Ipswich v Wolves

[ladbroke8745]

The backpass..

Is his mis control of the ball not considered an attempt to kick the ball and thus negates the awarding of a backpass?

 

[RustyRef]

Probably a bit of a push to say he meant to kick it, he meant to control it and I think the law change was designed to not penalise keepers when they take a swipe at a back pass and completely miskick it. Not penalising this would strike me as rewarding a mistake / lack of concentration.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

The relevant clause in law is 'unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play' which was clearly not the case.

 

[Archer]

C

Thread 'Inconsistent rules for second touch and keeper illegal handball?'

Apr 7, 2025

I am writing this because of the recent match between Ipswich vs Wolves, the Ipswich keeper handled the ball passed by his teammate to avoid an own goal. That should be a obvious goal scoring opportunity, but there is no sanction for the keeper, only an indirect free kick was given.

This is in line with the rule below:

If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart...

• CrossRef
• Replies: 21
• Forum: Laws of the game

 

[one]

designed to not penalise referees when they take a swipe at a back pass

I tried this a couple of times and didn't penalised myself for it. Because as you say, the law didn't intent to penalised me.

 

[RustyRef]

I tried this a couple of times and didn't penalised myself for it. Because as you say, the law didn't intent to penalised me.

I'd love to blame alcohol or predictive text, but this was just complete brain failure. Fixed it.