Question Number: 35693

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/13/2024

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

This question is a follow up to question 35690

More on situation 3. I found IFAB advice that this is allowed. They say the referee can't know if it's intentional. I think it's a bit unfortunate. Imagine if the players start abusing that advice. The team will add one defender in the way and the goalkeeper can catch it entirely according to their advice. The back-pass is cancelled. Welcome to 1992 :-)

Seems like a trick to me. Let's imagine that the team starts doing this repeatedly towards the end of the match. It is the same as when a player picks up the ball with his feet and heads it to the goalkeeper. Just a trick. (We also don't know for 100 percent that it was intentional.)

The question is which player will receive the YC and then where is the restart. That's why I'm asking :-)

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
The situation where a player flicks the ball up and heads it to the goalkeeper is circumvention for which the player is cautioned. It is 100% intentional when all the ingredients are present. There is no reason to do this in open play other than to play the ball to the goalkeeper. The player is cautioned and it makes no difference whether the goalkeeper handles the ball or not.

On the kick that is left for the goalkeeper a referee has to be certain that the intention is a kick to the goalkeeper. Rather than going down the circumvention route the simple decision for a referee is the IDFK only as a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper. If it happens once it might be let go as uncertain yet a repeat is an IDFK which I believe is sanction enough.

As to what player gets the caution in circumvention it is the initiator. Without the kick there is no possible offence.
We know that say on a goal kick where a goalkeeper flicks the ball up to be headed back the goalkeeper is cautioned for initiating the trick.
So perhaps therein is your answer to your scenario. Is the kicker deserving of a caution for circumvention?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr,
the flip up is easy it is a caution to that player and an indfk from where the player did it deliberately. The keeper does may not even get to use the hands because the circumvention WAS the misconduct being punished!

In the double blind scenario I did say it would be very difficult to see it as unfair but lets say the player yelled out, "Leave it for the keeper!" and the other defender stepped aside NOW you have a deliberate kick TO the keeper! There is no need to caution just an INDFK. The reality is how often are defenders positioned in an actual game to do a you propose they do this useless sneaky subterfuge??

Take a throw in by a defender who directs it onto the head of a team mate who then heads it to the keeper? Now there was no direct throw to the keeper but was this a cagey workaround, lets get the keeper to punt the ball down field? If as a referee you thought this the case who is guilty?

If say the throw in was high and the defender jumped to try and head it but missed and that ball went to the keeper are you calling for the INDFK if the keeper used their hands?

How is that different than your scenario of a defender not playing a deliberately kicked ball by a team mate who either makes no effort at all? Or choosing to stepping aside or makes a feeble attempt to make contact but there is none?

If you as referee find fault, then issue a caution to the one you find fault in but as I suggested do not look for ways to get there!
Are the opposition unfairly denied access to challenge?
This is why the keeper is cautioned if he flips the ball up to the head of a team mate on a goal kick? The opposition can not challenge as they are in theory not supposed to be inside the PA! In most other cases they can position themselves outside the PA to create pressure if the defenders tried to get cute!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
I'd be interested to see the IFAB advice that you are talking about - do you have a link to it? Because in my opinion, when deciding on the question of a ball deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a teammate, the wording of the law means that the referee must consider the intent of the player. For me at least, the fact that there's another player in between the kicker and the goalkeeper is not (and should not) automatically be the one and only deciding factor in judging the kicker's intent.

As I have said before in previous questions relating to this issue the referee has to be sure of the intent of the player kicking the ball before penalizing the keeper for using their hands and it's true that having another player who might have been the real intended recipient of the pass is a factor that might cause the referee to be less than certain. But I don't think that just because there's another player in the mix, that you can say that the intent of the player is then automatically decided.

In any event even if the the referee decides that there is an offence here, this is not an example of using a deliberate trick to circumvent the law. Circumvention requires an intentional maneuver to be performed (i.e. something that is not a normal playing action for the scenario the players found themselves in) such that the ball can then be passed to the goalkeeper with a body part other than the foot.

Since this is not circumvention there is no caution to be issued and so if the referee decides that there is an offence the result is simply an indirect free kick, taken from where the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands.

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

See Question: 35695