- 11 Jun 08, 01:39 PM
Question
A Czech Republic midfielder misjudges a pass back to his centre-half. An opposition forward, spotting his chance, races in to challenge. The quick-thinking centre-half, feints to play the ball, but without touching it, he allows it to pass through his legs to his goalkeeper, who had sensed the danger and had run to the edge of the penalty box and then picks up the ball. Because the centre-half never touched the ball, the forward immediately claims it is a backpass to the goalkeeper. He screams for a free-kick to be awarded.
Is he right? What would you do in this situation?
Thank you to japhakayk for this suggestion.
We will provide the answer from You Are The Ref's Keith Hackett on Thursday.
BBC Sport Euro 2008
Who are you supporting in Austria and Switzerland? Share your thoughts on all things Euro 2008 with our BBC Sport experts.
Fletch's view of Euro 2008
Recent Comments
- vikrulz on You Are The Ref #13
- vikrulz on You Are The Ref #13
- swampeemarsh on You Are The Ref #13
- BlueStarIT on You Are The Ref #13
- goalie_up_front on You Are The Ref #13
Teams
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Podcast
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
No, can't be a freekick
Complain about this comment
Yes, indirect free-kick to the Czechs because the goalkeeper has played a back-pass with his hands. It does not matter that the orginal ball was or may not have been played to him. It is a deliberate pass from a team-mate and he should not pick it up or play it with his hands.
Complain about this comment
Well, difficult situation. Midfielder wasn't passing the ball to keeper on purpose, so from that point of view it shouldn't be a free kick. What we have to judge is the movement of centre-half. It's a little like with Panucci injury, which made van Nistelrooy goal onside. In this situation I would say that centre-half behaviour had influence on the game, he did deliberately and it should be free kick.
Complain about this comment
its not a back pass because the pass was not directed to the goalkeeper directly. the pass back rule applies only to direct pass to the keeper. the fact that the defender doesnt touch it is just good defending.
if was given against me i would go mad
Complain about this comment
technically, thats a pass back isnt it. im not sure about this one - i'd probably give the attacker the benefit because it would make it more interesting.
Complain about this comment
In this instance the pass back was not intended for the Keeper so therefore is not an offence.
Complain about this comment
how is this anything like the panucci, van nistelrooy offside! completely different in all respects!
Complain about this comment
There is nothing in law about the ball having to be played deliberately to the goalkeeper. It is all about whether the pass was a controlled movement with the foot after which the goalkeeper has to make a decision. In this case he knows the ball has been played with the foot by a team-mate, the centre-half has (because he is under pressure) allowed the ball to run through to the keeper who then picks up a deliberate pass.
Indirect free-kick from where the keeper played the ball. He has committed the offence.
Complain about this comment
Where was panucci when the ball was played
Complain about this comment
The midfielder has not played a deliberate pass back to his goalkeeper, but to his centre half. If the centre half mis-controls and it bounces back to his keeper or fails to make contact and it runs through to the keeper, there was no intention to play the ball back to the keeper in the first place so no offence has been committed, play on boys. If the forward continues to scream, warn him that his behaviour is likely to result in a caution for dissent.
Complain about this comment
2 - edit from Yorkshireref
''Yes, indirect free-kick to the Czechs because the goalkeeper has played a back-pass with his hands.''
.... I meant free kick to the opponents of the Czechs (before anyone jumps all over me).
Complain about this comment
Common sense says no free kick. The midfielder did not direct the ball at the goalkeeper. The defender was wily. However, if I was the goalkeeper, I would have kicked it away just to be sure!
Complain about this comment
The question here is was it an intentional pass to the keeper. You can not claim that the pass from the midfielder is to the keeper, as it is aimed towards the centre-back. But does leaving the ball count as an intentional pass-back? The answer is no. Here is my reasoning.
Say a Czech centre-back try's to clear the ball towards the opposition's goal, BUT it hits a Czech midfielder's back and deflects back towards the goal. The goalkeeper picks it up legally. Where is the difference? There is no intention from the midfielder in my opinion and therefore it is not a pass back.
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref said "There is nothing in law about the ball having to be played deliberately to the goalkeeper."
Actually, there is. The relevant law states "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 team-mate."
So if it hasn't been deliberately kicked *to him* then there is no offence.
Complain about this comment
13 - thegreatleader
The difference in your scenario is that the last part of a Czech player to touch the ball, was his back and it was a deflection.
Complain about this comment
By comparing this case to van Nistelrooy goal, I thought about the movement of the player (or lack of movement) - Panucci didn't touch the ball and any of the players, but his behaviour had great influence on the game. He could as well walk behind the goal himself and he still would be counted as playing. The centre-half didn't touch the ball deliberately and also influenced the game. What I'm saying is that, not only when you're talking about offside, the movement of players should be taken into account.
Complain about this comment
Agree with 14.
Complain about this comment
14 - richiebenaud
Referees are taught that the key to this is the bit about the ''deliberate kick'' not the ''to him'' part.
In this scenario the Czech player has deliberately kicked the ball. The keeper has made the wrong choice in picking up this ball from a ''deliberate kick'' - it's not relevant whether the ball was aimed ''to him''.
I'll give you a for-instance. If a defending player plays the ball ten yards wide of his keeper, do you think he should be allowed to pick that ball up? What if the pass was 15/20 yards wide of him?
Hope that example underlines the point that the ''to him'' bit is not taken literally.
Complain about this comment
never a free kick
Complain about this comment
Indirect free kick I think.
The goalkeeper knew one his team mates was the last to touch the ball and send it is his direction. He cannot be sure the pass was not in fact intended for him in the first place and underhit?. He therefore should have cleared it with his feet to be on the safe side unless he saw an indication from the ref that he was allowed to pick it up.
Complain about this comment
no back pass as the ball was clearly ment for the defender, who of course missed it. The keeper has recived the ball without there being any other play from his team. lol
Complain about this comment
Didn't this happen in a Champions League game a few years ago between Barca and Liverpool? If I remember right a free kick was awarded.
I think a free kick should only be awarded if the keeper prevented the striker playing the ball.
Complain about this comment
no back pass as it wasnt intentionally passed back to the keeper
Complain about this comment
The ball was a deliberately kicked pass by a team-mate, and thus the keeper can't handle.
It doesn't even matter if the ball, indeed travels backwards, so the term 'backpass law' is a bit misleading.
Indirect freekick at the spot of the handling.
Complain about this comment
I would say a free kick should be given as the centre half has contrived a way to try to get round the back pass rule.
Like people before have said an unintentional deflection etc shouldn't result in a back pass but a deliberate dummy to allow the ball to reach the keeper should, in my view, be treated as a backpass
Complain about this comment
Play on....
Complain about this comment
It would be obvious, from the referee’s perspective, that the pass was not intended for the keeper. However, the fact remains that the ball was intentionally passed backwards in the direction of the keeper. Because of the fact that the Czechs gain an advantage from this deliberate pass back and the subsequent pickup, I would award an indirect free kick.
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref asked "If a defending player plays the ball ten yards wide of his keeper, do you think he should be allowed to pick that ball up? What if the pass was 15/20 yards wide of him?"
This should depend on who else is around. If the keeper is clearly the nearest player to the ball then the ref will probably decide that the purpose of the kick was "to him". If there is another defender closer to where the ball was played then perhaps the ref will decide that the kick wasn't "to him".
Your argument seems to be that referees don't referee according to the laws of the game, which we all know to be true. But they should, and the law seems pretty clear on this. Otherwise, why does it include the words "to him"?
Complain about this comment
No free kick, play continues. The original pass was not deliberately meant for the goalkeeper, the pass back was not intentional as it was meant for the defender. The goalkeeper is perfectly within the law to pick up the ball as there was no intent for the ball to be a back-pass.
Complain about this comment
I'm thinking it's just play on, as the pass wasn't a deliberate 'back-pass' to the 'keeper.
If a defender slices a clearance, the 'keeper can pick up the ball, as there was no intent to give the back to him. I can't see how this is any different ??
Of course, ultimately it depends on how the ref interprets 'intent' ...
Complain about this comment
It was a controlled pass back towards his own goal, it does not matter if it was intended for the centre-half, it is still a back pass. if the centre-half went for the ball, but only clipped it or mis-hit it, and the keeper picked the ball up, then it is ok as it was not a controlled pass to the keeper.
answer: indirect free-kick to attacking side for pass back from where keeper picked up the ball. Although it wouldn't make much difference with the mighty keeper, Petr Cech in goal, they attacking side will not score. =)
Complain about this comment
Technically this isn't a free kick as it is not an intentional pass back to the goalkeeper. Play would continue.
A similar thing happened in a Rangers European game when Kirk Broadfoot went to clear the ball but totally misjudged his kick and the ball flew up in the air and back into the arms of Alan McGregor. It was clear this was not intentional and so play continued although there were a few protests from the opposition team.
Complain about this comment
28 - richiebenaud
Sorry, but you are over-complicating things. There is no reference to whether other people are around or who was closest to the ball.
You can either take my word for it or not, that the key part of the law you are quoting is the ''deliberate kick'' part of it.
I am not arguing referees don't ref to the rules. They know them and they are taught the various interpretations of them and the work through the scenarios - like this one - so they know what to do.
30 - companygimp
Your scenario is specifically dealt with in referees' training and would not be a free-kick.
Complain about this comment
Free kick, deffo.
Deliberate pass back, doesn't matter who to
Complain about this comment
Indirect free kick, doesn't matter if it wasn't intended for the keeper or not! The keeper can not play the ball with his hand from a back pass
Complain about this comment
Hark Malsey is absolutely correct (Just a pity the Premier League ref of a similar name isn't as good at interpreting the Laws of the Game!)
Law 12 states: " 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 team-mate"
Note the use of the word "deliberate". If, as in this instance, it was the midfielder's intention to play the ball not to the keeper but to another team-mate, no offence has committed and play continues as normal.
Complain about this comment
I think because of the deliberate action of the centre half the ref has no option but to consider the ball as a back pass and award a free kick.
Shelagh59
Complain about this comment
Quote 4 - The Westley
"its not a back pass because the pass was not directed to the goalkeeper directly. the pass back rule applies only to direct pass to the keeper. the fact that the defender doesnt touch it is just good defending.
if was given against me i would go mad"
Appalling mate! Right decision - but it's subjunctive isn't it!
"if it WERE given against me i would go mad"!!
Complain about this comment
Easy one. No free kick. Law 12 says to award an indirect free kick the ball needs to be "deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate"
Complain about this comment
The relevant section of the laws:
"An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper ... touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate"
The pass must be deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper, but the example given was not deliberate therefore there is no free kick.
Complain about this comment
It's not a back pass unless it's intentionally passed directly to the keeper, which it wasn't, therefore it's play on.
What are you people saying "it doesn't matter who it's played to" and "it's purposely played backwards" on? That's EXACTLY the reason why it's NOT a back pass.
What if the ball was passed forwards or sideways to the centre back and he missed it and the keeper came out and dived on it before the attacker got there... is that a back pass too? Of course not.
Complain about this comment
Oh and the "using a trick" thing is when you use a trick to PASS the ball to the keeper... the centre back used a trick, but he didn't pass it did he ;)
Complain about this comment
Indirect free-kick to opposing side.
It's on edge of box anyway so they shouldn't score.
Complain about this comment
Play on.
Despite the claims of yorkshireref, it is clear that the rules already stated make it clear that the backpass must be to the keeper. If the pass was directed at anyone else, then if it ends up in the keeper's hands, it won't count as a backpass.
We have all seen the situations where a pass goes astray and the keeper is allowed to pick the ball up without giving away a free kick. Why is this any different?
It is up to the referee, of course, to judge whether the pass was meant for the centre half or the keeper. In the scenario described, it makes it clear that the pass was for the centre-half, but there may be situations where the ref needs to make a snap judgement about what was really intended.
It is also essential that the referee keeps in close communication with the players and makes it clear as soon as possible if the keeper can pick the ball up or not. Sometimes you see players look to the ref for an indication, only to find that the ref won't do anything until the action has been done.
And, as someone else has already said, if the keeper is in any doubt, he should just boot the ball clear.
But if the scenario as described happened to my team, I would be appalled if a free kick was awarded.
Complain about this comment
For all those (oldhoop; emiratesjames, fatcolin) who are persisting with the idea the ball has to be deliberately kicked ''to the keeper'' with some level of intent for it to be a free kick - then answer this....
Assuming the central defender to whom the ball is played is in his own penalty area, if the keeper dashes in front on him and picks the ball up from the midfielder's pass what do you give? Following your logic, this is not a deliberate pass to the keeper, so play on... the ''deliberate'' part of the law refers to the deliberate kicking of the ball, not whether there was any intent to pass it to this or that player.
Complain about this comment
Penalty.
Complain about this comment
In direct free kick to the attacking team. Be different if the defender was really struggling to get there...instead he feinted to play the ball.
Easy decision Pass back!!
Complain about this comment
Read the rules Yorkshire. They actually say "deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate". Couldn't be clearer.
Complain about this comment
Consensus seems to be that the pass from midfielder was to defender, not keeper, therefore no foul. Agree with that.
But why was the back pass law introduced? If I remember rightly it was to stop teams wasting time by constantly passing back and forth to the keeper.
Does that come into this scenario? Why the back pass - to waste time or to start a new quick attack? If the keeper immediately releases the ball the time is not being wasted.
We often see attackers claiming a back pass when a defence is simply under pressure, rather than just trying to waste time. I think we have to remember why the rule was introduced in the first place.
(Sorry, not sure I worded that very well, but I hope you see my point!)
Complain about this comment
If the backpass did not go to the oncoming attacker but to a fellow deffender who then stepped over the ball and let it run through to the keeper who picked it up, there would be no doubt this would be a backpass and hence a free kick... I think if the attacker did not touch the ball it should be a free kick!
Complain about this comment
In an attacking move if a striker comes from an offside position and dummies the ball confusing a defender allowing an onside attacker to get through and score, the attaker is interfering with play and an offside is given. Therefore if a defender dummies a pass to allow the goalie time to pick up the ball he has interfered with play and a freekick should be awarded.
Complain about this comment
The Ref should award an indirect freekick to the Czech's opponents.
Although the original pass by the midfielder was not intended for the keeper, the defender intentionally allowed the ball to continue on to the keeper. By doing this he turns the pass into an intentional backpass.
Complain about this comment
41 - trickytree09
There is no need for the ball to be passed ''back'' at all.
The back-pass is a general term for this situation
If the ball was played forwards or sideways and the keeper picked it up it WOULD be a free-kick.
Complain about this comment
Clearly this was not an intentional pass back to the goalkeeper and so no free-kick, play should continue.
Complain about this comment
Free-kick (unless the ball crossed the line in which case it's a goal)
If it were play on, you'd be giving carte blanche to defenders to dummy back-passes all day long.
Suppose a team has 11 behind the ball and is defending the last minutes of a game.
All they'd need to do would be to put two defenders in front of the goalie, then play the ball back to the hands of the goalie, with either defender hopping over the ball at the last moment to prevent a free-kick being given.
