Question Number: 30002

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/19/2015

RE: Competitive Armature - passed written grade 6 test Under 18

David Willett of San Clemente, CA USA asks...

What is the call?

This video https://www.facebook.com/TVOvertime/videos/1232637373428415/

Shows a player receiving a ball thrown to him intentionally (it appears) by an opponent. He then knees it (not a foot) to his head so his keeper can handle it. The Referee cautions the player and awards an IFK where the opponents apparently again kick the pall to where their opponents can receive the ball.
Thank you,
David

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi David
The referee interpreted that the defender used a trick to play the ball back to the goalkeeper to circumvent the so called *back pass* law. The laws state that it is a caution to do so and an indirect free kick from where the *trick* takes place.

Now it appears that Whites were giving the ball back uncontested and that the defender helped the ball back to the goalkeeper. Now as the ball was bouncing with the knee and head used I would not interpret the action as a trick and I would not intervene. Whites then appeared to forgo the IDFK and gave ball back which showed what they thought of the decision.

Have a look at this one which IMO should never have been called
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IMP19M5MrQ
And this one where was no call. Was it a trick that should have been cautioned?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b88k1ZxDuQ
And this one although it is a gif. BTW no call
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g-y8ulav1OM/TziMrAusd9I/AAAAAAAAACs/qEB3Ni1JRTg/s277/bae-flick1.gif
Personally I dont like this so called back pass law and the two calls that were made show how referees can interpret this strictly and not in keeping with the intent and reason for this law. I know many now say that the intent is not part of the law yet why must a referee call these when it is questionable to do so and that there is no need to do it. Referees should only look for the out and out circumvention or blatant backpass before intervening.
This is what the Law stated prior to 1997
** indulges in tactics, which in the opinion of the referee, are designed to hold up the game and thus waste time and so give an unfair advantage to his own team, shall be penalised by the award of an indirect free−kick to be taken by the opposing side from the place where the infringement occurred, subject to the overriding conditions imposed in Law XIII.**
When that got watered down to ** wastes time** in 1997 the problem began which then eventually became so bad that IFAB had to introduce this Law which now throws up situations like these. Circumvention then had to be dealt with ad players tried to get around this law. None of these in the videos need to be called and in the Taylor incident there should be no need to head the ball. Keeper picks it up and 6 seconds to get on with play.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi David,
the referee has intervened for a chance to make the list of the top ten reasons referees should not do something! The opposition was trying to give the ball back in what I assume was a fair play gesture. The fact the referee decided to view the secondary actions of the defender as a circumvention of the LOTG, is in my opinion, a completely unnecessary match decision. This forces a caution and an INDFK from where the knee /head incident occurred. The Opposition still retained enough integrity to redirect he ball directly to the keeper rather than take advantage of what I must confess was a blatantly poor decision by the referee. I would dearly like to be in on the post game discussion at FIFA HQ on this one! I enjoyed the looks of disbelief on the AR when he was listening to discussions along the touchline.

Cheers