A&H

Handling by GK after deliberate kick to a defender.

pankaye

pankaye

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
A full back passes a ball to his centre back inside his own penalty box but the GK s
shouts "leave it" and comes forward and scoops it up


According to LOTG

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his
own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
................
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him
by a team-mate


So by the letter of the law no offense has taken place since the pass wasn't aimed at him. Am I right in thinking so.

This situation hasn't happened to me (dare I say yet) but I have been thinking about it for a while.
 
The Referee Store
Assumption: no opponents distracted by the keeprs shout of leave it.

When you have finished telling opponents that simply shouting leave it is not a caution :D as long as you are happy that the intended target was not the goal keeper and this was just a cunning trick, then it's fine. Play on.

Keepers tend to be very cagey about picking up back passes, just in case. Especially this kind of situation, where the referee is invited to make a judgement call.

:)
 
My thinking is that it's still a deliberate kick like the law refers to. This is different to an intentional kick towards the defender so it would still be an IDFK?
 
That's where the judgement comes in. Was it to the teammate or the GK? If they're both in the vicinity, then it's a judgement that must be made. If there's some good distance between the two and the GK has to travel some serious distance to get it... then likely not to the GK there... :)
 
I've done some extra research and found this: (from here: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=53). I've highlighted the bits I think are important.

Question:
Please explain the goalkeeper back pass rule which says the goalkeeper can’t handle the ball when it is passed directly to him. I ask because I thought this rule was clear but I see professionals often doing what appears to be a clear violation or rules.

USSF answer (June 20, 2011):
The Law is clear: “An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, . . . touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.”

This rarely seen infringement came into the Laws of the Game in 1992 as part of the general effort to restrict opportunities for goalkeepers to waste time by unfairly withholding the ball from active challenge by taking possession of the ball with the hands. Other measures along the same lines include the 6-second limit on goalkeeper possession, the second possession restriction, and the throw-in to the goalkeeper by a teammate.

The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
– The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
– This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and
– The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)

When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.

When the teammate deliberately kicks the ball and it then goes to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can play it, then there is an infringement of the Law if the goalkeeper picks it up. It either happened or it did not. No intent necessary. Plain and simple.

In addition, the goalkeeper may leave the penalty area (which includes the goal area) and retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the penalty area and play it with his/her hands only if the ball was played (a) in any manner by an opponent or (b) by a teammate in a legal manner, i.e., not deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper or to a place where he or she could play it.

Referees, players, and spectators (which includes coaches) need to remember that there is no “intent” to be found in the ball deliberately kicked (and that means that the ball was kicked deliberately, not deflected or miskicked) that happens to go to the goalkeeper.

To answer the second part of your question, the referee is permitted to make a judgment (“if, in the opinion of the referee, . . .”) as to whether or not the player “intended” that the ball go wherever it went, but that judgment or opinion must be based on what the player actually did. In other words, we are not mind readers — in most cases — and must make our judgment based on clear and visible evidence. All of that is expressed in a position paper of May 21, 2008, as well as in the Advice to Referees.
 
In my opinion one of two things happens here... It's either a deliberate pass to the keeper, and therefore and IFK, or it's circumventing the law by the keeper and is a caution and an IFK...

Tbh I think everyone on the pitch will expect an IFK for a pass back, and that is what I would do
 
Just to be clear in this hypothetical situation the pass is across the face of the (i.e parallel to the goal) so it is absolutely clear that the pass was not to the Keeper
 
Kieran W said:
I've done some extra research and found this: (from here: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=53). I've highlighted the bits I think are important.

Question:
Please explain the goalkeeper back pass rule which says the goalkeeper can’t handle the ball when it is passed directly to him. I ask because I thought this rule was clear but I see professionals often doing what appears to be a clear violation or rules.

USSF answer (June 20, 2011):
The Law is clear: “An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, . . . touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.”

This rarely seen infringement came into the Laws of the Game in 1992 as part of the general effort to restrict opportunities for goalkeepers to waste time by unfairly withholding the ball from active challenge by taking possession of the ball with the hands. Other measures along the same lines include the 6-second limit on goalkeeper possession, the second possession restriction, and the throw-in to the goalkeeper by a teammate.

The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
– The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
– This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and
– The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)

When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.

When the teammate deliberately kicks the ball and it then goes to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can play it, then there is an infringement of the Law if the goalkeeper picks it up. It either happened or it did not. No intent necessary. Plain and simple.

In addition, the goalkeeper may leave the penalty area (which includes the goal area) and retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the penalty area and play it with his/her hands only if the ball was played (a) in any manner by an opponent or (b) by a teammate in a legal manner, i.e., not deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper or to a place where he or she could play it.