Grammar OK, Steve23yh?
Complain about this comment
no the pass was not intended for the keeper not abackpass playon
Complain about this comment
The law DOES state "DELIBERATELY passed to him by a team mate".... The ball was not deliberately passed back to him by a tem mate.
By the letter of the law, this would result in playing on.
Complain about this comment
it is a back-pass because the defender has had influence on the ball. His was in control and could have chosen to kick it but his 'play' was to not touch the ball. The key is about control and he had it, therefore the midfielder's pass becomes irrelevant. it is like a defender shielding the ball over the byline from a striker, he is in control of the ball.
Complain about this comment
Well, it really does depend how hard the pass was hit towards his own goal, to establish if it was intentional. If he for example misjudged it by hitting it slowly and it went back to the goalkeeper through the feint of the defender it is not a passback, because it would seem the midfielder intended it for the defender, and play would continue.
However, if he hit the pass hard, knowing the defender wouldn't attempt to touch the ball and putting the defender under pressure, then the defender feinted it, as the pass still quickly moves towards the goalkeeper and looked like a direct pass for the goalkeeper, then it is a passback, and a freekick to the opposition.
Complain about this comment
57 - shenstone-ref
If you are a ref - please, please go to your next RA meeting and ask for some re-training.
As I keep saying, the ''deliberate'' part of the law refers to the kicking of the ball, not where it was intended to go - deliberately or otherwise!
Complain about this comment
As Keith Hackett would say
"I would never had allowed the game to continue after the defender dummied the ball. I would have run forward and passed the ball back to the keeper myself. Then there would be no argument over a free kick or not."
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the words "deliberately kicked to him..." could be interpreted in two ways. They could mean that the kick was deliberate (as opposed to, say, a deflection), and that it went to the keeper - in which case, the above scenario is clearly a "deliberate kick" that went "to him", and is a free kick.
Or, it could mean that it is kicked, and is deliberately directed to the keeper (rather than another team-mate). In which case no free kick, as the pass was not kicked deliberately to the keeper, but only reached him because the pass was poorly hit!
Don't know which is the *right* answer, but those seem to be the choices.
Complain about this comment
not a freekick
Complain about this comment
I'd argue it depends on how badly the midfielder misjudged it. If he's properly shanked it and it's come of the outside of the foot / shin / arse then it's fine - not a controlled pass.
If however, it's going straight to the centre half and he decides to step over it to avoid being put under pressure then he's using a trick to circumvent the law. Ergo I'd give the free kick to the attacker. The backpass rule was introduced to prevent defending players using the keeper as an easy option when under pressure. The Czech centre half has definitely used his keeper as an easy option and, if the pass was clearly aimed at the centre half and he's tried to use a trick, then the backpass law applies.
Based on the scenario - "misjudged", not "misplaced" or "miskicked", it implies the first pass was deliberate and under control. So I'd give an indirect free kick.
Complain about this comment
Surely it has to be a free as the ref cant truly tell wether or not it was intentional.
Complain about this comment
Is he right?
Difficult - depends who he is. No way in hell I'm ever going to say Anelka's right, even if he has a point. Or Kuyt. On the other hand, must be difficult to argue with Jan Koller...
What would you do in this situation?
Book the central defender for flagrant mis-use of a confusing and easily re-interpreted rule. (I mean, 'deliberate kick' and 'to him'?! in essence FIFA/UEFA could pick or choose which part is important!)
Then I'd play on, as it's unfair on the midfielder and GK that their defender's a twerp. Or that the forward is a whingeing so-and-so who probably argues every decision possible, without actually knowing any of the rules whatsoever.
After, I would embark on a political career in the murky world of football authorities, forever striving to right the wrongs ruining the game. Of course, I'm a ref (and not Collina), so no-one takes me seriously (ESPECIALLY if I'm English) and I retire in anonymity, seeing out my days getting spat on by louts as I go for my daily walk down the pier.
And I'd be bitter.
Complain about this comment
Neither of the players deliberately played the ball to the keeper with the feet (since the backpass was played to the defender) so it's not a backpass and no free kick should be awarded.
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref - you're ramblings are completely misguided. Of course it is relevant whether it is passed deliberately "to him". It is not a freekick!!
An example for you: If a defender attempts to clear the ball but slices it, then he has kicked the ball deliberately, but not kicked it deliberately to the keeper and thus the keeper can legitimately pick up the ball. This is a case where it proves the "to him" is relevant.
Your logic seems bizarre and you can't simply write off parts of the rulebook by saying that's not what they emphasise at ref school or wherever you go.
Complain about this comment
stueym17 - your first interpretation is the correct one. The keeper cannot pick up a direct, controlled pass by any of his team. It doesn't matter if the striker has passed it back to him from the edge of the opposition penalty area, and it's gone through the legs of the whole of the rest of the team.
I'd argue that the wording of this law should be changed to "a deliberate pass by a team mate which goes to him" to distinguish from "a pass made by a team mate which is deliberately directed at him". Avoids a lot of the confusion, but then that takes all the fun out debates such as these!
Complain about this comment
Play on, as the pass was not intended for Cech.
Cech then punts the ball up field , Koller wins the flick on, Baros chases the ball and slots it past the on rushing keeper. Baros and Koller are the first members of an 8 man Cezch bundle.
Said forward runs and complains to the ref, that the goal should not stand. Ref shows him a 2nd yellow card, as he was previously nasty centre forward type tackle on the centre back who dummied the ball to Cech.
If match is shown on ITV, incident wont be replayed, as they have to cut to an ad break, and will will have to watch a grown man swap shirts witha mascot, that makes him look like he plasy for 'Blue Oyster FC'. If match is on BBC, fingers crossed Garth Crooks in not in the studio, as he will make you fall asleep, explaining the incident, when we all know if he never scored in a FA cup final..he would be on the sky sports series 'Where are they now'
Complain about this comment
indirect free kick
the law actually states:
"a goalkeeper infringes law 12 if he or she touches the ball with the hand directly after it has been deliberately kicked to him or her by a teammate......." it goes onto say "the requirement that the ball be 'kicked to' the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place where the keeper can legally handle the ball. The requirement that the ball be deliberately kicked means that the play on the ball is deliberate and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion of the referee, accidently deflected or misdirected"
As the pass was in the direction of the goalkeepers area and was a deliberate pass towards the keepers area (not necessarily directed to the keeper) it is in this case a back pass.
Complain about this comment
No freekick. The original pass wasn't intended for the keeper and therefore i would allow the game to continue.
But mention to the defender not to do the same thing too many times.
Complain about this comment
What's all this rubbish about intent??
I'm sure in 99.9% of penalty cases given, the defending player doesn't INTEND to give a penalty away. He commited a foul (or it was a good dive, if there is such a thing). Tough Luck.
This is a simple case, its an indirect free-kick from wherever the 'keeper picked it up. Regardless of whether the pass was intended for the 'keeper or not, it was a controlled and intentional play by the midfielder, and the 'keeper made the mistake of picking up a backpass.
Freekick, end of story.
Complain about this comment
The actual law, taken from the official FIFA document states an inderct free kick if the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate.
The ball wsa not directly kicked to him, so therefore it cannot be a free kick.
(check it here : http://www.fifa.com/flash/lotg/football/en/Laws12_02.htm )
Complain about this comment
After the Czech Cech has picked up the ball a goal should immediately be awarded to the Dutch team as there were no Italian defenders on the pitch. However, if Cech had already cleared the ball, a goal should be given to the Spanish as Fabregas was clearly in the second phase and couldn't be offside.
Complain about this comment
I'm seeing double-standards from a couple of people who have previously stated that the letter of the law exists to prevent subjectivity.
"Deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate" cannot focus on the first word alone and shrug off the rest. "Deliberately" and "to him" are separate components of the sentence, but when considered they need to be applied together.
As worded, "deliberately kicked to him" is a no-brainer. It is when the ball is deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper. If it were when the ball was deliberately kicked and then happened into the keeper's arms as the next touch then the law itself would be worded to reflect that.
That is, something like:
"touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked by a team-mate"
Not only would this be more accurate, it would be more concise.
Complain about this comment
(sorry for the bad spelling !!)
Complain about this comment
Has to be a free kick,the ball was a backpass, the original rule i think was to stop goalkeepers from wasting time,it does,nt matter who you backpass to the keeper cant pick it up.
Complain about this comment
The exact quote from the rules is as follows:
"A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside his own penalty area in the following circumstances:
If he touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate."
The key phrase for me here is "deliberately kicked". The ball must be deliberately kicked, i.e. not shanked, sliced horribly etc. The second requirement is that the ball is "to him", i.e. that it ends up at him. On these grounds, I would award an indirect free-kick. The ball was deliberately kicked, and ended up at the goalkeeper.
The distinction between "deliberately kicked to him" and "kicked deliberately to him" is important. In the first, it is the kick which must be deliberate. In the second, it is that it goes to the goalkeeper which must be deliberate.
Even in the second situation, I would award an indirect free-kick. The referee cannot know where the midfielder was aiming it - this is entirely subjective. Unless it is obvious that it was unintentional (e.g. a shank, etc.), then it must be judged objectively and on these facts I would also award an indirect free kick.
Complain about this comment
I would award an indirect free-kick for the backpass. The rules say you can't try to get around the backpass rule with a clever trick. It is unclear whether this was quick thinking by the defender, or a training ground move.
A goalkeeper cannot pick up the ball from a pass from a team-mate. He can collect an interception, or a mis-hit clearance, but this is neither of them. At the time of the first contact with the ball (first passage of play), the midfielder intentionally passed the ball to a team-mate.
The next contact of the ball (the second passage) is the goalkeeper picking the ball up. Anything which happens inbetween which does not affect the path of the ball is irrelevant. A midfielder made a pass, the keeper picked it up. An offense has occurred.
Complain about this comment
62 - stueym17
I am unpersuaded by your argument. If the "deliberate" referred only to the kicking, there would be no need for the "to him" in the laws at all. You could just prohibit the keeper from picking up any pass from a deliberate kick. The "to him" would be superfluous.
Yorkshireref, I find your argument baffling. Essentially it is of the form "the training I got on my training course takes precedence over the laws". As a good lawyer will tell you, this isn't how laws work.
Complain about this comment
There are a number of things to take into consideration, the main one being if the midfielder has clearly mis-hit the pass, i.e off his shin, sliced it or kicked the ball against his standing foot and its gone towards the keeper. If none of the above then it is a back-pass.
Nobody can determine on what the midfielders intentions where when he passed it back to the centre-half, but more importantly if the centre-half has got the opportunity to play the ball and he lets it run through to his keeper (a dummy almost) then he has interfered with play. Not quite the same as kicking the ball back but he has definitely contributed in taking the advantage away from the striker.
Also bear in mind that allowing this to happen would be a complete disregard to why the back-pass rule was introduced in the first place. The idea was to stop negative play and time wasting. If a defender can leave a ball passed to him for the keeper then he is not playing the rule but attempting to time waste or avoid a potentially dangerous situation.
If he can play ball then he has to play it and if he can't play it because its too far away from him then we can't determine if the midfielder has passed it to his centre-half and got it wrong or if he has passed it straight to his keeper.
Complain about this comment
So what if the defender had tripped and missed the ball and ended up at the keeper. There would be no doubt then that the ball was deliberately kicked to the keeper.
Surely then in the given circumstances the ball was deliberately kicked to the keeper and play continues. And Holland get awared a goal because an Italian defender was sunbathing behind a goal on a training ground somewhere on the planet.
Complain about this comment
68 - notdolly
Once again I can only tell you what referees are taught (yes those people who learn these things, pass exams and go out there week in and week out applying the laws in all weathers so that footballers can have a better game than if a bloke from their team gets thrown a whistle and told to get on with it!!!!
If that's not good enough for you then, hey nothing will be.
In your scenario, a sliced or ''miskicked'' ball that reaches a keeper will not be judged as a free-kick if the keeper picks it up. That's what we are specifically taught. I am sorry the wording in the laws does not cover single eventuality that could arise - but hey that's so the law book doesn't run to 1000 pages.
Complain about this comment
I vitally missed out the word NOT twice in my comment number 83. ah well, best award a goal to Holland.
Complain about this comment
The words used in the laws are 'the goalkeeper handles a ball DELIBRATELY played to him by a defender '. So, looking again at the way the question is worded, as the defender was passing the ball back to the other defender (who seemed to step over the ball) and, seemingly, not the goalkeeper I do not think it can be classed as a 'back-pass' to the goalkeeper. Unless the question is worded confusingly and the defender meant to pass it back to the goalkeeper then I don't think a free kick can be given.
Complain about this comment
Agree with 81. - richiebenaud (particularly in reference to yorkshireref)
The pass has to be a deliberate pass to the keeper for it to be considered a back-pass. This is clearly not. Play on!!
Complain about this comment
Can't be a free-kick. It has to be an intentional back-pass. Otherwise any mis-kick that ends up in keeper's hands would result in a free-kick.
Complain about this comment
It's a free kick as the defender has used a 'trick' during the process of the pass when he feinted the ball.
By using a trick, the pass qualifies as a back pass, as would be the case if the defender flicked the ball up in the air and headed it into the keeper's arms. Even though the pass was a header the use of a trick makes it a backpass.
Had the defender stumbled or buckled and accidently let the ball through then it wouldn't be a backpass...i think...
Complain about this comment
82. FatTony81 wrote:
...more importantly if the centre-half has got the opportunity to play the ball and he lets it run through to his keeper (a dummy almost) then he has interfered with play. Not quite the same as kicking the ball back but he has definitely contributed in taking the advantage away from the striker.
------------
What advantage?
But this is a poor argument. How many times have you seen a defender shield the ball with his body to allow it to run out for a goal kick? Those are never given as corners.
Similarly if they did the same at a touchline when the opposition got the last touch. Has that ever cost them the resulting throw-in?
Furthermore, what if this "backpass from the midfielder" was a poor pass from the opposition to the mentioned forward? The same defender's feint would still be "interfering" so would this cause a backpass?
The only argument that can be made for it being an indirect free kick, to the letter of the law, is if the midfield who made the initial pass can be judged to have deliberately made it to reach his goalkeeper.
If that is the case then I would award an indirect free kick as well. But if there was no room for doubt, if it was certain that the midfielder intended his pass for someone other than his goalkeeper, then I would allow play to continue and seek to calm down the involved forward if this decision upsets him.
I suspect "the answer" here will disagree with me, which'd be a first, but that is just how I see it.
Complain about this comment
81 - richiebenaud
Easily baffled though you may be - the 'training' does not replace the laws, it is there to try to get common interpretations - so most refs will make similiar decisions.
As these forums clearly show, the laws are not always adequate in and of themselves and are open to interpretation in many ways - depending on the scenarios that happen on a football field - which are many and varied. If every scenario was envisaged and the laws written to cover them, the law book would be pretty long.
Please read 82 - fattony81, pretty much sums up the law, the decision and why it would be interpreted in the way I have suggested throughout.
