Question Number: 31044

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/22/2016

RE: Select Adult

Tony of Whitehorse, Yukon Canada asks...

In the 2014/15 LOTG is states on page 123, bullet 12 for USB: A player may not use a trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head thigh or chest.

I was taught by an old FA ref that if a player flicks the ball from his foot to his head and passes to the goalie, this is a trick and must be sanctioned with an indirect free kick and a caution.

This happened in the MLS semis TFC vs Montreal. Is this legal?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Tony,
your old friend and mentor is STILL 100% correct this is indeed a caution with an INDFK restart. Use the NEWER version 2016/2017 page 85/86 if you get a disbeliever.

Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for
unsporting behaviour including if a player:
• uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the
goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or
not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands

If this did occur in the match you mentioned it seems improbable the referee would condone the behaviour without sanctions? You sure it was from the player's own foot to his head then to his keeper? If it was from the foot of a teammate to the head of another team mate THEN to the keeper, a much less chance of seeing it as a circumvent!
Do you have a video of the incident?


PS
Ok I found a video although it is somewhat irritating to listen to Simon Borg I am utterly gobsmacked the referee did not award the INDFK for the circumvent. I have never seen a better example of that particular silly infringement! The no call has me completely baffled and wondering what the MLS gurus at the top are saying to about Guzman non actions? The referee choose NOT to apply the LOTG. simple as that! It was CRYSTAL clear and Juan Guzman the referee will have no defence other than his decision not to award single caution in the match was a consistent theme! I also hold the opinion the 2nd goal by Toronto was preceded by an obvious push that I considered difficult to overlook. Not that my opinion is the end all but I remain steadfast the referee has erred in the LOTG by not awarding the INDFK for the OBVIOUS circumvent! As such he has set a dangerous precedent creating doubt, which in my opinion the MLS, FIFA, IFAB Canadian Soccer etc. should publically comment to set the record straight

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/11/23/bradley-s-disputed-goal-and-burch-lodeiro-incident-instant-replay?autoplay=true


Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Tony,
If this happened as you describe, it would indeed be an offence.

In fact, when this amendment was first introduced, this particular practice was specifically called out as an example of what constituted a deliberate trick.

According to the wording of FIFA circular 488 issued July 24, 1992:

''Examples of such tricks would include: a player who deliberately flicks the ball with his feet up onto his head in order to head the ball to his goalkeeper ...''

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Tony
If this happened as described then it should have been a caution for unsporting behaviour and an IDFK restart from where the offence took place. It makes no difference whether the goalkeeper uses his hand/s or not.
I recall Assou Ekotta of Spurs flick up a bouncing ball up to his head so that he could head it back to the goalkeeper.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g-y8ulav1OM/TziMrAusd9I/AAAAAAAAACs/qEB3Ni1JRTg/s277/bae-flick1.gif
It was not called as circumvention and I believe that the referee was 100% correct not to call it. It was just skill. Note that Brad Friedel the goalkeeper catches the ball immediately so he has then 6 seconds to put it back into play. Even in the spirit of the law the opponents have not been disadvantaged.