Question Number: 17570

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/28/2007

RE: Level 3 Adult

Edgar of Calgary, Alberta Canada asks...

As an AR I have seen a couple of instances where a ball kicked back to the keeper was called for an IDFK but I wasn't so sure. Fortunately I did not have to make the call as I would have had to think hard about it.

In the last instance, in a very competitive girls U16 game, a long bouncing through ball was played towards the goal. A defender chased the ball down and just reached it ahead of two attackers, one on either side. The defender was clearly under pressure. The defender kicked the ball high up in the air from about 30 yards out. It carried on towards her goal and the keeper was hard pushed to make the save having to jump high into the air and could only parry the ball aside for a corner.

It didn't look like a deliberate pass to the keeper to me, it was more like a pretty good shot on goal with the defender just wanting to get the ball away from the attackers.

In this instance is the obvious call of an IDFK the right one?

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

This is an obvious example of NOT deliberately kicking the ball to the keeper. Unfortunately, especially at youth play, we are seeing more and more referees wrongly calling this. Just as there are a too large number of referees that blow the whistle anytime the ball and the hand make contact, there's a growing number that think anytime the ball makes contact with a teammates foot, the keeper cannot handle it. I've even seen keepers allow the ball to roll into their own goal rather than pick it up due to the near hysteria surrounding this. Whenever I referee youngsters, it's readily apparant coaches and players are understandibly confused. Keep in mind that FIFA instituted the ban on handling a deliberately kicked ball to cut down on time wasting. It wasn't instituted to punish keepers from doing their job which is to keep the ball out of their net even if it's from a missplaced shot by a teammate.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Edgar,
in the past little while we have discussed the reasoning why this law 12 violation is placed within the laws.

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits the offence:
touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate

It was thought in past years, the informal pass and keep away between keeper and defender was a waste of time. Thus the traditional thinking is if the pass was not truly an act to waste time consider it in the reasoning of why the indfk is required?

In this case a clearance is not in my opinion a true violation of the principle or spirit of this law. Some will say intent plays no part yet if it has no part then why seek reasoning to deny the act of a deliberate kick to the keeper?

An INDFK here turns the ball over in a good scoring position that may well be unearned. Is it justice? The corner seems fair to me.

In my opinion to even consider the indfk the ball must be easily controlled and within the reach of the keeper as a normal intelligent play and leave us no doubt the keeper is indeed the intended target.

The deliberate kick of the ball was to prevent the opponents from getting to the ball, not to pass the ball to her keeper? As an opinion and a fact of play no one could dispute it!

One central point is a defender trying to recover and play a ball to safety a true waste of time? Also consider if a ball was deflected even marginally would it alter your thinking? The wording in law 12 does not provide a proviso in the instance of an intervening player, home or away, touching the ball. Yet is the intended meaning clear enough to make a decision in such matters?
Cheers