Complain about this comment
Provided the ball doesn't contact any other play, an indirect free kick has to be awarded to the attacking team as this still amounts to a deliberate backpass. The fact that the ball wasn't intended for the goalkeeper in the first place is irrelevant as the defender receiving the pass has still attempted to gain an advantage by false means.
Complain about this comment
Nope, its not a free. Play should be allowed to continue as normal - the laws pretty clear it needs to be a deliberate pass to the goal keeper. It is, however, a masterful manipulation of the rules by the centre half who lets the ball pass through his legs.
Complain about this comment
It,s a great question,but if there was no freekick, it could lead to a lot of abuse of the rule, a player could backpass to another player knowing full well that the keeper would run out and pick up the ball,because it was,nt played to him,once the defender decides he does,nt want the pass it becomes a pass to the keeper.
Complain about this comment
*player
Complain about this comment
Gut feeling would be not to give a free kick. This referee thing is a bit dull by the way.
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref - please read 90 Miraglyth's response to FatTony81
Complain about this comment
94 - zznewyork
For all the doubters out there - read the wise words of zznewyork.
That's why referees get extra training to interprate the laws and exactly why this would not be allowed.
Complain about this comment
If the pass by the midfielder was that badly misjudged then surely it would be less risky for the defender to just hoof it up field, so this scenario would never happen!!
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref>
Either you have misunderstood your training, or they are teaching you something directly opposite to what the written law means - possibly because the law is badly written.
I can see that the deliberation or otherwise behind a kick might be the primary consideration, but surely that includes direction: otherwise, the words 'to him' are entirely superfluous.
I'd argue that it is absolutely fine for the keeper to pick up the ball off the foot of his defender - unless the defender is intercepting a pass aimed at the keeper. If not, then the keeper is not allowed to pick up the ball if the defender shanks it, because the defender would have deliberately kicked the ball, but with no control over direction.
Perhaps it has slipped your mind that the question does specifically state that the pass is misjudged :)
Complain about this comment
Back pass was not intentional, and no contact from the ball by defender, so no free kick.
Complain about this comment
it is not a passback
Complain about this comment
97 - notdolly
Why, it makes no sense!
Complain about this comment
You can find the rules of the game on fifa.com
Law 12 clearly states that it is a backpass if the keeper "touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate".
The ball wasn't deliberately kicked to him, so no free-kick.
Complain about this comment
Simple. No free kick. The rules are that the back pass has to be a deliberate pass to the keeper, which this was not.
Complain about this comment
103. Yorkshireref wrote:
[Miraglyth] makes no sense!
------------
Gee, thanks.
Seriously though. You'll probably end up being right here but if so, it sucks that the law as worded says something entirely different.
Also, as mentioned by half a dozen people within the first hundred comments, the "to him" would be absolutely pointless if you (assuming that referee claim is true) are essentially instructed to ignore it. Given that, all its existence achieves is to mislead people who read over the rules, such as the contributors to this debate.
Complain about this comment
I think the ref should ask the midfielder who the pass was actually intended for, and if he really, really promises that it was for the defender then they play on, but if he hesitates at all in the slightest then clearly it was a back pass and he doesn't get any treat after his dinner. Bad boy, go to bed.
Complain about this comment
100 - josh23
As been mentioned a few times, the referee cannot possibly be asked to judge what was in the midfielder's mind when making the original pass. He is not psychic.
BTW - the ''misjudged'' pass is not a slice or deflection, so I don't personally think it has much relevance - despite the smiley!.
The ''misjudgement'' is that he has played the ball into a dangerous area and put his central defender under pressure - nothing to do with the later offence in my book.
Complain about this comment
103 - Yorkshireref
Neither does your precious rulebook according to you. You seem to be the first person to use it to back up your arguments up until the point where it contradicts you. At this point you say that you are taught at ref school which bit the emphasis is on. So please explain to me, should we follow the rulebook or not? If not literally, then why does it seem that referees can use no discretion in other scenarios? (sorry to go off the subject matter)
Complain about this comment
there should not be a free kick since the pass was misjudged and was for the center half
so i feel refree should give it to defending team
Complain about this comment
yorkshireref.....
I was very clear in stating by using the term "by the letter of the law"... the terms I have listed are taken letter by letter from Law 12 of the LOAF. Yes, we may disagree... but I would not and did not show any disrespect to yourself.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I see where YorkshireRef is coming from, I would judge this particular incident as NOT being an offence and would play on (but I keenly await the Hackett point of view!!).
The so-called 'backpass' law prevents a keeper from handling a ball deliberately passed to him by a team mate.
YorkshireRef emphasises the 'deliberately passed' regardless of whether it was intentionally played 'to' the keeper. My understanding of this point in the training is to cover situations where a defender deliberately passed the ball into the penalty area but slightly away from the keeper, in order to be able to argue that the ball had not been played directly 'to' the keeper.
The referee is trained to treat this as an offence because it is obvious that the keeper was the intended target.
However, where, at the point the pass was made, there is clearly no intention for the keeper to be the recipient, then the 'passback' rule does not apply. In this case, the pass was mis-hit, the intended recipient did not touch it, so the keeper is free to pick it up.
Would defenders, as has been suggested, simply line up two defenders and repeatedly do this to run down the clock? Referees aren't that stupid (well - most of the time we're not) and as soon as it is obvious that the keeper IS the real target, would blow for the offence (and probably consider a caution for unsportsmanlike behaviour to go with it).
- Lovely to see that our grammar is being checked as well now - LOL.
Complain about this comment
Surely isn't a freekick, play on, and probably book the strike for screaming at the ref!
Complain about this comment
Is the pass from the midfielder an intentional pass to the goalkeeper?
Those of you arguing semantics of the rule might split the sentence to argue that the the pass was an intentional pass and it went to the goalkeeper, so it is a free kick. The sentence has to be looked at in its entirety.
For example if you applied the split sentence logic to another situation where the goalkeeper is replaced by an opponent, equally you might say. The midfielder deliberately passed to the opposing side.
From the scenario, we are told the pass from the midfielder is to the centre-half, not to the goalkeeper. It cannot be a back pass.
Complain about this comment
106 - miraglyth
Sorry I was rude...
I tend to agree that (as often) the laws are not perfectly framed and don't cover everything.
Trying a different tack - where does the ball end up ... in the keeper's hands.
Therefore, in pure factual terms, the ball has been played ''to him'' - the poor old referee cannot be expected to read the mind of the initial passer - just to rule on the outcome of a deliberate kick that goes to the keeper who then picks it up - which he is not allowed to do under what people still call ''the backpass'' rule.
Complain about this comment
Yes indirect freekick. It is impossible for a ref to judge what is deliberate and what is not so the rule must go on what has actually occured. If it wasn't a free kick then a midfielder could always play the ball back to his keeper and as long as the defender faked a pass and stepped over the ball, the keeper could pick it up, which obviously should not be allowed.
Complain about this comment
Points made about a referee not being psychic are good ones, however it is important to note that the offence committed known as handball is in fact committeed when a player "deliberately" handles the ball, something that we are supposed to be able to work out using our referee issue ESP.
richiebenaud was the first person to identify this one and he is correct, as he states law 12 requires the ball to be debilberatley kicked to the goalkeeper to a tam mate, so if it is headed, shinned, kneed, chested etc then it dosen't count as an infringement.
Nor does it count if it wasn't passed 'to' the goalkeeper, I'm not sure which course Yorksref was on but I can tell you at mine the to him bit was just as important as it's there in the laws.
Complain about this comment
111 shenstone-ref
Totally correct and I will apologise for a needlessly snide comment.
My hands arm behind my back, I am looking you in the eye and accepting my yellow card, with a ''won't happen again ref,'' and waiting for you to send me on my way...
Complain about this comment
Yes. Free kick. It was a pass from one of the czech players, and the keeper picked it up.
Complain about this comment
I think the defender should be given some royalties by the BBC for giving Linekar and co something to talk about at half time. Good show old chap.
Complain about this comment
This debate shows two things.
1: Half the contributors have never kicked a competitive ball in their lives.
I mean "the defender used a trick to get the ball to the keeper" come on! Ridiculous, the defender did not touch the ball and his movement does not alter the fact that the original pass was NOT intended for the keeper, also “if the defender has a chance to clear the ball he should do so"!!! RUBBISH, there is no law in the game that states you have to kick the ball if it comes to you. The defender could moonwalk round the ball whilst singing the national anthem and it STILL would not be a free kick.
2: Referees have an impossible job. Clearly there is no intent on the original pass back therefore NO free kick. However even the contributing refs and staters of law to this
debate seem to miss this point central to the issue.
Complain about this comment
Re the referee not being expected to read the mind of the passer...I would argue that we have to do exactly that both in these circumstances and at various other times in the match.
Hence the 'in the opinion of the referee' clause that applies throughout.
If, in the opinion of the referee, the intended recipient was the goalkeeper, then he may not pick it up. Otherwise, as in this case, he is free to do so.
In my humble opinion, of course!!
Complain about this comment
115 Yorkshireref - refs are supposed to use their judgment as to whether things are deliberate or not all the time!! Was it a deliberate elbow in the face, deliberate handball etc etc. Nobody expects you to be a mindreader but to judge the situation. It is stated in the question that the pass was aimed at the centre-half - the ref should pick up on this and realise that it is not a backpass to the goalkeeper. No freekick!!
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref..... just a quite word will suffice.
Still love you !!!
Complain about this comment
A defender gets injured on the goal line when defending a corner. The header from the resulting corner is headed wide by a striker. The defender goes off to receive treatment but looks to be fine straight away. When his goalkeeper takes the goal kick it goes terribly wrong and goes straight to the opposing teams forward. The ref signals the defender to come on before the striker releases the pass to his offside strike partner. The defender reads this and decides not to enter the field of play. The striker goes on to score.
What does the ref do?
A) Allow the goal because the defender is valid and cheated.
B) Book the player for cheating and disaloud the goal
C) Allow the goal.
Complain about this comment
What if it was a really windy day and a defender kicks a ball up field to a midfielder but the wind blows it back to his keeper.
It wasn't an intentional pass to the keeper but I reckon if a forward was close the keeper would pick it up.
Maybe let's also say the ball whizzed close to a defender who could have headed it away but chose not to.
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref> Re 98: as far as I can see, this 'extra training' amounts to a re-write of the law to mean something different. Which may well be what is happening, but is very unfair on players and coaches without the same information.
Considering that it's only a few days since you were telling me that refs can't interprete the law to suit their own ends, it seems a bit rich that now you say that they can do precisely that to close a loophole.
As it happens, I think the scenario proposed by ZZNY is a) not illegal and b) foolhardy. Bearing in mind that the pass would have to be soft, near the goal, and that the keeper would have to run around the defender, it would seem to offer a great opportunity to attackers.
Complain about this comment
Please can you not give him a public bollocking? ;)
Complain about this comment
128..... BigHairRef..... not until Mr Hackett speaks!!!
Complain about this comment
Wait a second, isn't Hackett from Yorkshire? Yorkshireref...it's you isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Where can i find the answers to the previous you are the ref??
Complain about this comment
100% not a free kick , as it has to be intentionally played to the keeper
Complain about this comment
131. zznewyork wrote:
Where can i find the answers to the previous you are the ref??
------------
Do you mean #3? The "Special" came with the answer included, after all.
#3's answer can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/euro2008/2008/06/you_are_the_ref_answer.html
Complain about this comment
Throw in to the Czechs
Complain about this comment
I think #71 has it right.
The back pass has to be deliberate, but this can include a situation where the ball was not initially meant for the goal keeper
Complain about this comment
Callum-CelticFC Are you trying to take over the question setting? ;-)
I'm not sure that scenario could ever happen as I don't think the referee would ever signal to the defender to come back onto the field of play in that situation.
Regarding today's conundrum, it would surely be at the discretion of the referee, and I would think a drop ball might be the best response. Given all the answers to previous 'Ask the Ref's' on this website, in particular the one about the defender repeatedly heading the ball back to the goalkeeper I would have thought that this could potentially be construed as a 'deliberate trick' by the defender and could theoretically be given as an indirect free-kick or whatever the punishment is for that offence.
Complain about this comment
I think you are all missing the point here. The ruling comes under decision 3 of the International FA board, which states that: Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player
may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper
using his head or chest or knee, etc. If
however, in the opinion of the referee, a
player uses a deliberate trick while the ball
is in play in order to circumvent the Law,
the player is guilty of unsporting
behaviour. He is cautioned, shown the
yellow card and an indirect free kick is
awarded to the opposing team from the
place where the infringement occurred.
Therefore, it is an indirect free kick as the player has used a deliberate trick to circumvent the law.
Complain about this comment
136. thebunshop wrote:
Given all the answers to previous 'Ask the Ref's' on this website, in particular the one about the defender repeatedly heading the ball back to the goalkeeper I would have thought that this could potentially be construed as a 'deliberate trick' by the defender and could theoretically be given as an indirect free-kick or whatever the punishment is for that offence.
------------
But the trouble is that "body-shielding" the ball is not a trick! Defenders do it all the time to get a goal kick.
Complain about this comment
If I was the ref I'd award the free kick because I think this is no more than common sense.
Some aspects of football simply beggar belief. In truth I don't really care what the correct interpretation of the pass back rule is currently. What I care about is having the laws of the game properly set down so that they make sense, are consistent and are clearly understood.
The 'pass back to goalkeeper' is just one of the many laws that needs editing and writing clearly to remove ambiguity. It should not be for the referee to ever have to judge the intention of the player - did he mean to pass back, did he mean to kick his opponent up into the air? The only question he should have to sit in judgement on is whether it happened. If the goal keeper picks up the ball following a pass from a team mate then free kick, end of story.
Complain about this comment
I certainly wouldn't give a free kick for it. Nobody has at any point tried to pass the ball to the keeper, so I don't see how the ref could see much intent in it, on the passer's behalf.
Also, does anyone else think the illustrations are a tad unnecessary? In fact, why do they bother to assign these issues to a certain player? Talk about creating a job for the sake of it- the illustrator must be laughing his way to the bank.
Complain about this comment
I like the in-depth analysis from number 1.
Complain about this comment
It's a wayward pass, therefore not a direct free-kick to the opposition, and Cech can just play it on from there.
Complain about this comment
If it was given against me (the goalkeeper) I would not go mad but prepare myself for the forth coming free kick as the ref will never change his mind.
Complain about this comment
122 - BlueStarIT
Hear what you say and ''in the opinion of'' this referee, if I saw a player step over a deliberate kick/pass that was going straight to his own goalkeeper I would be hoping the GK doesn't pick it up (I might even shout to warn him if I had time). But I would be blowing my whsitle if he did, amd awarding the indirect free-kick.
123 - notdolly
In the real world, on the field of play, unfortunately we can't look for some ''wording'' to tell us whether something was 'aimed' here or there. We have to judge what happens and, sure, we have to make a call, without fear or favour within the laws and all known advice.
