eighties and early nineties. The situation it was designed to combat was reflected in the 1990 FIFA Q&A which talks about the scenario which was all too prevalent at the time, in the following words:

''A goalkeeper kicks the ball to a player of his team. This player passes the ball back to the goalkeeper, who then returns it once more, either to the same player or another. This action is repeated several times. Should this conduct be regarded as time−wasting ...''

Although the description does not make it clear, the way this worked was that the goalkeeper would always pick the ball up (so the opponent had no chance of challenging for possession) before returning it to another defender and repeating the same sequence over and over to waste time, since the law allowed the keeper to use their hands whenever the ball was in the penalty area, no matter how it got there. This would normally occur towards the end of the game, when a team was narrowly ahead and trying to hang on to a lead.

Although the Q&A response at the time said that this could either be penalised by the award of an IFK or not, based on whether the referee considered it constituted time wasting, by 1992 (and following an experiment in a FIFA U17 tournament in Italy in 1991) the so-called 'back pass rule' was adopted since, in the words of the IFAB, it had proved to be ''a very successful measure against timewasting.''

Based on the wording used both in the Q&A and in the IFAB meeting, it seems clear to me that the intent of the law was to prevent a specific type of time wasting. It was not intended to be a prohibition on a goalkeeper fulfilling what I think is the main reason why goalkeepers exist in the first place, which is to be able to use their hands to prevent a goal being scored against their team.

So for me, penalising a keeper for using the hands when the ball, although deliberately kicked, has ended up being unintentionally directed towards the defender's own goal, and the only way the keeper can stop it is by diving full length to tip it round the post, is not accord with the spirit of the law as originally intended by the IFAB, even if it could indeed be judged as against the letter of the law as it stands.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree Peter as I think the logical conclusion when, as in this case, the referee does not award a free kick, is that he feels that the kick was not a 'deliberate kick' to the GK. That, to me, is a much more likely thought process than over thinking the purpose of the law.

In a match this season when I was AR, ref penalised GK for picking up the ball after it had been released. It was clear there was no intention to waste time, the GK just made a simple mistake - still had to be penalised though.
 
PinnerPaul said:
We'll have to agree to disagree Peter as I think the logical conclusion when, as in this case, the referee does not award a free kick, is that he feels that the kick was not a 'deliberate kick' to the GK. That, to me, is a much more likely thought process than over thinking the purpose of the law.

In a match this season when I was AR, ref penalised GK for picking up the ball after it had been released. It was clear there was no intention to waste time, the GK just made a simple mistake - still had to be penalised though.
Click to expand...

I just personally think the referee has had a brain freeze and missed the implications of what he was seeing. We've all done it, like when I blew for offside when my assistant flagged from a goal kick and the attacker was through on goal. Equally, or perhaps more likely, the lack of reaction and appeals by the Fleetwood players made his mind up for him, and the easier decision was giving the corner (lets not forget that there were no on-pitch complaints).
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Totally agree with @JamesL

Here is another reason. So lets say the ball was caught instead of being tipped around the post (obviously it should result in the same decision of penalising or not). The keeper then punts it 60 yards and his striker gives chase and 5 seconds later its a goal at the other end. Now we have a team who pushed player forward and pressure the opponents into a mistake and infringing the laws of the game, yet a goal was scored against them as a result. Surly not the spirit of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top