New goal kick trick

[Nij]

I expect to see a few teams trying to find different ways to bend the laws like this. Personally if I see a team do this I'll probably call it a moving ball the first time and say retake. "and while we're about it lads. We call that circumventing and it's a mandatory caution! Don't do it again!"
If the team have any sense (unlikely!) they'll say thanks and kick it properly. If they don't then the next time they try something clever they won't get a second chance.

If it's circumvention and a mandatory caution, why are you not giving a caution to anybody for doing it?

 

[markref]

If it's circumvention and a mandatory caution, why are you not giving a caution to anybody for doing it?

Because at the level I referee at these days (Sunday league) the players don’t know the law and I’m usually not looking for cheap cautions for “gotcha” technical offences that no one knows apart from a referee. If they’re on my case then they won’t get any warnings but as long as they’re reasonable then so will I be.
The first time I’ll explain, the next time they’re in the book.

 

[bester]

Agree that it is circumvention, has Elleray given a response yet?

Slightly different take ‘keeper kicks it along the floor and defender drops on the floor to head it back. Hmm..

 

[one]

Slightly different take ‘keeper kicks it along the floor and defender drops on the floor to head it back. Hmm..

See the definition of trick in my post earlier. Yep Caution.

An utterly unsurprising development. Nice that IFAB saw it coming and, er, oops, they were perhaps the only ones not seeing this coming.

I have been critical of IFAB many times before but I won't put this one on IFAB. There are already provisions in law to stops this from happening. This one is solely on the referee on the day. It's a clear trick to circumvent the law. I don't understand how he didn't see it that way.

So Peter, how far away do you think the defensive player needs to be before this becomes a legitimate part of the game rather than a deliberate trick? As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe many / any of us would have penalised a similar play last season with the defender standing on the edge of the area .....

Does distance really matter? If the are dong it deliberately to circumvent the law then its a caution even if it needs good skills and the chances of pulling it off is low. Its the intent that is cautioned. As the description say if you see it as "something from the training grounds" that means its rehearsed. If I see it as a rehearsed move I am cautioning it even if 20 meters away. If I have doubts, I'll warn the first time but the second time is no coincident.

Oh and OP is an IFK from the goal line.

 

[Nij]

Oh and OP is an IFK from the goal line.

Do you mean from the goal area line? Surely if we're only stopping to caution, it's the attack that will be awarded the kick? And if we're penalising otherwise, the attack won't be in the wrong?

 

[one]

Do you mean from the goal area line?

Yep.

 

[Peter Grove]

So Peter, how far away do you think the defensive player needs to be before this becomes a legitimate part of the game rather than a deliberate trick? As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe many / any of us would have penalised a similar play last season with the defender standing on the edge of the area .....

We've debated this several times in the past. Previously it was in the context of one player flicking it up for another either in open play or at a free kick - now we can add the goal kick scenario to the debate. As I recall, the consensus of opinion was usually that if the two players were standing right next to each other and especially if, as at a free kick, no opponent was (or could be) close enough to challenge for the ball, that should probably be seen as a deliberate trick to circumvent the law. If the players were further away, so the ball is not so much 'flicked up' as kicked in a more run-of-the-mill fashion, and/or with opponents in the vicinity who could intercept the ball, that would be less likely to be seen as a deliberate trick. In general, most people seemed to think that the greater the distance, the less obvious it would be that it was a deliberate trick.

However there's no set distance at which you can say, "Now, it's no longer a deliberate trick," and it's up to the referee to make a decision as Law 5 states, "to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the 'spirit of the game.'"

I think we should also apply the philosophy given in Circular 488 and which tells us:

The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the text and the spirit of Law 12, and the referee must only be convinced that this was the player’s motive.

So for me, it's not so much a question of the distance involved (though that's certainly a factor in helping the referee come to a conclusion) as it is the overall nature and circumstances being enough to convince the referee that the actions performed were deliberately intended as a means to circumvent the prohibition on deliberately kicking the ball to the keeper. As it says, if you're convinced of the player's motive, give the offence - if you're not convinced, don't.

 

[QuaverRef]

The law states this can be punished regardless if the player actually handles.