127 - josh_23
My point the other day was different, in that many people were proposing to do something outside the laws/advice/training to get to some kind of place where ''justice'' was served.
Time to bow out and sit and wait for Mr Hackett's view - not that I have agreed with some of his answers so far.
Complain about this comment
IMO, the defender allowing the ball to run through his legs to the keeper is an indication that the ball is intended to be passed to the keeper whether the player passing it intended that or not. So a free kick would be given as it was determined as a pass to the keeper once the defender let it run by him
Complain about this comment
The point is...how can the ref on the pitch ever know if it was deliberately kicked to the keeper or not? It is all about opinions. I would award the IDFK.
Complain about this comment
After the revelation caused by Netherlands goal, I guess judging a situation with common sense no longer makes sense.
I have seen situations where a back pass was not meant for the keeper, but he rushed to it, picked the ball up and no free kick was given.
I think what's key here is the defender that avoids the ball. Theoretically he is legitimizing the ball as a back pass.
Of course, in practice it's whatever the referee decides. The next day an obscure law will come to light, whereby something players and coaches were never aware of is a law, even though it doesn't make sense.
Complain about this comment
ZZNewYork - re the earlier answers.
If you go to the base www.bbc.co.uk website
- and then click on the link to Football
- and then, just above the 'You are the ref' click on the link to 'Blogs'
- and then, on the right-hand side click on the drop-down list under 'Authors'.
The bottom of the list is 'You are the ref' and shows links to all the problems posed so far, complete with the comments and solutions as per Keith Hackett.
Complain about this comment
Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct)states it is an indirect free kick if the goalkeeper "touches the ball after it has been deliberately kicked TO HIM by a team mate". This means no free kick in this case.
Complain about this comment
I think the defender stepping over the ball has made it into a back pass.
I would give a free kick.
Complain about this comment
130 - notdolly
Dear Mr Hackett hails from South Yorkshire.
I reside in glorious East Yorkshire!
Complain about this comment
Yorkie> And another thing - 'deliberate' just means 'in the ref's opinion, deliberate' - it does not require absolute objective proof.
But I'd have thought that it's also fairly obvious that the ball must appear to be cleanly kicked in the direction intended, otherwise it cannot possibly be deliberately kicked to anyone. It surely isn't enough just that the player intended to make contact with the ball with his foot?
Complain about this comment
I think the defender stepping over the ball has made it into a back pass.
I would give an indirect free kick.
Complain about this comment
no free kick, play on. because the pass was unintentional towards the keeper hes allowed to pick it up. If it was on purpose it would be in-direct free kick.
Sometimes you see a defender scuffing the ball in the and keeper catching it or maybe a ball bouncing off the leg of the defender and keeper picking it up.
Complain about this comment
I fear the ruling will be that no action is taken.
This however would be a travesty and is another example of why the backpass rule is wrong, as it is currently stated and/or interpreted.
The defending team in this instance should not benefit.
The ball ended back at the goalkeeper due to EITHER:-
1) an error by the defending team, coupled with chasing down by the opposition forward
OR
2) the pass from the midfielder being intended for the goalkeeper in the first instance, but disguised by the defender.
The general philosophy of the backpass rule is sound, but the implementation is poor.
If I was the referee, then it has to be an indirect free kick to the attacking team ......... although I would have a word with the forward about his screaming - there's no need for that!
Complain about this comment
Indirect free kick awarded regarless of whether or not the back-pass was 'deliberate', some people talk some crap.
This exact thing happened a few years back in the Champions League Semi betweew Barcelona and Liverpool... and an inderect free kick was awarded to Liverpool because Valdes picked up the ball from his own player - and it was destined for the centre-back.
Complain about this comment
Yorkie> "Time to bow out and sit and wait for Mr Hackett's view"
You mean, like the old 'ask an idiot and do the opposite of what he says' routine? ;)
Complain about this comment
Not quite in the same bracket but to do with referees having to judge intent:
Earlier this season I jusged that a defender had kicked a ball as part of a tackle on a forward and that the ball had pretty much randomly arrived at the goalkeeper. Keeper picked it up. Appeals for the 'backpass' but I allowed play to continue.
After the game, the defender asked me why I hadn't blown for it. When I explained, he laughed and said that it HAD been a deliberate pass but he hadn't expected the keeper to pick it up.
He said that he was just about to lamblast his keeper when he realised that I hadn't given it, so kept his mouth shut.
We're not mind readers but we have to try to be. If we get most of them right, then we're doing OK.
Complain about this comment
80- TheManFromWirral
Just in response to your first paragraph; I quote from how the situation is worded,
"The quick-thinking centre-half, feints to play the ball..."
It explains it was the flair of the defender that did the feint, from how they read the ball as a reaction, and not a routine from the training ground.
Apologies if I'm being cynical.
Complain about this comment
It is an indirect free kick, no matter that the defender was 'meant' to receive the pass.
There is no such thing as a pass being meant for a player. It is only the player who makes the pass that knows clearly what his intentions are.
How many times have we seen a player make a pass to another team mate, only for another one of his team mates to suddenly get in the way and intercept the pass, much to the frustration of the player who passed it.
Therefore it is impossible for the referee to be fully sure that the player who originally made the pass, did not actually intend it for the keeper, and the centre back was getting in the way. This is why the rule is based around the deliberate pass, and not to whom it was directed.
Complain about this comment
Initially I thought no free kick. I've changed my mind because the Czech team gains an advantage when the goalkeeper handles the ball from the misjudged pass.
I've also decided to bin my application to referee school.
Complain about this comment
157 - Josh_23
Stop trying to lure me back.... :-)
Complain about this comment
Yorkie.... It worked didn't it... you.re back
Complain about this comment
i think you should atleast make the situation a little bit realistic. surely the centreback would just do a roulette on the striker and then flick it up with his heel to head back over the striker to the keeper... seriously
Complain about this comment
Its an intentional back pass because the defender sent his Aura in the direction of the ball! His aura makes it intentional. :D
NO freekick for me, just a clever piece of defending.
Fact:- midfielder passed to defender, defender knows this pass was directed to him and that the keeper is fine to pick the ball up. If the defender fell on his backside and the goalie had to dash to the otherside of the box to pick it up would it be a freekick? No, no intent, no freekick, PLAY ON. And book anyone who argues with you!
Complain about this comment
125 - Don't all players have to come on at the half way line now after treatment? Probably for that kind of reason.
Complain about this comment
YorkshireRef is correct - it is an indirect free-kick though not for the Czech Rep (since it was the Czech keeper who played the ball with his hands. Ref should award an indirect free-kick to the opposing team at the point the Czech goalkeeper played the ball with his hands.
Complain about this comment
Surely a penaly to England. Oh and the centre-half should be red carded.
Complain about this comment
I wonder what would have happened if this had occurred in the FA cup final, which incidentally, was won by Portsmouth this year. PUP!!!
Complain about this comment
personally i'd say it's a free kick, as there's two reasons that the ref can give it.
1) the ref thinks that the pass was intended for the keeper, and therefore it's a backpass, so free kick.
or
2) Decision 3 of the International F.A Board in Law 12 states that if 'in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play in order to circumvent the Law, the player is guilty of unsporting behaviour. He is cautioned, shown the yellow card and an indirect
free kick is awarded to the opposing team from the place where the
infringement occurred.'
I would imagine most people would agree that a feint or stepover is a trick, so free kick.
Complain about this comment
The laws of the game can be downloaded for free in pdf format from the FA website. For those who think it's a free kick, I suggest they download it and read it properly (page 25 in this case).
Complain about this comment
I say free kick, the cocky defender should kwow better, messing about with faints in a dangerous position, and then the keeper is stupid enough to pick it up, they deserve to concede free kick and lose the game.
Complain about this comment
"touches the ball with his hands after it has
been deliberately kicked to him by a
team-mate"
Complain about this comment
Indirect free-kick to the opposition is my view.
Although the centre-helf did not touch the ball, it was still a pass backwards from the midfielder, and as the momentum was such to carry the ball through to the goalkeeper, the defender deliberately intended to let the ball go back to the goalkeeper, hence ball from the midfielder is a pass back via the central defenders legs.
Tough one, but I am certain it should be a free-kick as it was not a tackle, a misguided touch or a header, it was a pass from a Czech players boot backwards towards the defence/goalkeeper, so for me its a backpass
Complain about this comment
Also "Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player
may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper
using his head or chest or knee, etc. If
however, in the opinion of the referee, a
player uses a deliberate trick while the ball
is in play in order to circumvent the Law,
the player is guilty of unsporting
behaviour. He is cautioned, shown the
yellow card and an indirect free kick is
awarded to the opposing team from the
place where the infringement occurred. *
A player using a deliberate trick to
circumvent the Law while he is taking a
free kick, is cautioned for unsporting
behaviour and shown the yellow card. The
free kick is retaken.
In such circumstances, it is irrelevant
whether the goalkeeper subsequently
touches the ball with his hands or not.
The offence is committed by the player in
attempting to circumvent both the letter
and the spirit of Law 12."
Complain about this comment
yes its a free kick. pass backs a pass back. also the player has purposely let keeper pick ball up so indirect free kick should be taken. obviously no cards shown
Complain about this comment
It is a indirect free kick against the defender not the goalkeeper.
The goalkeeper has not done anything wrong as - sorry Yorkshire ref - it was not a deliberate pass to the goalkeeper.
However the defender has used a trick to circumvent law (similar to flicking the ball up to head it to the keeper) and should be penalised by an indirect free kick and a caution for unsporting behaviour.
Great question though as it makes you really think about the laws.
Complain about this comment
It should not be a free kick as the defender that passed the ball did not intend for it to go to the goalkeeper, so therefore it is not a pass back. However the referee could view it as unsporting behavior and could award an indirect free kick because of that!
Complain about this comment
Really should have read thesalisbury's post as this says it so much better than I did!
Complain about this comment
ScunySkinner - post 170
If a stepover automatically counts as a trick, then Ronaldo would never last more than 5 minutes in any game before getting his second caution and being sent off ;0)
I guess you're meaning a step-over in a deliberate attempt to allow the 'passback' to reach the keeper. I hear what you're saying but wouldn't see it that way.
The actual 'circumventing...' clause was actually only added as guidance for occasions when a player disguised a backpass by flicking it onto his head, or kneeling to avoid playing it with the foot, so doesn't really apply in this case (IMO).
Complain about this comment
It's a free kick, because it's a backpass. Additionally, the goalkeeper has arguably deliberately commited an offence in order to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity, which would warrant a red card aswell.
Complain about this comment
Indirect free kick all day long, where the 'keeper picked the ball up.
The "deliberate" part of the law clearly means the way in which the ball was played and not who it was played to.
The 'keeper should know better than to pick the ball up, because it's a back pass, hence the free kick should be awarded where he picked the ball up.
There's no way this cannot be an indirect free kick.
Complain about this comment
Not a back pass, simply as the pass backwards was not an intentional pass to the keeper.
Complain about this comment
Nice Question;
1. "Attacker in to challenge" - did the attacker touch the ball?
2. You must along with the terminology of intentional and unintentional look at:
Advantaged or Dis-advantaged?
3. "Feints" is a deliberate action - its a distraction technique.
4. Looking at the way the article is written/presented i would say a definate offense has been commited. Award a Free Kick.
I didnt see the actual offense as it appears that it maybe a real senario?
Regards
Boondog
Complain about this comment
There is no way that a red card could be given. This is a potential loop-hole in the law but if a goalkeeper stops a 'backpass' from going into the goal then he isn't sent off. This is covered in the question and answers of FIFA.
Complain about this comment
The US Soccer Federation issued an Position Paper just a few weeks ago on this. They said the ball does not need to be kicked "to" the keeper for a violation to occur.
"1) The ball is kicked (with the foot) by a teammate to the goalkeeper.
2) It is deemed to be deliberate and not a deflection.
3) The goalkeeper handles the ball directly.
When, in the opinion of the referee, when these three conditions are met, a 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.
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/PassBack_Violation.pdf
Complain about this comment
A similar incident happened recently in a local non-league match. The ref shouted at the goalie and told him to leave the ball, else it would be an indirect free kick from the spot where he handled it. The goalie did so, not without a comment to and about the ref, and a corner was awarded. The two discussed it in the clubhouse after the game, and the ref, one of the best at our level in the pyramid, gave a sensible explanation. Therefore, in this case, either the keeper should let it go for a corner, let an opponent touch the ball first, or, if the ball would have gone in the goal, hoof it upfield from as far away from the goal as possible and give away an indirect free kick from that same spot.
Complain about this comment
This has recently been clarified. There's three steps to determining whether this is a violation of the so-called back pass rule.
A) Was the ball last touched by a teammate of the goalkeeper?
B) Was the ball deliberately played by the defender rather than a deflection?
C) Did any intervening player touch the ball in the mean time?
The answers to that are: YES, YES and NO, in order. So there IS a violation of Rule 12, and the attacking team should get an indirect free kick at the spot of the violation.
The clarification even specifically states "...and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be 'to' the goalkeeper."
Complain about this comment
It is a free-kick. The original player who passed it back did not intened a back pass to the keeper. However, the centre half by stepping over the ball intends it as a back pass to the keeper.
Complain about this comment
It's a lot simpler than a lot of the suggestions. Basically, you are not allowed to do any kind of trick or feint to bypass the backpass rule, which the defender has done.
It's kind of the same as getting on your hands and knees and heading it back to him.
So yeah... indirect free kick.
Complain about this comment
Blow for full time.
Complain about this comment
What would happen if a defender, near the touchline and inline with his own penalty area, stupidly tries to play an ariel cross-field ball to a team-mate directly opposite him.
Unfortunately, he woefully underhits his pass and the ball ends up heading directly to an awaiting striker.
The 'keeper, spotting the danger, rushes out of his goal and gathers the ball a second before the striker can get his head to it ?
Is there any logical way the pass could be deemed 'a back-pass' and a free-kick awarded ?? How does my scenario differ to the original one ?
Complain about this comment
@Post 192, Yes, and I'd fine the defender for it too.
A) Was the ball last touched by a teammate of the goalkeeper?
B) Was the ball deliberately played by the defender rather than a deflection?
C) Did any intervening player touch the ball in the mean time?
Again, the answer is YES, YES, NO. So once again, IFK from the spot of the violation
Complain about this comment
Let play continue no foul
Complain about this comment
Surely this is a classic for the referee's interpretation of the laws.
Personally, if I had interpreted the feint as a deliberate dummy I'd award an indirect free-kick where the 'keeper picked up the ball.
It's a shame that, unlike rugby, the referee does not talk during play (I'm aware that football is a faster-moving game so that makes things difficult) but, on the odd occasion I have taken charge of a match, I have tended to communicate advice including letting the 'keepr know if he can pick up a ball from a team-mate if I deem the 'pass' not to be deliberate.
Complain about this comment
My interpretation of the law would mean this is not a free kick. The original pass from the midfielder wasn't meant for the goalkeeper (no differrent to if one full back tries to pass to the other but slices the ball badly - the goalkeeper can pick this up without penalty). The action of the centre half is not relevant in this instance.
