Question Number: 30112

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/15/2016

RE: Intermediate Under 13

Phil of Tarzana, CA United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30106

I have a follow-up question to #30106 regarding something that referee Dawson said. With regard to circumventing the rule preventing a teammate from deliberately kicking the ball to the GK (or to an area where the GK can get it), I had thought that it would only apply when only 1 teammate was involved. Is that wrong?

i.e. if Defender #1, with no attacker nearby, kicks the ball to a nearby Defender #2 so that D#2 can head the ball to the GK, can that be considered a deliberate trick to circumvent the law? Or is it only if one player flicks the ball to his own head/chest, etc.?

Thanks for all the advice,

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
Circumvention could include a number of players. For example if the flick up of the ball was as in your example by one player to a team mate who heads the ball back to the GK that can be deemed circumvention once it is done for that reason. The question arises as to who should get cautioned. My view is that it is the heading player as he can chose not to complete the trick by chesting it down and getting on with play himself. Some suggest both although that is IMO incorrect.
Generally if there is distance involved between players and the ball is available to be challenged for or could easily go astray then circumvention is questionable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IMP19M5MrQ
In this play the referee cautions the defender for circumvention. His call yet IMO play should have continued with the GK having 6 seconds to release it. No appeal from the forward and little benefit in time used up.
https://www.facebook.com/TVOvertime/videos/1232637373428415
Here is another that should not have been called given the circumstances as the ball was being returned by White to Red. Perhaps some argument if it was Red to Red and the GK went off into the corner to use up time.
Also I would not get too concerned about this. The benefits of circumvention are now very limited probably with 6/8 seconds gained and it is rarely attempted

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Phil,
one of the debates referees often get into is this idea between the difference of wasting time through USB actions and legally USING up time to run out the clock. NO one likes it when a player wanders over by the corner flag and just hangs out shielding the ball until a bevy of defenders come over to strip him of it or foul him or ball gets knocked into touch. That player is simply using up time in a manner the LOTG do not prohibit.

Now the LOTG has altered and added some keeper restrictions. 6 seconds, no double touching, team mates can not deliberately kick the ball to him or throw in .It was done to prevent using up time. Then they added the circumvent concept because as players ALWAYS do is find the cracks in the LOTG to tactically exploit!
The one you mention about the player trying to flick the ball to himself is pretty self explanatory.

The other though begs to be examined.

• uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper to circumvent
the Law while he is taking a free kick (after the player is cautioned, the free
kick must be retaken)

Whether a punt out at the edge of the 18 is better than a free kick from the 6 and a few extra seconds of play prior to 6 seconds of uncontested possession is the reasoning, it is an UNUSUAL tactic to chip a ball 13 yards to the head of a team mate so he can nod it towards his keeper who will then use up more time dribbling the ball until FORCED by an opponent to pick it up. There is the skill factor an whether the opposition are there to challenge the header.
Who is guilty of the USB?
If the goal kick is taken by the keeper and his teammate heads the ball back towards him is it different then if a team mate took the free kick to another team mate who heads the ball to the keeper? Would either action be undertaken if the opposition were right there challenging?

Law 5 allows the referee wide latitude to enforce the LOTG
He can stop the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws and caution or send off as required. Given what the referee considers as a fact of play is a final decision and the fact the LOTG do not categorically stipulate exactly what a deliberate trick is it is left as conjecture thus in my opinion the ITOOTR is now in play. His match His decision His reputation.

Cheers