It does, but had the keeper chested the ball down and played on rather than catching the ball, none of us would have stopped play

 

[one]

It does, but had the keeper chested the ball down and played on rather than catching the ball, none of us would have stopped play

Ahhhm. Are you sure?

 

[santa sangria]

What's your logic on a retake?

At the end of Law 16 on goal kicks:
"For any other offence, the kick is retaken."

This is also debatable. If the outcome is a YC for the GK, based on the GK's original kick being an offence, then my take is then this line from Law 16 applies. I can also see an argument that the ball is in play after the GK's kick, therefore no retake. But that would mean that the GK's original kick only became an offence based on the actions of the defender - that seems wrong to me - at least it would seem wrong to then caution the GK - it should be YC for defender instead. If IFAB want the GK to be cautioned in the OP scenario then I think the ball was not in play, YC for GK and retake... but I'm open to offers!

Having followed my own logic... I am now thinking, why would that be any different for outside the box... I'm starting to think it's wrong to caution the GK and it should be the defender... and always IDFK as the ball was in play... I realise this isn't helping...

 

[one]

At the end of Law 16 on goal kicks:
"For any other offence, the kick is retaken."

This is also debatable. If the outcome is a YC for the GK, based on the GK's original kick being an offence, then my take is then this line from Law 16 applies. I can also see an argument that the ball is in play after the GK's kick, therefore no retake. But that would mean that the GK's original kick only became an offence based on the actions of the defender - that seems wrong to me - at least it would seem wrong to then caution the GK - it should be YC for defender instead. If IFAB want the GK to be cautioned in the OP scenario then I think the ball was not in play, YC for GK and retake... but I'm open to offers!

Having followed my own logic... I am now thinking, why would that be any different for outside the box... I'm starting to think it's wrong to caution the GK and it should be the defender... and always IDFK as the ball was in play... I realise this isn't helping...

A simpler way to think about it is that the punishment is not for an offence (infringement) of law 16, it is for an offence of the law 12 clause, 'backpass' (also see PG's quote from circular 488), which happens after the ball is in play. Therefore the law you quoted is not applicable.

 

[QuaverRef]

Ahhhm. Are you sure?

Yes, what's the trick there? It's no difference to passing it on the ground 2 yards and giving it straight back. Having the keeper chip the ball rather than passing it on the ground doesn't suddenly make it an offence

 

[Peter Grove]

Yes, what's the trick there? It's no difference to passing it on the ground 2 yards and giving it straight back. Having the keeper chip the ball rather than passing it on the ground doesn't suddenly make it an offence

Yes it does make it an offence. It makes it the offence of using a deliberate trick to circumvent the law.

The trick here (and as mentioned, it's exactly the same in essence as one of the tricks referred to when the "circumventing the law" provision was added) is flicking the ball up into the air so that the ball can be headed to the keeper instead of kicked, in order to circumvent the prohibition in law 12 on kicking the ball to the keeper.

And of course there's a difference to passing it on the ground 2 yards and having it passed straight back. If a ball on the ground were passed straight back (which would mean it being kicked) the keeper would not have been allowed to pick the ball up and throw it, which was what this ploy was designed to achieve.

In fact, that leads directly to the very pertinent question: if all the keeper wanted was to get the ball straight back so he could pick it up and throw it, why did he not just pass it along the ground? And the answer, as I just mentioned, is that this would have led to the ball being kicked to him and he would have been prohibited from touching it with the hands.

 

[QuaverRef]

Yes it does make it an offence. It makes it the offence of using a deliberate trick to circumvent the law.

The trick here (and as mentioned, it's exactly the same in essence as one of the tricks referred to when the "circumventing the law" provision was added) is flicking the ball up into the air so that the ball can be headed to the keeper instead of kicked, in order to circumvent the prohibition in law 12 on kicking the ball to the keeper.

And of course there's a difference to passing it on the ground 2 yards and having it passed straight back. If a ball on the ground were passed straight back (which would mean it being kicked) the keeper would not have been allowed to pick the ball up and throw it, which was what this ploy was designed to achieve.