Complain about this comment
If the Czech player has misjudged his pass the Referee could see that as a direct pass to Goalkeeper and should therefore award an indirect free kick to the attacking team.
Complain about this comment
Post 186: and what exactly do the US know about football (real football that is)? If I were to quote laws and interpretations of laws I would only use FIFA or the IFAB as sources of reference
Complain about this comment
#198, well the whole world seems to be quoting the US interpretation of offside in terms of RVN goal against Italy. So we must know somthing.
Complain about this comment
156: strelivi - just because this was given as a backpass in a CL semi-final doesn't mean it was the correct decision. I mean, have you seen some of the antics of these European refs? A lot of them wouldn't be retained at Contributory League level in this country !!
Complain about this comment
Keith Hackett should not be adjudicating on this Sir Alex Ferguson clearly stated that he does not know what he is doing. The FA backed Sir Alex Ferguson by taking no action. Could it not be possible for Sir Alex to make the decision.
Complain about this comment
It's an indirect free kick against the Czechs, the keeper shouldn't pick up the ball. It all comes down to the "deliberately kicked" part of the rule, not whether it was "to the GK". Perhaps the rule should be re-worded to stress this. The midfielder has deliberately kicked the ball in this example.
Imagine a centre back has the ball, just outside his own area. One of his co-defenders is just inside his area, but nowhere near his GK. The defender with the ball passes to the second defender (i.e not to the GK), but this defender then choses to leave the ball and the GK runs out and picks it up. If we interpret the law that the pass has to be "to the GK", then this example would be legitimate and no free kick would be given, which is clearly wrong. Defenders would simply do this all the time to get the ball in their keepers' hands and up the pitch safely without having to overcome a press from the attacking team.
Complain about this comment
199: just a bunch of misguided fools :-D
The US have come a long way in recent years, but still have some way to go to be on a par with traditional football countries.
Please don't try to make the US the world authority of football as well, or the 'world' cup final may soon be played between LA Galaxy and DC United !!
Complain about this comment
No free kick as pass is intended for the defender and not the goalkeeper. Only an offence in law if the ball is played deliberately to the goalkeeper which in this case it has not.
Complain about this comment
I think it would depend on the goalkeepers movement, if he has run 10 yards to his left or right then I think it isn't a back pass. If it has come straight to him then I'd expect my keeper to clear it with a kick to be on the safe side, and wouldn't be surprised if a free kick was given.
Complain about this comment
Ah, Yorkshireref. I assume my that soubriquet that you are a referee in Yorkshire? Do you not know Law 12? I quote "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:" - offence number 3 is, and I quote "touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate."
Maybe you should change your name to 'Yorkshirerefwhodoesn'tknowthelawsofassociationfootball'?
Although, in the defence of 'Yorkshireref', he seems to know more aboout the laws than Keith Hackett.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunatly it was a back pass and an indirect free kick will be awarded.
Complain about this comment
206 - You are wrong, Yorkshireref knows his rules, see 202, it's about a deliberate kick by the outfield player, not whether it was to the GK or not
Complain about this comment
no free kick- a free kick can only be awarded if a player passes TO the keeper, intentionally, and he picks it up. Here, the midfielder passed to the defender, hence not a backpass is the normal sense
Complain about this comment
From what I understand the back pass to the keeper has to be intentional, to be classed as a back-pass.
Therefore the pass from the midfielder is a pass to the centre half which has unintentionally carried through to the goalkeeper, so I would say no freekick.
I guess if there is a difficulty here its if the dummy by the centrehalf can be technically construed as "playing the ball" but I would say not.
But seeing as a player laying injured off the field of play can technically still be involved in the game and so play a player onside then I guess anything is possible in the eyes of UEFA!
Complain about this comment
No, not a freekick, this rule only when a teamate uses their feet to INTENTIONALLY pass the ball to the goalkeeper
Complain about this comment
It's an indirect free-kick. I played in a match in which this scenario happened. The ball has been played DELIBERATELY back towards his own goal by a midfielder. The defender DELIBERATELY allows it to run, effectively PLAYING it to the 'keeper. We assume that the word "playing" means "kicking" but it doesn't. If the 'keeper picks it up then the ref should blow his little whistle and be prepared to face a mob of angry defenders who don't know the rules.
Well, that's what happened in our game anyway!
LOVE the fact that You're The Ref is back; it's like going back in time....
Complain about this comment
I think the rule is that the keeper can't pick the ball up if it's a DELIBERATE pass to him from one of his team.
So, in this situation, I would allow the keeper to pick the ball up and play to continue without infringement.
However, if I believed the intention was a deliberate pass to the keeper, I'd award an indirect free-kick to the attacking team.
Complain about this comment
Totally agree with 211 and many others Quite an easy situation to call. Absolutely not a free kick, no intention from the midfield player to pass to the goalkeeper.
(Incidentally if the ball is passed forward or sideways to the goalkeeper, it would be an indirect free kick... it's not given just because the ball is travelling toward the goal line.
The offence would be the goalkeeper's in picking up a pass played deliberately to him from any direction)
Complain about this comment
Straight from the FA Rule Book (page 94):
With reference to the goalie -
If he touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a
team-mate.
Was the kick DELIBERATELY kicked to the goalie? Doesn't appear to be. So, if the referee shares this opinion, then no infraction.
Complain about this comment
should not be a free kick (indirect). a dummy should not be treated as a apss otherwise all the magic is takn out of it.
Complain about this comment
On the subject of those from the US being somehow not qualified to speak on a ruling matter, I would suggest we could learn a lot from their mainstream sports and the rules which govern them.
From my experience you do not come across a law (or the implementation of it) that does not make good sense in their sports. As a result, cheats very rarely prosper. Whereas, certain laws in the game of association football, or at least the implementation of them, are not for the common good.
I say this being an Englishman but having an American wife. Now, any of those suggesting a bias should remember that my Mother-in-Law is also American, and I'm not about to impress her with any allegiance unless I genuinely believe what I say.
Complain about this comment
For me, it's not a freekick. Not an intentional back pass. But, I agree with RedFoz, UEFA can always change it!?!
Complain about this comment
Some of these comments are incredible.
Leaving a ball is "playing" it to the keeper? Hahaha.
Too many people are focussing on the fact the ball has been played backwards. You can get a 'back pass' passing the ball sideways or forwards too!
The fact the ball is pass back towards goal is 100% irrelevant. It doesn't matter which way the ball is travelling.
Even if, as someone suggested, the keeper nipped in front of the defender and picked it up, it still wouldn't be a back pass.
It's so simple, if the pass is NOT for the keeper, the back pass rule won't apply.
"... deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate" is, for once, a concrete rule in football.
Complain about this comment
Rule says a deliberate passback to the goalie, as the midfielder was attempting a pass back to his centre-half, it was not deliberate therefore play resumes. If the forward continues his rant without stopping, book him for dissent.
Complain about this comment
At last! Thank you winsaudi, someone who actually knows the Laws Of Association Football (LOAF). It is astounding how many managers, players and comentators that do not know the laws of the game. Never mind the half-wit amateurs like yorkshireref and Keith Hackett.
To the rest of you, if you are making a comment plucked from the air, don't bother. Go to FIFA's website and for the first time in your life, read the Laws! Then maybe you can comment sensibly for a change.
Complain about this comment
As a referee from Wiltshire you would just carry on because it was'nt intenional of the ball to go to the keeper so I would man-manage,so law 12 dose'nt come in to affect
Complain about this comment
from the FA website:
"If, however, in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play in order to circumvent the Law, the player is guilty of unsporting behaviour.He is cautioned, shown the yellow card and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred.
MEANING THE FEINT IS A FREE KICK OFFENCE.
As for whether it's a red card:
"A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick "
RESULT:RED CARD
Complain about this comment
indirect freekick should be given, its a direct violation of section 12 and is a tactical foul, even though the ball was not played directly to the goalkeeper it was left by the defender and found its way to him, therefore backpass and free kick from where the ball was played. im a qualified referee for 2 years, had to give a decision exactly the same last week during a friendly
Complain about this comment
Sorry Vincent, but though you are adamant in your support of Winsaudi, you are incorrect in your interpretation of the law. The important point is this...that the ball 'was deliberately kicked to...' this obviates deflections, miskicks etc...
If the ball now is next touched by the goalie...then it has been 'kicked to him'. he may not have been the original target of the pass, but he is the recipient. He may not legally be so, thus an indirect free kick should be awarded to the attacker's team.
Yorkshireref is correct in the LETTER of the law. as explained above. His examples are also accurately illustrative of the case. More to the point, he has correctly interpreted the SPIRIT of the law. the goalkeeper should not have handled the ball. The presence of the other defender is, to this extent, a red herring.
BTW, I have read over one hundred of the responses, and yours was the only one to be abusive of other posters...
Complain about this comment
In response to trickytree (post 219) and others....
I thought the idea of You're The Ref is for you to give an OPINION on the matter on hand, NOT to simply google the FA website or the official rules and then take the moral highground with your great "knowledge" of the game.
That notwithstanding, it would seem that having checked the rules of the game you don't know how to apply them in a match situation. CLEARLY the deliberate dummy by the defender is a trick and therefore an offence, no?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Having to effectively get inside the brain of the player to ascertain whether he or she 'intentionally' passed the ball to the keeper, as the rule stands, is a nonsense. Firstly, it cannot done. Secondly, why speculate, especially since a subtle change to the rule would make the whole situation more satisfactory and, I believe, more universally acceptable.
If he or she 'intentionally' kicked the ball, he or she can 'intentionally' kick it so that it does not go in the direction of the keeper. If the player's competence is such that they cannot do this in a certain circumstance then they should not be let off the hook by allowing the goalkeeper to handle it and, in so doing, secure possession.
The rule going forward should change to reflect this.
Complain about this comment
228 - EntertainAtAllCosts
If your 'he or she' is supposed to portray you as an enlightened commentator, read the LOAF page 3 which states:
"References to the male gender in the Laws of the Game in respect of referees, assistant referees, players and officials are for simplification and apply to both males and females."
Then read the question above. A clue or 2 is that it is the Czech Republic in Euro 2008. How many scenarios will require a 'she'?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Complain about this comment
It is only a violation of the laws of the game if the goalkeeper picks up a ball which has been intentionally kicked to him. In this case, the kick back was not an intentional pass to the goalkeeper, so he is entitled to pick up the ball and there is no foul.
Complain about this comment
Right I think you lot are being silly, The ball was not kicked to the goalkeeper but you can argue it was as we say a manufactored back pass,
Complain about this comment
In-direct free kick should be given.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"A Czech Republic midfielder misjudges a pass back to his centre-half." Maybe the pass is a header in which case it is not a passback. However if it was a noraml pass it still should not be a passback as he obviously has no intention of getting his pass to the keeper. Its the same as if a defender inadvertantly deflects a shot back to his goalie: answer, NO FREE KICK
Complain about this comment
This outcome of this situation depends heavily upon the applied laws.
Newtonian laws state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus the action of the midfielder making the pass is opposed by the goalkeeper collecting it, and the defender has no influence on the transaction. Therefore, the referee should award an indirect free kick.
According to Einstien's Laws of Relativity, if the ball was travelling at, or near, the speed of light, the goalkeeper would never be able to stop it, as it would have grown too massive. Therefore, the referee should award a goal or corner depending upon where the ball crossed the line.
Following the laws of Quantum Physics all of the above, and more, are deemed to have happened simultaneously. Therefore, the ref should award nothing, an indirect free kick, a goal, a corner, and a free ball for the foul snooker.
I would like to add the correct iterpretation of FIFA's laws, but in the light of recent decisions, I have given up trying to understand them.
Complain about this comment
229 - Vincent_Mustique
Steady on Vincent. Any attempts to encourage those of the fairer sex to join the debate have been well and truly scuppered now. I was just trying to be PC, but this was clearly lost on you.
Nor did anything I say that was meant to go straight into the rule book.
My point was a general one, not directly specific to the poser today.
But since you mention it, are you sure all those long haired Czechs are really men?
By the way, I'm wide awake and have been for a while.
Complain about this comment
truevillain...
To focus on the feint part... you could say the defender has firstly feinted to fool the attacker and stop him getting the ball, which would surely take priority over whether it goes to the keeper or not, meaning the fact it went to the keeper is coincedental.
But if you want to go deeper than that, you'd have to read the mind of the defender to know whether which thought occured to him first.
From my own personal playing experience, when challenging for a ball, you first think about how to win possession of it, and then what to do with it afterwards.
Complain about this comment
i want to give a scenario but cant find anywhere to submit it. if you can, somebody else do it.
its the final minutes of the final of the final of the EURO's, and Turkey are a goal down. A corner is cleared out and the Turkey defender gives it to the keeper to hoof it back down the pitch. Instead, he rolls it to Emre, who, from inside his own half, lifts the ball to underneath his shirt, holds his shirt which is carrying the ball, thus not allowing any player to touch the ball whilst not technically using a legal part of his body, and carries it forward. His hands are a big point here too as they are not directly touching the ball but without them the ball hits the ground. He runs the length of the field to put it away and take it to extra time, and eventually Turkey win the tournament.
What now?
Complain about this comment
wasnt a pass meant for the keeper so no free kick
Complain about this comment
236 - EntertainAtAllCosts
'Just trying to be PC', why?
Use the scenario as posed. Otherwise we might get into the 'was the ball made from leather from humanely treated cows' debate. Or the 'what is the carbon footprint of each Euro 2008 match?' nonsense.
Get real.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Thanks to ProperPundit's inspiration, I too have a senario.
During the World Cup Final between Boston United and Germany, the Boston goalkeeper runs off the pitch, climbs into a JCB, collects all of the spare balls in the bucket, and rams them into the German goal. Boston win by 14 - 11.
What now?
Complain about this comment
Re: 238
Emre is using a trick to circumvent the handball rule - he's using his shirt to avoid touching it with his hands but the overall effect is the same as if he carried the ball. As such, he gets booked and the opposition gets an indirect free kick from where he first put the ball into his shirt.
Complain about this comment
Re: 242
It depends whether Christian Panucci is the Boston goalie and whether he's closer to the trophy than Ruud van Nistelrooy.
Complain about this comment
It may be yet another rule meant for interpretation but this is mine and the way we do things down here in Memphis Tennessee, or is it just in the leagues I ref in, or is it just me?
Anyhow the issue that was addressed by the rule in the first place was delay of game. Defenders routinely used to try to waste time by kicking back to the goalie and then the goalie would waste time by rolling it, then bouncing it then hopefully punting it away.
If the ball is not intentionally passed back directly to the goalie and there "may" have been another intention to the pass then the whistle should not be blown. As a matter of fact the whistle should only rarely be blown in a soccer .... err... football match. Let all the divers (simulators) just lay there and cry...
Complain about this comment
Yes of course it is an indirect free kick to the attacking team as the back pass was with intent.
The goallie can only pick it up if the pass without intent.
Complain about this comment
I have a great scenario.
