Question Number: 35690

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/10/2024

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 35688

I'm sorry, but I still have three situations. No one gives me such helpful advice as you do. :-)

Situation 1:

Player A5 passes to goalkeeper A1. The ball bounces off teammate A20. Goalkeeper A1 touches the ball with his hand. Offense or not?

Situation 2:

Player A5 passes to goalkeeper A1. The ball bounces off opponent B55. Goalkeeper A1 touches the ball with his hand. Offense or not?

Situation 3:

Player A5 passes to goalkeeper A1. Teammate A20 stands in the way of the ball. A20 does not touch the ball. Goalkeeper A1 touches the ball with his hand. Offense or not? (Could this be a trick? If so who will receive YC? A5 or A20? Where is restart?)

Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
Situation 1
We have to accept what we see and decide accordingly. How would a referee know that the kick was intended for the goalkeeper and not A20?
As the ball bounced off A20 that is not a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper so unlikely to be an offence. It is unlikely that a team would have the ability and presence to play a rebound off a player just to get it to the goalkeeper. These situations happen most times in split second decisions and perhaps with opponents in close proximity.

Situation 2
This one is certainly not an offence as the touch by B55 changes everything so there cannot be an offence as the last player to touch the ball was an opponent.

Situation 3.
Again what does it look like to the referee? Is it a kick to A20 who leaves the ball for the goalkeeper. If it looks like a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper then it is n IDFK. I certainly would not go the deliberate trick route as that involves a caution and A20 may not know that the goalkeeper will handle the ball as all that A20 did was to leave the ball. That is not a trick so I would go with the IDFK only once it looked like a kick to the goalkeeper which I think it may look like. It would not be going the caution route as there is no trick present. Might be a feint but a feint is not a trick. We see passes all the time intended for one player and left / intercepted by a team mate. The easier call is the IDFK only if the referee is so inclined to opine it was intended for the keeper.

My experience is that players do not look for ways to kick the ball to their goalkeeper in a way that tries to circumvent the Law. There is no real benefit in doing that. I only look for certain deliberate kicks to the goalkeeper and doubtful kicks just get ignored. What does happen is that goalkeepers in uncertain situation may take the risk of the pick up and it is up to the referee to decide how certain it is before going with the IDFK
If there is an appeal I shout not deliberate and play continues

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr ,
if a referee looks hard enough, they can find a silly reason to make a call that they likely should not.

In your 1st and 2nd scenario I make no call!

The third has a slim potential of an INDFK but circumstances are going to be in play here. A keeper might be trying to make a save, possibly yelling a warning the defender look out the opposition are there, allowing the 2nd defender to shield and give the keeper time to cover.

As my colleagues will attest, we do not look for excuses to find something that is not but if you see it for what it is and apply the same standard equally to either side as a fair referee with integrity, the call is what you have decided it should be!

Understanding that within the history and development of the LOTG there were various reasons and circumstances where those in charge were changing in a hopeful effort to make the game better!

Being aware the pass back concept was to corrected to fix an imbalance does not totally alleviate the possibility that a players action might occasionally be at odds with the referee's interpretation.

Knowing the difference between mandatory, trifling and doubtful, the use of common sense and the expectations of those playing all of that factors into the discretionary powers a referee has to determine should that whistle be used, in their opinion, to stop play and restart the game due to an unfair set of circumstances?

As the MAIN reason was to stop wasting time and allow the match to flow quickly, in any of your situations do you see that as crucial to your deliberations?
The other crucial aspect was the opposition UNFAIRLY harmed by the defending action by being denied reasonable access to challenge effectively?

When they first were introducing the non use of hands for deliberate kick I recall a professional referee getting a great deal of flack for applying the LOTG in the way it was written because the LOTG were more leaning to the intent of a player. The defender did indeed pass the ball back towards their keeper using their foot, clear as day their intent was to do so! However, an opponent managed to get a small tiny deflection in as the ball made its way back to the keeper who picked up the ball inside the PA with their hands and was charged with an INDFK for doing so. The IFAB and FIFA only THEN stepped in to clarify that if ANY opponent had made contact with the ball, be it deliberate or accidental, the keeper was released from the restriction of no handling if the ball was previously kicked deliberately by the team mate.

They were not exactly crystal clear of the idea of a team mate to team mate to keeper variation but they did point out the word "directly" as in a deliberate kicking action and for whatever reason, we were told to judge the intent, something we no longer do in most fouls? Now when the opposition are in pursuit and force these back passes we tend to be less forgiving but do not punish defenders or the keeper for simply trying to defend or make a save and think about the reality of the decision in awarding a scoring opportunity out of essentially nothing.

Cheers

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

See Question: 35693