Question Number: 32794

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/13/2018

Brian Kerrigan of Brooklyn, NY 11231 asks...

A defender and an attacker are racing back for a through ball. The defender gets to the ball first and makes a clear attempt to kick the ball (kicked very hard) out over the by-line. The kick accidentally goes toward the keeper who then handles it. The "pass" was determined by the referee to be accidental and play continued with no infraction.

Is this correct or should he have awarded an indirect free kick to the attacking team from where the keeper collected the ball?

Thanks gents.

Brian

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Brian,
Short answer Yes!
The keeper can hold that opinion and decide not to act!
However the laws do NOT use the word pass, they say deliberately kicked & directly throw in.
The LOTG state the keeper is unable to us their hands if the ball is deliberately kicked to the keeper off the foot of a teammate . Although we realize this law was to prevent the pass, pick up, repeat by a defender & keeper to use up time. This law also allows attackers to now chase these balls knowing they can pressure the keeper. Yet we do not look for ways to award a scoring opportunity out of nothing. We are generally looking at miskicks or deflections where it is PAINFULLY obvious the ball was NEVER intended to go to the keeper and if such a ball might accidently enter the goal I do not believe most if any referee would consider a save as an INDFK offence. Good examples are a slide tackle poking a ball free where the ball veers off into a keeper making a save in front of goal . But on clearing balls launched back towards the goal it becomes much less evident and to me more of a why take that chance? ESPECIALLY if the ball is being pursued by the opposition. I have less forgiveness if the keeper was to go outside his area to retrieve a ball off a deliberate kick from a team mate then take it back inside the PA and play the wait till the opponent challenges to pick it up. Referees do not read intent when judging fouls as much as we once did, we are not mind readers, we look at the deliberate action and decide if the criteria is met. There is nothing of the word intent, deliberate kick by a teammate to the keeper. If a player has control of the ball and makes a deliberate but poor attempt in offside criteria it RESETS & allows a PIOP to NOW challenge. In an INDFK for handling issue why do we reward a deliberate kicking mistake as no infringement? If we use the example a player thinks to make direct throw in back towards the goal to his team mate but the inattentive defender is looking at the red head girl in the stands, the ball rolling into the goal, catches the keeper off guard who dives to palm it away, it is an INDFK from that point for handling the ball off a direct throw in by a team mate, the intent is not relevant. I am ok with leniency as long as the opposition is not prevented from challenging.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Brian,
The law states it's an offence if the keeper handles the ball after it's been deliberately kicked to them by a teammate.
'Deliberately kicked to' means that the kick must be deliberate, and the keeper must be the intended recipient. Of course, referees aren't mindreaders, so they do the best they can at working out if the keeper is the intended recipient.

Note that this also includes kicking the ball into space for the keeper to collect it, and trapping the ball and leaving it for the keeper. If it's a crowded penalty area and everything is happening at once and the keeper dives on the ball after a defender stops it, the referee may give the players the benefit of the doubt as it's not clear it was intended for the keeper.

So in your case, while the kick was deliberate, the keeper wasn't the intended recipient, so the keeper is allowed to handle the ball.

The purpose of the law is mainly to stop wasting time in a manner where opponent's can't challenge the ball (while it's in the keeper's hands). That's not what's happening here - it's just a wayward clearance.

Often when the ball is kicked towards the keeper as a side by side challenge the defender will get the benefit of the doubt as it's hard to tell if the defender's really controlled it, or if they're just poking it away from the attacker and it ends up where it ends up.

So yes, this can be a highly subjective decision - and what one person sees as coming off the foot, another might see as coming off the shin (no offence there).

It does put the keeper in a tricky position, as sometimes the keeper doesn't know if they're allowed to handle the ball when it comes off a defender. If the keeper has time, they can ask the ref (most referees will answer - although in most cases the keeper won't have time)- as a ref, I've seen the uncertainty from a keeper who tried to clear it rather than handle it lead to quite a few goals!

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Brian,
The way I read your description there was no offence here. You state that the ball went to the goalkeeper accidentally, not deliberately. Since the law requires that the ball be kicked deliberately to the keeper and not accidentally, the law has not been breached.

As I also said in answer to a recent question, '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.'

There was a phrase used by the IFAB in their circular 488, issued July 24, 1992 that was actually being used in relation to the slightly different offence of deliberately circumventing the 'backpass' law. The phrase was, ''the referee must only be convinced that this was the player's motive.''

This principle could (IMHO) be applied almost equally to the deliberate kick offence itself. So if the referee is convinced that the player's motive in kicking the ball was to deliberately direct it to their keeper (and the keeper then handles it) the referee should penalise this as an offence. If however the referee is not convinced that this was what the player's motive was, then as far as I'm concerned, they should not penalise it if the keeper handles the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brian
As described there is no offence.
That decision though I suspect attracted calls for an IDFK for the so called *backpass* offence.
I always wave these away with a clear shout of *no offence*.
What has happened over the years is that teams look for a cheap IDFK for every single kick situation where the GK uses his hands. Some referees opined that once the kick was deliberate that the goalkeeper could not handle the ball.
USSF at one time in its ATR showed the test of the triangle with deliberately on a side, kicks on another and touches with his hands on the third side. Referees under that advice could opine that any deliberate kick which was touched by the GKs hands could be called as an offence. That advice was IMO flawed as it failed to take account of the many situation where the deliberate kick was not intended for the goalkeeper. The ATR at the time did say in the opinion of the referee, it did not include accidentally deflected or misdirected. Those kicks can be seen by some to be deliberate hence the problem that the Triangle Test created.
For me the test is to determine a deliberate kick TO part which includes a place where the goalkeeper can legally handle the ball. A ball that is a miskicked, kicked in a tackle, clearances that goes astray, kick clearly not intended for the GK should not be punished.

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

See Question: 32796