Portugal and Holland are playing in the Euro 2008 final. It's come down to penalties. Portugal have score all 5 of theirs while Holland have one to go to level it. On his way to the box Holland's penalty taker, Ruud van Nistelrooy is flattened by a punch from Cristiano Ronaldo, who has just scored for Portugal. Van Nistelrooy is unfit to take the kick. As the line-up to take the penalties has already been submitted do Holland thus forfeit the match?
My questions are:
Is another penalty taker allowed to take the kick for Holland?
Will Portugal be punished in any way? For instance if another dutch player is allowed to take the spot-kick but misses, it hardly seems fair (considering Ruud is a proven penalty taker).
Thanks!
Complain about this comment
Very Simple.
Defender 1 didn't pass it to the goalkeeper.
Defender 2 didn't kick the ball (or touch it with his legs).
So no free-kick.
Complain about this comment
Suggested rule change:
The goalkeeper cannot handle the ball direct from one of his own players period. This would include headers or any part of the anatomy. (I've never understood the logic of why headers should be permitted - anyone help on this?)
Then, I hear you ask, how does the goalkeeper deal with shots that are deflected?
In this instance the referee does have to make a judgement, but it is one which is, I believe, a lot easier (more likely to be correct) than deciding whether the pass back was intentional or not.
Therefore, in the opinion of the referee, if the ball is deflected by a defender from a shot on goal from the attacking team then the goalkeeper is permitted to save it with his hands. I could also add that by shooting the attacking team have effectively given up possession, thereby allowing the keeper to recover it.
With the rule in its current form defenders can get themselves out of trouble by missing hitting the ball while, for example, defending a cross and the ball conveniently finds its way into the gloves of the goalkeeper. And this happens quite often and there then ensues an argument - did he do it intentionally, etc, etc. Despite the lack of control by the defender his goalkeeper has it and, obviously, they have possession through mere good fortune.
This rule doesn't favour the better team, just the luckier one.
With the rule altered it would probably lead to a more exciting game too.
Thoughts?
Complain about this comment
245 - WhitechapelFC
1. There are no 'rules' in football, there are 'laws'.
2. Wrong, the 'law' was not introduced to combat 'delay of game'. How can it delay the game if the game is in progress? It was introduced to counter the negative time-wasting element that used to occur when a player could pass the ball to a goalkeeper who could then pick up the ball and then waste time before, usually, rolloing the ball to another team mate who would then pass it back, etc etc.
3. Before your comment, Memphis was famous for music and everything else was irrelevant, after your comment there has been no change.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Not a free-kick.
He's picking up a back-pass intended for a team-mate, not for him. If the center back had played the ball to him and got a touch on it, or the intention of the midfield player had been to pass to the goalkeeper, it would be a free kick.
This logic relies on the back-pass rule being defined as only when GK picks up balls played intentionally to him by his team-mates.
Complain about this comment
252 - Jimbobjeff85
What happens if the outfield player is near one of his own corner flags and he passes forwards to his goalkeeper who picks up the ball?
It is deliberately kicked to him by a team mate and is therefore an offence against Law 12.
So your 'back-pass' comment is misleading. It could be an offence even if the pass is forward.
Complain about this comment
The midfielder misjugded the pass, it was his own fault and his team mate decided to let the ball carry to his goal keeper , therefore a indirect free-kick should be awarded to the oppositione team
Complain about this comment
When interpreting a rule we must look at its intention: the backpass rule was introduced to stop teams timewasting by repeatedly passing the ball back to the keeper to pick up. It would therefore be rather foolish of the referee to award anything on this occasion.
Complain about this comment
254 - Kaduji
Learn the Laws mate. Then you would not make comments that display your ignorance of the Laws Of Association Football.
That said, you are probably well qualified to become a coach or a commentator.
Complain about this comment
If I was the Goalie... I would also have been angered should a free-kick have been given against me. I was probably unsighted and thought ball came off the opposing player.
But why is there no "controversy" over Germany's opening goal last weekend ? To me it offside - not once - but twice... and need some input
Complain about this comment
Let him pick it up, I say. As the ref, if I saw that it was not originally intended for the keeper, then it is not a backpass, and carry on.
Complain about this comment
It's not a free kick because the pass was not intended for the goalkeeper
Complain about this comment
Answer: No Free Kick
Reason: Below
Law 12 states that an indirect free kick is awarded if the goalkeeper inside his own penalty area "touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate"
From this definition we must ascertain;
1) has the goalkeeper touched the ball with his hands?
2) has the ball been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate?
If both are yes then a free kick is awarded. However, here in Part 1 the answer is yes, but in part 2 the answer is no - the ball was not deliberately played to the goalkeeper, it was played to the defender.
Unlike in Law 11 and the FA's guidelines on offside, where active play is "...making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent", Law 12 does not have such an aspect.
The defender stepping over the ball does not constitute playing the ball. If a striker were to step over a ball on its way into the goal, would he be awarded it? No, because he hadnt touched it. Playing the ball is by kicking it; no matter where the player is on the active field of play.
As such, whether the player is interfering or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the midfielder "deliberately kicks the ball back". In this case he has played it to the defender, and so has not deliberately played it to the goalkeeper.
Decision: No free kick
Complain about this comment
FREE KICK
the ball was played back to the goalkeeper by the midfielder therefore its a czech free kick
Complain about this comment
260. - Spot on!
261. - Spot the brain cell.
Complain about this comment
Not many people realise that Law 12 was specifically introduced to combat the time-wasting tactics of any team coached by Don Howe.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
264. - Vincent_Mustique
Wow! Is there really a Big Brother blog?
You must post the address so that I can go there and read some of your comments.
Complain about this comment
266
Same as my 264.
Yawn.
Complain about this comment
267.
Your stingingly witty reposte has cut me deep, Sir. So I must withdraw, and leave you to patrol this board alone.
Complain about this comment
260
"From this definition we must ascertain;
1) has the goalkeeper touched the ball with his hands?
2) has the ball been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate?"
The important part of this is "deliberately kicked to him", which I interpret as meaning HOW the ball was played.
i.e. the ball was deliberately passed (doesn't matter about who the intended player was) rather than being a horribly shanked clearance or a deflection.
Therefore correct decision is an indirect free kick from where the 'keeper picks up the ball.
Complain about this comment
It simply HAS to be a free kick, otherwise players would use this tactic all the time, in order to circumvent this rule.
Imagine 2 centre-backs passing the ball to each other. Then, one of them would simply let the ball pass through his legs and the goalkeeper would catch it.
They could claim that the "intention" of the pass was to the centre-back and not the goalkeeper. In reality, this would simply be a trick to circumvent (and mock) the rule.
In order to prevent this kind of trickery, they must be sanctioned with an indirect free kick.
Complain about this comment
I think it's an odd situation, but the midfielder didn't intentionally pass the ball back to the keeper, therefore, no pass-back.
Complain about this comment
I think its play on. Although the defender has "played the ball" he hasnt made a pass. The pass was not directed to the keeper therefore it was not a pass back to the keeper specifically.
I would say no free kick as the pass was not intended for the keeper and the pass back rule is for intentional pass backs which this is not.
Complain about this comment
A point to note at the people who say its a free kick by defining deliberately kicked to the keeper as "a deliberate pass to a team mate the keeper or otherwise" is as follows:
I pass the ball back to the centre back with some zing, it takes a bobble a la Paul Robinson and clean bounces over my team mates foot at which point the keeper rushes to claim it on the edge of the box from an optimistic striker. In essence that situation is NO different from this one, but your interpretation forces the referee to again award a back pass when this was clearly not the intention.
In the eyes of the law these two instances are one and the same but i would suggest that were the occurances i describe to happen to your team and a free kick be awarded to your opposition you would be LIVID.
Think about it, its just an interesting thing to consider and, if Mr Hackett were to agree with you then in this instance i would be intrigued to hear his take on my situation and if he would handle it differently on the spur of the moment (and i am prepared to bet that in the instance i have described above the free kick would be given maybe 2 in 100 times!)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
249 entertain at all costs, your a numpty.
Picture this situation, and it is one that occurs with reasonable regularity, a wide player skins his man a fizzes a dangerous ball in between the defenders and the goal. A despairing centre back lunges to intercept and directs the cross straight towards his own net. Your proposed rule change effectively guarentees this to be a goal unless it hits the keeper straight on in the chest. In a situation like that it presents a RIDICULOUS advantage to the attacking side and as a consequence your rule change is ludicrous. The same application could be for any directed cross in a similar fashion.
I find your proposed new rule both flawed and irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
250. Vincent_Mustique
WOW!! It seems as if there isn't much difference in people over the globe after all.
1. Rules / Laws Tomatoes/Tomatoes .....
2. Delay of game maybe was a wrong term since the "game" is always happening but I think you know what I am speaking of. Maybe I expect more of my football matches than you do and don't consider passing the ball to the goalie "game." Anyhow the rule was formulated to prevent the "killing of the clock" or as you say the "negative time wasting element" inherent in directly kicking or flipping the ball up and heading the ball back to the goalie. Any call made in terms of this "law" should be made when the offense is blatant and at no other time. You give the benefit of the doubt to the offenders because the call or lack of a call is not an earth shattering event unless it is given flippantly. After all it didn't win games in the centuries of footballing before the rule so a defenseman who intentionally tried to "sneak" a pass back to the goalie wouldn't really be getting away with one would he?
3. Classy touch mate. Cheers.
Complain about this comment
This scenario does not state who the midfielder is intending the pass to go to. If he is passing to his goalkeeper then as the law states that an indirect free kick is awarded against a goalkeeper ih he handles a ball delibrately played back to him by a team mate, that is what must be given. But, if he is passing to a defender then a free kick cannot be awarded.
To all those people claiming that the word 'delibrate' in the laws refers to whether the player meant to pass it or not, regardless of who it was meant to go to, look at this scenario;
An attacker crosses a ball into the opposition's penalty area from the left wing. When he does this he is level with the edge of the oppostion penalty area. It is, however, a very windy day and the ball blows all the way back to the attacker's goalkeeper (team-mates) and the goalkeeper picks up the ball. Is this a pass-back?
The player delibrately meant to pass the ball but not to the goalkeeper and by many people's definition this is a pass-back. It is quite clearly not a pass-back.
Complain about this comment
Thomasd21 i have eluded to the point you make in 273 except make a take on it in a far more believable, and relevant fashion
Complain about this comment
re: 273
Actually no, I'd be livid with the keeper for making such a mistake. Any professional and half decent amateur keeper knows that they shouldn't pick up a controlled pass from one of their own players regardless of the intention of the pass. And I speak from experience, both as a qualified referee and as a keeper who's played a lot of amateur football with some defenders whose passing accuracy and control leaves something to be desired!
Oh, and regarding the "no intention" defence, this isn't a valid defence. As I found out once when one of my defenders challenged a striker who was running at me and took the ball off his toes. His intention was merely to win the ball, but his challenge ended up sending the ball in my direction. I picked it up - indirect free kick. Something which both sides agreed on - no one was livid. Oh, and I saved the shot from the free kick ;)
Ultimately, I don't think this situation would happen because, if a deliberate pass is made by a player which enters the penalty area, top class keepers know not to handle the ball - the keeper would simply kick it away.
Complain about this comment
Hi folks. Just let us read the question a player passes to a team mate who IS NOT the goalkeeper. In this scenrio I give fullmarks to the defending player who knows the law better than most of the people pontification on this blog. Question gives answer NO free kick.
Complain about this comment
re: 277
If it's windy enough to blow the ball over 90 yards, I think the game would be abandoned!
Complain about this comment
Re: 280
Yes, but in stepping over the ball the centre half makes it a pass to the keeper. Just the same way that if a player takes a free kick inside their penalty area with their head, and the goalkeeper picks it up, they would incur an indirect free kick for attempting to use a trick to get round the law.
Complain about this comment
play on. midfielder did not 'deliberately' pass to the keeper, so this does not make it a pass back, and the centre back did not 'kick' it so neither does this.
Complain about this comment
Refswarbs..... Alan Shearer, Hansen et al all agreed that RVN's goal shouldnt have been but they were wrong. Quite why you think that playing amateur football and being an amateur referee immediately makes you right i am unsure.
In fact i am strongly convinced that the situation you cite did not happen. At least if it did it says something about the level of refereeing you are involved in. It is patently clear for ALL to interpret from the rules that a tackle is not a pass. As i understand it your team mate made a tackle, as distinct from a pass and therefore under the rule the decision you cite was clearly incorrect and i am sure that most on this board would agree that a defender putting in a tackle and that tackle ending with the keeper claiming the ball is most certainly NOT a back pass and therefore not in breach of this rule.
Complain about this comment
re 279 RefSwarbs
I think in the scenario that you mentioned that the referee missed the call badly. Unless your defenseman clearly stole it from the attacker then turned back and passed it directly to you then there was no violation of the law.
However to keep on the safe side I do agree with you that it is best when able for a GK to avoid picking the ball up on a 50/50 play to stay on the safe side of an authoritarian referee. The scenario that began this blog is a 50/50 situation. These situations prove that despite a book of "laws" and objective reasoning that there are no absolutes in this life at any level.
Complain about this comment
Re 282.
Stop looking for things that have not happend. How can player make a pass not intended for the keeper be turned into a back pass by a player stepping over it. If this is so every time a player steps over the ball in your opinion he is using a trick, thats what footballs about. As I said before question gives answer.
Anyone can help I would love to post a question to see if premier league referees chief really knows the rules. Thanks in anticipation.
Complain about this comment
Definately a back pass and an indirect free kick to the attacking team. It's simple really and the easiest question so far. A foul occurs if the goalkeeper handles a deliberate pass - doesn't say in the rules who the pass has to be to! Also, add into the mix the fact that the defender deliberately let the pass run through to the keeper helps to dot the i's and cross the t's on this one!! Next...
Complain about this comment
So what if the ball was played back, seemingly to the defender, who slipped, and then Cech picked it up?
Adding a new twist here, because that takes away all intent from the defender, and then it must be decided whether a controlled pass backwards is deemed enough for an indirect free-kick.
Personally I think the step-over makes the player active, and therefore he has still 'played' the ball to the keeper, by intentionally stepping over it in the knowledge that the keeper was behind him.
Complain about this comment
It definitely an indirect free kick
A back pass is always a back pass even if another team mate jumped or danced over it.
It won't be a free if only the back pass law changed few 'days' ago
Is clear and easy to decide
Complain about this comment
I should clarify...
The defender was a nippy little beggar and was basically in a head to head sprint with the striker. Striker knocked it a little too far forward and the defender just got far enough ahead to kick the ball away. As they were both sprinting towards me, the kick went in my direction. It was under control, there was no chance of it going into the goal, the defender just wanted to get it away from the striker. I should have punted it upfield but, being a bit inexperienced at the time (aged 14) I picked it up. And in doing so I gained an advantage that the passback law is intended to cut out.