In fact, that leads directly to the very pertinent question: if all the keeper wanted was to get the ball straight back so he could pick it up and throw it, why did he not just pass it along the ground? And the answer, as I just mentioned, is that this would have led to the ball being kicked to him and he would have been prohibited from touching it with the hands.

I think we are at crossed wires. I was being questioned why I wouldn't penalise the goalkeeper for NOT picking up the ball in this scenario.

 

[AlexF]

So, interesting update:

Denmark's FA has come out (in writing) and said that this is NOT allowed.
Dutch FA has come out (in writing) and said that this IS allowed.

A referee education group in Germany has stated that they have information via a UEFA member group from the IFAB saying it is allowed.
Apparently, some PGMOL coaches have been saying that this is allowed.

Neither of these latter groups have put anything clearly in writing for the public to see, so take those both with grains of salt at this time.

 

[one]

If this IS allowed then say goodbye to goal kicks as we know it. Given this only requires very basic skills, and just about every team prefers either a drop kick or distribution out of keeper's hands, we would hardly ever see a goal 'kick' kicked long or to a team mates feet.

Might as well change the law to allow keeper to restart out of his hands (like futsal).

 

[GraemeS]

If this IS allowed then say goodbye to goal kicks as we know it. Given this only requires very basic skills, and just about every team prefers either a drop kick or distribution out of keeper's hands, we would hardly ever see a goal 'kick' kicked long or to a team mates feet.

Agree completely. Either they're going to outlaw this, or we're <5 years away from GK's being abolished and replaced with playing on from hands in law.

 

[QuaverRef]

So, interesting update:

Denmark's FA has come out (in writing) and said that this is NOT allowed.
Dutch FA has come out (in writing) and said that this IS allowed.

A referee education group in Germany has stated that they have information via a UEFA member group from the IFAB saying it is allowed.
Apparently, some PGMOL coaches have been saying that this is allowed.

Neither of these latter groups have put anything clearly in writing for the public to see, so take those both with grains of salt at this time.

Without that being made as a public announcement, I won’t be allowing it. Allowing that at grassroots level is asking for trouble

 

[Ganajin]

I fully agree with Peter Grove and others that this is a form of circumvention. It's also fairly clear that it is a rehearsed move. My only disagreement is with Peter's choice of booking the GK. The actual part of Law 12 says it is a cautionable offence if a player :

"uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or
not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands."

So the trick is technically brought about when a player passes the ball to the GK...so it must be the player who gets cautioned here rather than the keeper. After all, the player need not head to the keeper, he could step back and chest the ball down and play on. I realise the keeper is also in on the circumvention, but the Law is surely clearly worded....caution the player who makes the pass.

If this IS allowed then say goodbye to goal kicks as we know it. Given this only requires very basic skills, and just about every team prefers either a drop kick or distribution out of keeper's hands, we would hardly ever see a goal 'kick' kicked long or to a team mates feet.

Might as well change the law to allow keeper to restart out of his hands (like futsal).

An interesting point is that trying to turn a goal kick into a ball in hand for the keeper was also a big problem in the 1930's. It had become a common practice for the full back to lift a goal kick straight into the keeper's hands, and he would then drop kick the ball into play (no back pass rule then). In 1936 the IFAB revised the goal kick Law (Law 7 in those days) to add the statement:

"It is not permissible for the goalkeeper to receive the ball into his hands from a goalkick by another player in order that he may thereafter kick it into play; the ball must be kicked directly from the goal area into play"

The following year(1937) it was clarified that this meant the ball had to leave the penalty area. Also free kicks in the area were added.

 

[Justylove]

If this IS allowed then say goodbye to goal kicks as we know it. Given this only requires very basic skills, and just about every team prefers either a drop kick or distribution out of keeper's hands, we would hardly ever see a goal 'kick' kicked long or to a team mates feet.

Might as well change the law to allow keeper to restart out of his hands (like futsal).

Attacking teams will adapt. They will charge the kick and in the time that it takes for the defender to head back and the keeper to catch it, the attacker will be in a position to challenge for the ball. Once teams come a cropper with it, it will soon stop.

Moderator edit: Replies took this off topic. Relevant part retained