Referees, players, and spectators (which includes coaches) need to remember that there is no “intent” to be found in the ball deliberately kicked (and that means that the ball was kicked deliberately, not deflected or miskicked) that happens to go to the goalkeeper.

To answer the second part of your question, the referee is permitted to make a judgment (“if, in the opinion of the referee, . . .”) as to whether or not the player “intended” that the ball go wherever it went, but that judgment or opinion must be based on what the player actually did. In other words, we are not mind readers — in most cases — and must make our judgment based on clear and visible evidence. All of that is expressed in a position paper of May 21, 2008, as well as in the Advice to Referees.
Click to expand...

Isn't this just an american intepretation of the law?

Keith Hacket thinks otherwise in a similar (but not exact )sitauation
 
Kieran W said:
I've done some extra research and found this: (from here: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=53). I've highlighted the bits I think are important.
.....
and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.
Click to expand...

Kieran,

That's the problem with that passage right there. The USSF sometimes have their own....uh....'unique' interpretations of the law.
Everywhere in the world interpretes as 'deliberately kicked to him' as 'the act of kicking is deliberate' and 'the keeper is the intended target'. 'Deliberately kicked' and 'to' are of equal importance. The USSF chose to ignore the word 'to'. IMO that interpretation is clearly against the LOTG, but that's their decision. Not applicable anywhere else.

This is a crap situation to find yourself in as a referee.

1) Don't do anything, and the attacking team will complain

2) Award an IFK, know that you've just made up the laws to suit yourself (especially if a goal is scored as a result), and the defending team will complain anyway

3) Award a caution + IFK for USB (the circumvention bit). That works within the laws, but is overly harsh - and then players won't understand why a 'backpass' is now a yellow card.

You're screwed either way. Just stick to the laws. I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty guilty if I made up laws just because it's 'easier' and a goal was scored. The LOTG is quite clear that there's no IFK here.

But I'd be telling the keeper that if he does it again, I'll consider it circumvention and booking him.

Of course, if there's any possible way I could argue that the pass was intended for the keeper and he was just making sure the teammate didn't intervene, then that's enough for an IFK for me :p
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Kieran,

That's the problem with that passage right there. The USSF sometimes have their own....uh....'unique' interpretations of the law.
Everywhere in the world interpretes as 'deliberately kicked to him' as 'the act of kicking is deliberate' and 'the keeper is the intended target'. 'Deliberately kicked' and 'to' are of equal importance. The USSF chose to ignore the word 'to'. IMO that interpretation is clearly against the LOTG, but that's their decision. Not applicable anywhere else.

This is a crap situation to find yourself in as a referee.

1) Don't do anything, and the attacking team will complain

2) Award an IFK, know that you've just made up the laws to suit yourself (especially if a goal is scored as a result), and the defending team will complain anyway

3) Award a caution + IFK for USB (the circumvention bit). That works within the laws, but is overly harsh - and then players won't understand why a 'backpass' is now a yellow card.

You're screwed either way. Just stick to the laws. I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty guilty if I made up laws just because it's 'easier' and a goal was scored. The LOTG is quite clear that there's no IFK here.

But I'd be telling the keeper that if he does it again, I'll consider it circumvention and booking him.

Of course, if there's any possible way I could argue that the pass was intended for the keeper and he was just making sure the teammate didn't intervene, then that's enough for an IFK for me :p
Click to expand...
Doubt you'd get any complaints for giving a back pass...
 
The law does say though deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
Click to expand...

In any given situation where a 'pass back' occurs the ball has always been kicked 'to him', the goalkeeper. In this hypothetical situation you are judging whether the pass was 'meant' for the goalkeeper which IMO is judging the 'intent' of the player. No?
 
Kieran W said:
“An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, . . . touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.”
and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.

When the teammate deliberately kicks the ball and it then goes to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can play it, then there is an infringement of the Law if the goalkeeper picks it up. It either happened or it did not. No intent necessary. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Bull :poop: (in a Karl Pilkington way)

It is clear from the LOTG that the ball does have to be kicked to the keeper deliberately. It says so in the Laws. So how the USSF can then go onto say that the ball doesn't have to be kicked to the keeper is beyond me. And then to expand on this later by saying that when a teammate kicks the ball and it doesn't have to be played deliberately to the goal keeper again is beyond me. In theory then the defender could go to clear it, slice it and the keeper wouldn't be able to clear it up.

Another load of illogical thinking from the septics!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top