Carior, I don't say I'm "immediately right". I thought the beauty of football was that, as Whitechapel FC states, there are no absolute rights or wrongs in football, only interpretations of the laws. In this case, my interpretation is based on having seen dozens of these situations in real life and from all three perspectives.
My interpretation is:
Midfielder makes a deliberate pass to the defender. Defender realises he is going to be in trouble, and so allows that pass to roll through to the keeper. In doing so, the defender turns it into a back pass. Any decent keeper would realise this and would kick the ball. But the keeper in this case chooses to pick it up. As the situation has been created by a deliberate pass which has gone to the keeper, I'd give an indirect free kick to the attacking team.
You may choose to do it differently, but the spirit of the pass back law is that the keeper can only use his hands to defend their goal. They can't use their hands to help their side out when they have possession and are at risk of losing it due to pressure from the attackers.
Complain about this comment
matt_b87, "playing" the ball is not enough. By heading the ball back to the keeper the defender is playing the ball but this is not a back pass therefore simply playing the ball is not enough to warrant in being deemed a back pass i am afraid.
Complain about this comment
Law 12 states:
"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:
• takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his
hands before releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released
from his possession and has not touched any other player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from
a throw-in taken by a team-mate"
The third bullet point says that the ball has to be deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper.
I don't know what the writers of the rule meant by this, but I presume that they meant that the player with the ball intended their pass to go to the goalkeeper, as opposed to any other player. The deliberately means deliberately sending the pass to the goalkeeper.
But it could be argued that all that the word 'deliberately' means is that the pass was not accidental (for example a sliced pass). So in the case described it could be argued that a free kick should be awarded since the player kicked it in the direction he meant it to go, and it ended up with the goalkeeper. As opposed to he sliced it and thus the ball was not deliberately kicked in that direction.
If the former scenario is what the writers of the rule meant, then in any situation where the ball ends up being touched by the goalkeeper, it is up to the referee to decide whether the player making the pass intended the ball to end up with the goalkeeper or not.
Complain about this comment
As the forward didn't touch the ball, that wont affect whether or not it is judged a back pass.
As I'm sure most football fans know, this is a bit of a grey area in the law, however (in my understanding) if the referee deems that the defender (or in this case midfielder) has deliberately passed the ball to the keeper, then it is a back pass.
As this case describes the midfielder overhitting a pass to the defender the referee may allow it. The problem is it all comes down to how the ref interprets the situation. Similar to the 'active' issue of the offside law, some refs may give it one way and some the other.
Complain about this comment
The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
- The ball is kicked (played with the foot) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
- This action is deemed to be deliberate rather than a deflection, and
- The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)
Ergo, indirect free kick against the Czechs.
Wooooooo. Go me!!
Complain about this comment
I had to return to apologise to the person/persons that took offence to my post in response to post 247.
I was not really advocating that the Portugal goalkeeper should have his legs broken before he should face further penalties. That would be downright nasty, and surely not in keeping with the spirit of the game.
My response was generated by the equally ludicrous proposition that a player would deliberately punch a fellow professional in the face, knocking him out, to gain an advantage during a penalty shoot-out.
On the pass back senario: -
I hope that the variety of responses to the original question posed would not be relfected in the true decisions made on the pitch by referees faced by such a senario during a game.
Even when faced with the law, in black and white, on the page, people will weave their own interpretation into the words.
For my own interpretation, I look beyond the words to the reason that the law was introduced. This law was introduced solely with the intention of preventing time-wasting by players repeatedly passing the ball to the safe arms of the goalkeeper. Incidentally, this was made possible by protective law changes in the favour of goalkeepers, who were, at one time, able to be challenged with the ball in hand.
Unless I felt that a player had deliberately made a pass to the goalkeeper, I would not award a free kick. You can create any senario you like around these circumstances, but my reaction would still be governed by this interpretation.
Hopefully, most referees would react in the same manner, but referees are only human and a just as capable of making mistakes as football players, coaches and managers.
The thing that grieves me the most about such a situation is that, the midfielder's error of judgement in making the initial pass would not be treated anywhere near as harshly as any refereeing error. The ref would be lambasted endlessly by the self-rigtheous pundits.
Complain about this comment
I think it is not a free-kick because the original pass was intended for the defender and not the goalkeeper.
Complain about this comment
Guys. You have your rules to play your game.
It is a controlled movement to the keeper who then picks up a deliberate pass.
Indirect free-kick from where the keeper played the ball. He has committed the offence.
You guys need to show respect to your referees. Stop slagging them off and acknowledge the fact they may be more informed about the rules than you!
Complain about this comment
On a different note I wish people would stop calling centre backs by the name "centre half".
In the old 2-3-5 formation the middle guy of the 3 midfielders was called the "centre halfback".
I think it was Herbert Chapman at Arsenal in the 1920s who came up with the idea of dropping the guy who had been the "centre half back" back into defence from midfield to become a third fullback.
This produced a 3-2-5 formation that became known as the WM.
The correct full term for the guy who dropped back was "centre fullback", since he was a new third fullback. But many people continued to call the person in that position the "centre halfback", or more simply the "centre half". The short form should have been "centre back". To match the existing "left back" and "right back".
This has continued in British football right up until now - 83 years later.
Bobby Moore and Jack Charlton in 1966 were not twin centre halfs. It's clear that they were centre backs. They were defenders not midfielders.
It's this sort of thing that gives British football the reputation that it always behind the times. After 83 years some people still call centre backs by the name originally given to midfielders in the 2-3-5 formation.
Complain about this comment
Hi me again sorry. With quite a few saying as the player has stepped over it he is guilty of an offence. Try this, same kind of thing different place. A free kick is awarded to the attacking team just outside the penalty area, an attacking player runs up as if to take ther free kick but steps over it (done every week during the season) the centre forward then blasts the ball into the goal. Every time I have seen this happen a goal is given. so using Law 18 (common sense, (refs will know what I mean) let play go on. The game is all about suntafuge and trying to bend the rules, hell referees do the same every week to help themselves. I still maintain as the player has not touched the ball no offence. Also to the point he was interfering with play, dont all players, irrespective of whey they are on the filed. Fnally you can not penalise a player for a bad pass, good god we be there till midnight in some cases.
Complain about this comment
I hope Keith H will explain whether the word 'deliberately' in the law refers to
1. the kick itself, or
2. the intention of the pass.
That's the issue here.
If it refers to the kick itself being deliberate (as opposed to accidental) then it is a free kick.
If it refers to the intention of the pass (as in whether he was deliberately aiming the ball towards the goalkeeper or not) then it is up to the ref to decide if the intention was to deliberately send the ball to the goalkeeper.
As in many cases, the wording used is unclear as to what the writers of the law meant by it.
Complain about this comment
EggChaser:
Regarding your post 297.
The law concerned does not refer to anything about 'controlled movement' so I don't see why you use that wording as if it resolves anything.
The wording in the law is unclear as to what the word deliberately is being applied to.
You take it to mean that deliberately refers to the kick being deliberate ie controlled as opposed to being accidental.
But the wording could be taken to mean that the deliberately refers not to the physical action of the kick but rather to the intention of where the player was aiming the pass.
Complain about this comment
275. Carior
A very useful response.
It might have been better for you to provide an answer to the logic of why headers are allowed in the back pass rule?
Or, provide a more compelling reason why my suggestion has seemingly no merits than the example you cited? An example in which the attacking team have carved out an opening with a "dangerous" cross which the defender somehow only manages to clear it towards goal when he could have hit it anywhere: Row Z, on to the keeper's foot, to another team mate, etc. Credit the attacking team for forcing the error if the only thing the defender can do is make it difficult for the keeper to stop the goal with something other than his hands.
What happens with more "regularity" is when a defender benefits from a complete miskick which turns into a backpass while under pressure (or not), or when he passes the ball under pressure towards an area where the goalkeeper is favourite to get their first. This latter example happens all the time and it has become accepted practice, for some reason. You'll see the attacker upset when the referee waves play on, and that's about it. Just about every observer is either completely unaware of these occurrences or is wondering why the attacker is showing his disgust.
If my suggestion is "flawed", it is less "flawed" than the current law (and of course I recognise nothing in life is perfect).
And why is it "irrelevant"?
By the way, I think you're find it's "you're a numpty", and not "your a numpty".
Complain about this comment
harpo canada, you are a pillock.
the names of the positions is hardly the debate here. and equally, who cares?! football is a game, a made up game, with made up rules and made up names!
do we presume that a hooker in rugby is so called because he trades sex for money?!
and if anyone judges british football as "behind the times" because we say "centre half" instead of "centre back" then they may judge away!!! seriously, who cares?!
Complain about this comment
What a good scenario - gets lots of debate from armchair and "real" refs......
Last time I played at a truly competative level I was a keeper and it was before the rules changed, but back then I could be knocked over and have the ball kicked out of my hands by the opposition so you can tell my age!
Anyway, post 71 and 297 are pretty illustrative.
The defending team's midfielder played the ball with feet in a controlled manner, into the goalkeeper's area and the keeper picked it up without any intervening event.
Result: Indirect free-kick where the keeper picked it up - he should have smeared it out - his foul.
Any other interpretation and the defence could play with the ball all day, with keeper rolling it out and one defender passing it to his mate who steps over and keeper collects - just what the rule was there to put a stop to.
Maybe Mr Hackett will view it differently?
/waits with bated breath/
Complain about this comment
Indirect free kick from where the keeper picks up the ball because of the pass back. A yellow card for Unsporting behaviour to the centre -half for deliberatly trying to get aroudn the pass back rule. probably a bit harsh, but this is how I see the rules as they stand playing ou on this scenario.
Taffy - downunder
Complain about this comment
well firstly i agree with CamTheWasp , who cares about terminology of posistions - and to be honest when i think of legendary english defenders (by ability or reputation), the names of chopper harris, terry butcher and bobby moore are all synonymous with centre-half.
As for the orginal question - as a centre half i'd peel pretty annoyed if the decision went against me if i'd have done this, however having read post 71, and assuming it is correct, i agree with a free kick should be given, but im not sure in a game situation it would be as its a hug call for the ref.
Although the defender letting the ball through his legs doesnt play the ball , he clearly knows the ball will run to the keeper from a pass from his own team mate, so although the orginal pass wasnt meant for the keeper, the actions of the defender make it intended for the keeper in the same way as if the defender had controlled the ball and then passed it himself to the keeper.
I'm sure in a game situation, and i'd hope my keeper, would belt the ball as far as possible up field or into touch, but should they pick it up, a free kick should be given
Complain about this comment
I would not award a free kick, as the player did not make an intentional pass back to the keeper.
I would give a yellow card to the "footballer" who was screaming for a free kick, and explain that it is my job to make decisions and I did not ask for advice. I would add that if I got as much as a dirty look, that would constitute a second yellow.
Complain about this comment
Reggie:
How would the ref know what the intention of the midfielder was?
You say that the intention of the midfielder was not to pass it to the goalie, but you only know that because the person who invented the scenario told you so.
During an actual game the ref would not know what the intention of the midfielder was. For that matter, neither would the goalie nor the defender. All they would see was the ball coming their way.
Since the defender was able to step over the ball and let it run to the goalie, all the ref would see would be the ball being passed in the direction of both the defender and the goalie. The goalie must be in line with the pass otherwise the defender wouldn't let it run through to him.
The ref doesn't know who the ball is intended for, so he has to call it as he sees it. I say free kick.
Complain about this comment
A lot of people have stated that the intention of the 'no handling a pass from your own team' law was to eliminate time wasting, but that wasn't the only reason.
As someone stated earlier it isn't always about time wasting. You saw players do it all game and not just at the end to waste time.
An equally valid reason for it was to eliminate the situation where a defender is able to take the easy way out at any time and put the ball into the hands of the goalie. If a defender was under pressure and faced losing the ball via a tackle all he had to do was pass the ball to his goalie. Once in the hands of the goalie the pressure was relieved since the attacker couldn't tackle the goalie.
Never mind time wasting, this was always one way for a team that was 1 goal down with a minute to go and under pressure again to get the ball up the pitch quickly. Pass the ball back to the goalie and let him boot it up the pitch from the safety of his hands.
The current rule is sensible in that the attacker still has the chance to tackle the goalie once the ball is passed to the goalie. The pressure is still on the defending team. They can't simply put the ball into the hands of the goalie to prevent a tackle. The goalie is now just another player who has to use his feet.
In the scenario that we are discussing that's why I say it is a free kick. By allowing the ball to run to the goalie the defender has relieved the pressure on his team. The pass ended up being a pass to the goalie never mind what the midfielder intended.
The spirit of the law is to eliminate the defending team using the safety of the goalie's hands on purpose. That is exactly what the defender did by making no attempt to play the ball. The supposed pass to him became a pass to the goalie.
Complain about this comment
The "correct" decision depends upon where the match is being played.
If it's in East Yorkshire - indirect free kick to the Czechs' opponents.
If it's in South America - referee abandons match and sets armed police on both teams.
If it's at Stamford Bridge - the opposition striker is booked for encroaching into Cech's half of the field.
If it's in Cardiff - scrum down on the Czech 22, opposition put-in.
If it's at Ibrox - penalty to Rangers.
If it's in Berne - goal for Holland.
That should clarify the issue.
Complain about this comment
Can I go back to You Are The Ref #2?
Keith H is right to say that the player who clears off the line shouldn't be sent off.
His only crime is re-entering the field without permission. It isn't against the laws of the game to clear the ball off the line.
Remember that he doesn't foul Torres to stop the goal scoring opportunity. Torres takes the opportunity - it isn't denied to him in any way - and sends the ball towards the goal.
It isn't against any law to stop the ball from going into the goal. There is no foul. That is a normal part of the game.
The ONLY offence is re-entering the field without permission. Keith H is right to say you award the free kick. It should be taken from where the ball was at the time when the player re-entered the field.
The scenario is unrealistic in that it says that he re-enters after Torres shoots. Nobody could get to the ball that fast so it is more likely the player was already on his way towards the ball when Torres was dribbling through the defence.
The free kick should thus be taken from where the ball was when the player committed his offence, and not from where he stopped the ball, since stopping the ball isn't an offence.
The free kick would be taken from wherever Torres had the ball when the player ran back onto the field.
Book him for the actual offence, but he can't be given a yellow or a red card for stopping the ball entering the goal. That isn't against the laws.
Complain about this comment
Harpo:
The scenario did not say anything about the intention of the midfielder, but you still make a good point. Was the keeper in the penalty area?? If not handball methinks!
Complain about this comment
Cam at 303:
Who cares? I care! That's why I brought it up.
As for names the hooker in rugby has always done the same thing.
If the hooker was removed from the scrum and the extra available player was included in the backs then it would be stupid to still call the new position the hooker, wouldn't it?
That's why a central defender is a centre back and not a centre half. A centre half was a midfield position and once the position was eliminated it was stupid to call the new defence position the same thing.
If I recall the situation correctly from the Arsenal example in 1925, the centre half as a midfielder wore the number 5 shirt. The 3 midfielders wore the 4, 5 and 6 shirts from right to left.
