Question Number: 29212

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/28/2015

Andy Weinstein of Jackson, NJ USA asks...

I just attended a Ref Recertification class and we discussed the interpretation of a 'deliberate' touch with regard to offsides. The deliberate kick by a defender can be a good or bad touch and if played to an Attacker in an offsides position, the Attacker would be deemed on-sides. With this thought process, my question is if a defender attempts to clear a ball 'deliberately' and his/her touch is a mis-kick (bad touch) causing the ball to go back to his/her Keeper who handles the ball, do we award an IDFK? I would say no because the Keeper was not the intended receipitent of the touch but please provide clarification. Thank you.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The definitions for Law 11 (offside) involve a deliberate play of the ball.
A deflection is not enough. For that reason, we should avoid the word 'touch' when addressing the action of an opponent. (Note: Offside position is reconsidered every time a teammate 'touches' the ball.)

But, the answer to your question is that the foul for a keeper handling a ball that has been deliberately kicked by a teammate involves different considerations than a 'deliberate play.'

- the keeper may handle a ball that has been miss kicked. But, a miss kick would be a deliberate play for purpose of the offside law.

- the keeper may handle a ball that was passed using the knee, head, or chest (the foul requires a kick by the foot). These actions would be a deliberate play for purpose of the offside law.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Andy,
excellent question it highlights the ambiguity of trying to make sense of LOTG attaching significance to one but not to the other despite there being no difference at all. I hold a miskick as a deliberate play, using the foot, in my opinion, is by the strictest sense , ...NOT... available for the keeper to use their hands! I hold a deflection or rebound is ...NOT... the same as a miskick. If the ball were to be deflected or rebound from a player off his kicking foot towards his keeper or just continue into an area where the keeper could get to it I see NO INDFK for a keeper's legal use of hands. I might also point out the word ...DIRECTLY... appears ONLY with regards to the throw in in the actual LOTG.
The reasoning ...NOT... to call a FOUL for a deliberate kick from a team mate that goes astray into the hands of his keeper is not because it wasn't a foul but you are advised to consider it as a ...TRIFLING... offence.
They go on to imply only a ...foolish... referee would seek to award an indfk for such a low % event

A miskick is a mistake, we do not reward mistakes!
A deflection or a rebound occur when the BALL impacts the player without the time or awareness to deliberately do anything except an instinctive reflex reaction. This is of course an opinion formed by the referee. To some degree the idea of deliberate handling as a foul is indicative of when there is an offside reset via a deliberate play in the action must meet the referee's criteria of deliberate intervention. I added snips of the USSF ATR 2013 /14 I do not have 2014/15 so apologise if they might be different then they appear now.

USSF ATR
12.B.8 Handling by the Goalkeeper of a Ball Kicked or Thrown by a Teammate A goalkeeper commits an indirect free kick violation if he or she makes contact (with his or her hand) with the ball directly following a teammate deliberately kicking the ball or performing a throw-in restart. This includes situations where the initial contact with the ball by the goalkeeper may involve gaining control by some other means, by foot or chest trap, either inside or outside the goalkeeper's penalty area, but which is then followed directly by handling inside the goalkeeper's penalty area. Any contact with the goalkeeper's hands is a violation, not just possession. Also note that, where the prior action is a deliberate kick by a teammate, "kick" is defined as any play of the ball with the foot, including merely placing a foot on the ball to stop its motion.

12.B.9 Four Indirect Free Kick Fouls Only the Goalkeeper Can Commit The indirect free kick fouls described in 12.B.6 through 12.B.8 can only be committed by a goalkeeper and represent restrictions on the goalkeeper's unique ability in the Laws of the Game to withhold the ball from an opponent's challenge by handling the ball within the goalkeeper's own penalty area. The intelligent implementation of these restrictions on goalkeepers requires understanding why the restrictions exist in the first place so that the referee can better distinguish when a violation is ...trifling... and when it occurred for the clear purpose of unfairly preventing a legal challenge for the ball.
Referees must also understand that the goalkeeper can never be called for preventing a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling the ball inside the goalkeeper's own penalty area even if that handling is itself an indirect free kick foul.

5.5 Doubtful or Trifling Violations The Laws of the Game provide referees with ample authority to flexibly handle player behavior, variable field conditions, and other events during a match. One such area of flexibility is the ability to decide that a condition or event, while a violation of a Law, should be managed with minimum fuss by determining that the condition or event was doubtful or trifling. A longstanding principle of Law 5, which was removed in 1996 because it was considered so well-known as to not require a formal statement, noted that constant whistling for doubtful or trifling offenses was not good for the game and produced bad feelings from players, team officials, and spectators. In short, something could be an offense but, unless it was clear (not doubtful) and mattered (had an impact on the game), it was not necessary to stop play. The commission of an offense seemed trifling by the referee does not relieve the referee of the need to manage the situation properly. Trifling offenses, though often considered small, can aggregate into something larger and more serious. A quiet (or at times not so quiet) word may be advisable.
This is not the same as and must not be confused with the concept of advantage (see 5.6). Doubtful means that no official can say for sure exactly what happened. "Trifling" means that the players were accepting the offense and considered it not to be a threat at their skill and experience level. Any violation of the Law could theoretically be considered trifling, depending on the competitive level of the match.

It is obvious to point out that last statement about ANY violation is one that many draw heavily on in managing a match!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Andy
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, accidentally deflected or misdirected.
The extreme example is the player that kicks the ball and it slides off his foot towards goal. The goalkeeper makes a save to prevent the ball entering the goal. That is never going to be called as an offence and awarded as an IDFK.
Now from an offside perspective it is not so clear. Have a look at this video which FIFA published as offside
http://garcia-aranda.com/offsideifab/eng004video007.html
FIFA determined that the ball was deflected. Was it a deliberate kick that went astray? Say the ball went towards the goalkeeper so by the same token if it was deemed deflected in an offside context it also has to be deflected off a deliberate kick.
I think that on the offside law changes there is a real danger that the interpretation of * deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage* may be taken to an extreme.
Have a look at these videos and would you call offside?
https://vimeo.com/111189567
https://vimeo.com/109811981
https://vimeo.com/110117758
I believe one of the real challenges for the game is that with the history of gaining an advantage in offside Law 11 there can and will be different interpretations on this. A straw poll on the video site above showed on one offside question that 50% thought it was offside, 41% said no offside and the balance said it was grey area. Now the poll is not confined to referees yet it does point to the real challenge here for the game. Go back a good number of years and there would be a little doubt.
In my game at the weekend I had a typical incident of a player clearly two to three yards in an offside position and the ball is played through by a team mate. The defender doing his best to stop the ball is unable to reach it and it skims off the top of his head and reaches the PIOP. I called offside. Now was the header a deliberate play or a deflection? That is a question that will be answered differently. Some will argue that it is a deliberate play that was purely executed due to perhaps poor judgement, lack of fitness, etc. I saw a US Pro Referee video where a CR waved down his ARs flag in this very scenario. The Law allows me the discretion to decide in my opinion that it was deflected.
I might add that the decision in my game was not questioned by the attacking team due to the clear position of the PIOP and that the ball was not played to him by an opponent. We keep telling player that a ball that rebounds of deflects off an opponent does not reset offside.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 29218