Question Number: 33724

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/21/2019

RE: Competitive Under 16

Eugene of San Jose, CA USA asks...

Defender A is standing about 5 yards away from his goalkeeper. Defender B passes the ball back across the penalty area in the general direction of both the goalkeeper and defender A. Goalkeeper calls off defender A and picks up the ball.

My understanding is that because there's ambiguity as to the intended recipient of the pass, that this is not a back pass offense. Is that correct?

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Eugene,
There is ambiguity in the circumstances here but there is no ambiguity in the law. The law simply instructs the referee to call the offence if the goalkeeper uses their hands with a ball that is deliberately kicked to them by a team mate. Whether there is another defender standing nearby or not, the referee still has to make a decision based on their best judgement of the player's intentions.

There is a phrase that the IFAB has used in the past (albeit for a slightly different purpose) that I like to use in this context and which goes as follows:

''the referee must only be convinced that this was the player's motive.''

So if (and only if) the ref is *convinced* that the player intended the ball to go to their keeper, they should give the offence. If the referee is not convinced, they should not give it.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Eugene,
It's a tricky one. On one hand, it doesn't meet the technical criteria for an offence as the keeper wasn't apparently the intended recipient.
On the other hand, the laws instruct us to consider the spirit of the game and the intent of the law.
If we're looking at a crowded penalty area with opponents around and it seems more like the keeper is just desperate to pounce on a loose ball I'd probably give the keeper the benefit of the doubt there.
But if we're talking about a scenario with no real pressure and no real reason to do what he's done?
I'd seriously consider calling this an offence, given the spirit of the game.
It may even fit into the idea of circumventing the laws of the game - the keeper seems to be exploiting a loophole - but it would be unfair to caution the keeper here, I think, and I'd say we can stretch the wording of the relevant law enough to say it's a deliberate kick to the keeper (even though the keeper being the original intended recipient is usually required).
If you see something like this happen, I'd suggest being proactive and shouting 'no hands!' to the keeper. Normally I'm not a big fan of those instructions without being asked, but it may help prevent some controversy - and I'm more likely to be proactive with this information at young ages.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Eugene
Not an easy one as the referee has to consider as to whether the pass was in fact intended for the goalkeeper. Yes there is ambiguity either way and the panel can give an opinion yet it very much depends on the circumstances. I think the astute goalkeeper will consider that it runs a high risk of being called so he is best served by not handling it. The maxim is don’t ask a question of the referee if you do not like the possible outcome in that if it is kicked away the question does not arise yet handling asks a question which can go either way. I have seen many videos of incidents in the US where a kick including mis kicks handled by a goalkeeper are punished on the basis that it is a deliberate kick.
For me referees should only punish deliberate breaches of the Law. If a referee did not give this based on his opinion it was intended for an outfield player then that is the correct decision. A referee can also consider it doubtful and trifling so the GK has six seconds to get it back into play.
Have a look at this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kpSReuN2-E
Was the kick intended for the Orange defender in the penalty area or the goalkeeper. The referee decided it was a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper so he called the IDFK. Some would argue with the call. Ultimately the call was made rightly or wrongly and that is all that matters on the day. GK kicks it away and it does not arise.