So when the centre half was eliminated from the midfield it was the number 5 shirt that became the new centre back, moving in between the existing backs who wore the 2 and 3 shirts.
But many people associated the number 5 with centre half and stuck with the name of centre half. To them the number 5 had to be a centre half no matter what he actually did.
It's only 83 years later and people are still calling the position this even though squad numbers took over long ago, so that number 5 means nothing.
If in football some team eliminated forwards altogether would it make any sense to call one of the 6 midfielders a centre forward just because he wore number 9?
Complain about this comment
Reggie:
Re 312
Sorry but the scenario specifically mentions that the midfielder misjudges a pass back to his ''centre half''. He clearly intends it to go to the centre half.
Not that anyone else could tell what he intended. The ref is not in the business of judging where a pass is intended to go. All he can ever see is where it is going.
The word misjudges is misleading too. What does the word mean?
Does the midfielder hit it too softly so that it may not reach the defender and the attacker has a chance to get to it? That appears unlikely since no defender would leave it for the goalie in that case. It is even less likely to roll through to the goalie.
It must mean that the midfielder overhits it so that the defender is worried that he won't be able to control it before the attacker gets to him. Thus he leaves it for the goalie to control more easily with his hands. The goalie is behind him so letting it run through means the goalie can use his hands to control it plus there is the advantage that the defender will be in the path of the attacker who is trying to get to it.
Both of these things suit the defender and relieve the pressure caused by the midfielders misjudgement.
Complain about this comment
For this one, I suspect the answer will depend on the position of the three Czechs because the final decision will be based on the referee's judgement.
If the three are in a line and the Centre-Half and Goalkeeper are quite close to each other, say 2 metres or so, there could be an argument for interpreting the pass as a passback - it doesn't specifically state the nature of the misjudgment but I assume the Mid-fielder actually kicked it with pace. In that situation the referee may judge the pass was intended for the Goal-keeper because of its pace, the feint being part of a pre-conceived move, therefore award the freekick.
If on the other hand the Goal-Keeper is in a 'dog-leg' position in relation to the other two, or the Goal-keeper and Centre-Half are several metres from one another, I think the referee would judge the pass was not a specific passback, therefore no freekick.
Complain about this comment
314. harpo_canada
Well put.
The defending team have almost certainly succumbed to the pressure being applied by the poor lone striker who has been charging around all afternoon chasing up to four defenders and, finally, he has been rewarded with some justice.
Complain about this comment
In the opinion of the referee a back pass must be intentional . As the midfielder did not intend his pass for the keeper, I would allow play to carry on.
Complain about this comment
317. alanfjone5
How does the referee (or anyone else) know it was an intentional back pass?
It's so grey, it could be the Manchester sky.
Why have a rule that requires a judgement like this?
Mistake by the defending team and therefore they should not be allowed an easy out with the goalkeeper picking up the ball.
It is akin to a spoiled brat picking up the ball in the park, claiming it is his, because things aren't going his way. Well, sort of.
Someone is now bound to tell me the sun is actually out in the Manchester.
Complain about this comment
No, no free kick. The reason is that the ball was played back, but to the centre-half - it was not deliberately played back to the 'keeper.
Complain about this comment
If in attacking mode a player passes it forward to someone who is in an onside position, but by mistake the ball goes through to someone who is in an offside position and he touches it, despite the fact that the referee believed the pass was originally intended for the onside player, is it offside?
Of course it is.
It should be (even if it isn't) the same in the case of a back pass. Therefore, it is an indirect free kick to the attacking team.
Complain about this comment
It's a tough one but I think it does constitue an indirect freekick inside the area where the goalkeeper picked the ball up. My logic behind this decision is as follows...
Although the pass from the midfielder was aimed to the centre half, the centre half intentionally let the ball run through his legs to the goal keeper. Had the pass from the midfielder to his centre half been misplaced so badly it ended up with the goalkeeper then I would have let that go because the back pass was not his intention. However, the centre half had the option to other clear the ball or take a touch but he has chosen to let it run through his legs which basically turned the misplaced pass into and intentional pass (if that makes sense). For that reason I would have pulled up the play and gave the freekick.
Although that is probably completely wrong!
Complain about this comment
If you follow the law's to the letter, then you could sell that no offence has been committed - "an indirect free kick should be awarded if the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kick back to him by a defender".
However, remember that here, you are penalising the GK, not the player who passed the ball, and by allowing the ball through his legs, the defender has turned this into a deliberate kick to the GK, so equally you could sell the awarding of an indirect freekick.
One other thing I would say as a referee, is no surprises = easier match control, almost everyone on the pitch would be expecting a freeckick, so don't disappoint.
If this happened in a game that I was officiating on, I would first shout "don't pick that up 'keeper", then if he did, I would be awarding the IDFK to the attacking team.
Complain about this comment
This was NOT a pass back. A pass back, defined by the laws of the game is "a DELIBERATE kick to the goal keeper by a member of his own team" Since this was not a deliberate kick to the goal keeper (it was intended for a defender this cannot be construed as a pass back. No free kick!!!! I wish people on here would read the laws of the game before commenting!!!!
Complain about this comment
Surely if the ball is being played back to the defender, the ball is intended for the defender. If the defender chooses to allow the ball to run and it's been picked up by the 'keeper the ball can be adjudged to be a back pass, becasue the intent of the defender was to allow the ball to be passed back to the 'keeper. Had the defender cleared the ball there wouldn't be an issue, however, because the defender has, admittedly through skill and trickery, prevented the attacker from getting the ball, it should be deemed to be a back pass, and a free kick should be awarded.
Complain about this comment
Indirect Free-Kick to opposing team. Even if the Midfielder 'misjudged' his pass to the CB, it still travels to the GK without intervention from any player directly from the foot of the Midfielder. By the CB not clearing/controlling the ball, this must be considered a deliberate pass as it's traveled directly from the Midfielder's foot to the GK.
Complain about this comment
there should b no freekick the goalie had the right to pick it up as it was not a back pass . if it was a free kick i would just send the goalie off and suspend the cechz and replace them with england haha
Complain about this comment
If the answer is from Mr Hackett then how can we trust it after " the player off the pitch was playing vam misstelroy onside"?
Complain about this comment
318 - EntertainAtAllCosts
------------------------------------------------------
No, Summer in Manchester was from last Sunday to Tuesday afternoon. Its currently Autumn again...
Complain about this comment
id give an indirect freekick, mostly down to the stupidity of the goalkeeper for risking it, but also because it is an intentional pass in the direction of his own goal, albeit to the defender and not the goalkeeper. I would judge it by the intention of the player to pass the ball in that direction rather than which player it was too.
Complain about this comment
Egg-chaser (297) and Harpo (300) have put it very well...the word deliberate applies to the way in which the ball has been kicked...ie 'in a controlled manner'...the fact that the kick does not go exactly as was intended by the 1st defender is irrelevant...as is the non-intervention of the 2nd defender..at the moment the keeper picks up the ball, the ball has been passed 'in deliberate manner' from the 1st defender to the keeper. Any other interpretation is too generous to the defending side. As many have already agreed here, the keeper is at fault by not acting as an 'outfield player', and kicking the ball away...
By the way, I'm not sure if I agree with Harpo's rantabout 'naming'....Jackie Charlton might have been thought of as a centre half, Maurice Norman...certainly Billy Wright...but I rarely heard Bobby Moore referred to as anything other than a left-half, in his early career, and thereafter as a centre back...and few people these days ever refer to a centre half....Rio Ferdinand is Man U's 'centre-half'...not sure.....but thanks for your much appreciated comments on this thread. i thoroughly enjoyed them.
Complain about this comment
Depends.
If I was the ref, indirect free kick.
If I was Arsne Wenger, I didnt see it.
Complain about this comment
It's an interesting one. If you interpret the law as it reads, it would mean that a goalkeeper could pick the ball up straight off his defender's toes as long as the defender didn't know about it.
As with many of the laws, it depends what spirit it was written in; what it's purpose was. If it was written as a very basic rule to ban only an equally basic passback then this wouldn't be a free-kick.
Complain about this comment
Where was pannucci when this happened?
Complain about this comment
Depends.
If im the ref, hes active off the pitch.
If im Arsne Wenger, I still didnt see it.
Complain about this comment
no free kick, play on and get the game going then everybody will forget about it.
The intention by the midfielder from when the ball was kicked was to his defender. If he dummies it to the keeper the midfielder isnt to blame.
Maybe Cech had his Orange kit on and put the defender off ?
Complain about this comment
He has orange kit?
As Arsne Wenger I officially didnt see that.
Complain about this comment
Thanks very much for another day of great debate.
We have the answer to this little poser from Keith Hackett and we will shortly be publishing it, along with question 5.
This post will then be closing.
Keep on firing over your suggestions for any future You Are The Refs.
Cheers
Andrew
Complain about this comment
336 differing opinions ! who'd be a ref eh Mr Hacket, must write to Lancs FA and resign
Complain about this comment
It's a free-kick.
Complain about this comment
RE: 390 - JBMU90
Well, sorted then! thanks for clearing that up for us.
right ...what's for lunch...
Complain about this comment
The ball needs to be intentionally passed back to the goalkeeper for it to be a free kick, if the referee believes there was no intention, play should could continue. As the text reads, the player was passing it to a defender and not his goal keeper so decision is obvious.
It outstands me how some people claim to be fans of the game but do not know the rules, they should read the law books before abusing the ref's
Complain about this comment
RE: Wardicimo
"The ball needs to be intentionally passed back to the goalkeeper for it to be a free kick, if the referee believes there was no intention, play should could continue. As the text reads, the player was passing it to a defender and not his goal keeper so decision is obvious."
- I disagree, and it also oustands me how you can so vehemetly think it's not a free-kick based on a very vague explaination of the situation.
So, let's say for example... Plasil is standing at the edge of his box and he passes the ball back to Ujfalusi, who's standing on the penalty spot, and instead of controlling it, he lets it run through his legs to Cech. If Cech picks the ball up it's got to be a pass back, whether Plasil intentionally passed it to him or not... Ujfalusi has made up the referee's mind on that.
It's very situational though. If a player was out by the corner flag and went to pass it over to his CB and scuffed the ball and it went toward the keeper and he picked it up, then fair enough I'd let the keeper pick it up.
You can't really make a crystal clear 100% answer on this without seeing a video of it to be honest. There's too many factors to take into account. Things like slicing/miskicking the ball or even just being able to judge the pace/direction of the ball is crucial to the referee in order to give a correct decision.
Complain about this comment
Regarding 'oh it's just a clever bit of defending' ... If that were the case you could totally bypass this rule by just standing in front of your goalkeeper and having your teammate pass you the ball and you just step out of the way or let it go through your legs. Keeper picks it up and you just tell the ref, "ah sure it's just me being clever!".
Complain about this comment
Indirect free kick, it is a deliberate pass which has gone to the goalkeeper.
Two other examples I believe can emphasise this -
1- Corner comes in and the keeper rushes out missing the ball, the attacker gets a weak header on the ball and the defender stops the ball on the goalline and then clears it. The clearance isn't great and is obviously going to an attacking player who will score so the goalkeeper dives on the ball.
2 - Defender has the ball on the edge of his box, turns round and plays it to where he expects the right back to be, but the right back isn't there and a quick witted winger (lets say Harry Kewell hahaha) begans to chase the ball into the box, the keeper then comes out and picks up the ball.
Are these not backpasses? Apparently under many peoples definitions of the law they aren't, surely that isnt the case?
Complain about this comment
It has to bo a free in my humble opinion - whos to say that the keeper didnt call for the cb to let the ball go and then it would be intentional on both his part (the keeper )and the cb's for letting the ball go - not giving the free would be open for all to cheat the rule
Complain about this comment
I think there is an obvious problem here....
Either we have to accept that there was no deliberate pass back to the keeper and not award the free-kick or,
whomever wrote the rule-book needs to go back to school and learn basic english...
the rule is ambiguous if you start trying to determine what the word 'deliberate' and the comment 'to him' mean, other than by common understanding.
the reason, by my judgment, for giving a free-kick in this situation would not be defendable in court.
CHANGE the way the rule is written, if it is intended to mean something else!
P.S. As I recall, the pass-back rule was introduced as much as anything to prevent the boring continuous 'route 1' hoofing of the ball from being over used.
Complain about this comment
344 - fcvaduz
Your two examples are backpasses in my book, and they should be for the better of the game.
Unfortunately we have arrived at a situation when they are not regarded as backpasses by today's officials.
Complain about this comment
the answer to this question has been posted on the BBC sports website. Whos the ref on here who would have given a free? You need to go back to ref school mate! see the correct answer...
Complain about this comment
hey guys
i hear this young talent is one of manchester uniteds major targets
n other major clubs av been keepin a close eye on him too
chek him out....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At9kk8jEcJk
cheers
Complain about this comment
It should be a freekick as demanded by the striker. It is what I would consider a team foul as in the case of Basketball. The mid-fielder did not make a deliberate pass but the center half did make the deliberate feint by allowing the ball go through his legs to the keeper. this establishes deliberation or deliberate intent. If this is not considered a foul then it means that any midfielder could repeat a pass to his goal keeper and it would be legitimate as long as one of the backs allows the ball to pass over or under his legs.
Complain about this comment
350, what planet are you on?
It'd be incredibly obvious if a midfielder tried to pass it through his team mates legs to the keeper... he'd have to play it with too much power for the defender to control.
Not to mention, in the general direction of the keeper.
In this scenario, the keeper RAN TO THE EDGE OF THE AREA, to pick the ball up, suggesting the ball wasn't actually played anywhere near him.
Bit of a give away.
Complain about this comment
As a ref, I would not give this as a free kick as the player "playing" the back pass does not pass delibrately to the goalkeeper.
And the Ref is always right
Complain about this comment
Nothing would be given as the rule states the goalkeeper cannot handle a ball that is intentionally played back to HIM (off his teammate's foot) and as the midfielder was playing it to the centre-half, this is not a pass to the goalkeeper, and as the centre-half didn't touch it, it becomes clear he didn't pass it to his goalkeeper either, therefore the goalkeeper has done nothing wrong.
Complain about this comment
#14. The word deliberate as used in Law 12 for "deliberately kicked" means the opposite of "accidentally", e.g by a miskick if the ball bounces awkwardly. Further, the ball does not have to be kicked to the goalkeeper, but rather to anywhere the goalkeeper can pick it up.
Complain about this comment
I would send the screaming forward off for trying to gain an unfair advantage, then award a penalty against the czech,s basically for peter cech's poor taste in head wear.
It would get the pundits thinking for the half time chit chat.
Complain about this comment
The pass was not intended for the keeper, no offence committed. Play continues....
Complain about this comment
I think is is very poor that your "expert" referee Keith Hackett got this wrong. The rule is that the kick is deliberate. If the player deliberately kicks the ball toward the keeper, it should be an indirect free kick.
As the Premier League gets most of its players from outside the UK, perhaps it should import the best officials as well.
Complain about this comment
in this situation i would give a indirect free kick
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS