Question Number: 32793

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/12/2018

RE: Rec Under 12

Ryan Brenneman of Charlotte , North Carolina USA asks...

Team is playing four defenders. Right inside D stops a long played ball. The offensive player who played it long is closing quickly. Player looks left and plays a slightly negative ball across the inside of the 18. Goalie takes 3 steps forward from her central position and picks up ball. I whistle a pass to goalie and give an IDFK from spot of goalie contact. No goal is scored. In telling the girls what happened and what was going to happen(they are still doing a lot of LOTG teaching at this level) the player that passed back said she was passing to the other inside defender. She could have been, the player was in the general extended line of the pass. But it would have required an equal change of position for the other player to be in line for the pass as the goalie did. Inaccurate pass in any case and cetainly would have been moving slow by the time it reached the other defender. But after reading some other answers on here today it was mentioned that the pass had to be to the keeper and the LOTG states "deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a teammate." Does the intent of the passer determine deliberate or is deliberate a description of pass versus deflection versus goalie coming up and getting a ball that was meant for another defender or to go out of bounds in a panic situation?

Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Ryan
The great debate on the words TO the goalkeeper.
The referee community has differing views on this. At one extreme is the deliberate kick which is definitely not intended for the goalkeeper which is punished by some with the IDFK and the other extreme is the example you cite as not called because it of the uncertainty that it was meant for the goalkeeper.
In recent times the mood has only been to punish definite deliberate kicks to the GK which is rare with all others waved away as not deliberate.
Referees are not mind readers and we give what we see. Your example will have looked like a kick to the goalkeeper and therefore an IDFK was entirely plausible
Have a look at this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kpSReuN2-E
Was it intended for the defender in the penalty area or the goalkeeper? I would say the referee was entirely within the law to punish this as he did.
Goalkeepers when there is a doubt should not allow the potential of this being called as a possible offence. The team might not like the answer! The situation can also be helped here by the opponents pressuring the goalkeeper into not picking the ball up by shouting. That puts doubt into the GK who may err on the side of kicking it away rather than risking the IDFK.
I had one of these this week which was the first in a very long time. Defender kicked the ball back under pressure from an attacker. The GK came out and picked it up at the edge of the penalty area. I awarded the IDFK with an appeal from the opponents. . He claimed that the ball was touched by the attacker which was extremely slight if it did in fact happen. I told him I saw no contact on the ball by the opponent which is why I went with the IDFK. Anyway he asked a question to which he did not like the answer.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Ryan,
in general we do not reward mistakes be they by a keeper or any player but neither should we look to award a technical infraction to create scoring chance out of nothing. Based on your description the keeper CHOOSING to intercept the ball given it was deliberately kicked by a teammate proved to be a costly mistake as she could see that it WAS kicked by her team mate not a slide tackle that poked the ball free.The fact the defender had ball control and then passed kicked it away in the direction of the keeper well you yourself awarded an INDFK as I likely would have . If it was a slide tackle by her defender poking the ball free off an opponent I would NOT award an INDFK when the keeper used her hands despite it being deliberately kicked with her foot. The LOTG were changed to prevent TIME wasting & stop keeper possession from using up time in the give and go of pass, pick up, repeat. We can usually tell if the opponent is being hindered unfairly & if the ball has some weird deflection as opposed to a deliberate kick towards the keeper.

I have some sympathy for a keeper in trying to take a shielded ball off the foot of a defender in the heat of battle where opponents are trying to strip the ball away and score. The keeper after all is charged with the final defence of his goal. So on a bang bang play, I likely do not punish the keeper if a ball is on the defenders foot in front of goal.

BUT circumstances time & distance do play a part.

I had a defender stop the ball using his foo,t thought about dribbling had it it gently rebound off his foot and rather than kick it away chose to shield it allowing his keeper to run forward & pick it up a few seconds later ahead of the charging attackers. I awarded the INDFK despite his claims of not kicking it to his keeper. It was discussed at length in my post game but I was credited with correctly awarding the INDFK as the ball was deliberately played with the foot to the keeper. Any keeper should be fully aware if that ball is coming off the foot of a team mate he best be kicking it away rather than risk picking it up and giving away ball possession and a free scoring opportunity.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Ryan,
As you point out, the law says that it is an offence for the keeper to touch the ball with the hands when it has been ''deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate.'' For it to mean what some have claimed in the past (most notably the USSF in an interpretation which they have since abandoned) you would need to delete the words ''to the goalkeeper.''

If the law said it was an offence for the keeper to use the hands any time the ball was deliberately kicked by a team-mate, then the old USSF interpretation would be completely correct. But since it actually says it must be ''deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper'' then (for me at least) the meaning is clear. The ball must have been intended for the goalkeeper, before it becomes an offence. Although it is possible for players to try to disguise their actions, unless there is a series of similar occurrences that imply the players involved are employing a subterfuge, I firmly believe you should usually give the defenders the benefit of the doubt here. Unless you are convinced the player meant the ball for the keeper, I would not advise punishing the players for dubious potential instances of this offence, at least not on the first occurrence.

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

See Question: 32797