Question Number: 34197

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/13/2021

RE: Youth and adult, competitive and rec.

Barry Stewart of Chilliwack, BC Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 34193

It’s the first time I’ve been here in nearly a year, as COVID continues to shut down gameplay in British Columbia, Canada. Nice to see the panelists still at it.

In the question on the keeper getting a caution for handling a sloppy backpass, this kind of thing was said by a few panelists:

"Assuming that the ball was actually kicked and if the referee is sure it was intended for the keeper then (and only then) an indirect free kick is the correct decision."

"intended for the keeper" rings out at me.

Try this scenario: A defender makes a poorly-weighted (kicked) pass across the penalty area, aiming it for a fellow defender.

It's still in the PA. The keeper sees that the ball isn't going to make it (maybe it even stops in a puddle) and an attacker is running in to pounce on it. Keeper runs out and dives to grab the ball, or punch it to safety.

No call?

And another: defender makes a solid (kicked) pass to a fellow defender. Keeper sees an opportunity and yells "dummy". Receiving defender lifts his leg and allows the ball to go through, so the keeper can run out and pick up the ball.

Referee is satisfied that the pass was clearly intended for the defender when it was made... and that plans changed in the interim.

No call?

Thanks again for your collective service to the game!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Barry
This is what the LotG says and I quote
touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:  
#it has been deliberately kicked TO THE GOALKEEPER by a team-mate....
Capitals inserted by myself

On your first scenario it is in the opinion of the referee as to what was intended. Have a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kpSReuN2-E
Clearly the referee was of the opinion that Orange #5 intended the pass to the goalkeeper so he awarded the IDFK. I even think the manner of the *save* suggested that the GK believed the pass was for him or to a place for him to kick it away. I doubt very few referees would opine that it was not intended for the goalkeeper yet there is an outside possibility.

On the dummy one it is up to the referee to decide if the play was intended as a pass to the goalkeeper or not. It runs the high risk of being called yet I have seen kicks inside the penalty area by defenders that have gone astray past team mates and goalkeepers diving to pick them up. Personally I think that a pass where a defender lets a ball run to the goalkeeper may have been intended for the goalkeeper in the first place and it could be called. A referee could also ignore it and simply get on with play if as you say he is satisfied that it was not to the goalkeeper

I once recall a shot that was poorly executed and the goalkeeper used his hands to control the ball before dribbling it away to the corner of the penalty area to use up some time. He waited at the ball and as soon as he picked it up I awarded the IDFK for control and release followed by a pick up. On another day if the goalkeeper simply controlled the ball with his hands and picked it I would let play continue

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Barry,
always good to hear from you!
essentially the reason for LOTG change to disallow a deliberate kick of the ball by a teammate to their keeper was to stop the wasting of time!

It was a GOOD change but it was not designed as a gotcha type of infraction and for a time I think it did lean into that confused direction. Hence INDFKS were incurred by unaware keepers because they were guilty by the LETTER of law-type referees. Gotcha calls. Deliberate teammate kick if the ball using the foot, keeper thus restricted use of hands an auto call.

The use of their hands as a restriction was an entertainment approach as in, keep the game moving, not designed to stop the keeper from doing their job. There is a belief that referees do not look for intent, as we cannot mind read, but we do interpret actions based on our understanding of the game.

For a good while, many officials were adamant that no matter what the reason, if the ball was deliberately kicked with the foot by a teammate the keeper was restricted from handling said ball. In fact, I saw at the elite level, a clear defender's deliberate kick with the foot pass back to the keeper, where the attacker stuck out a leg and got a wee bump that did not really change the ball direction or speed, and the referee still awarded an indfk when the keeper picked the ball up inside their PA as that WAS the intention of the passer. . This created some controversy and IFAB /FIFA suggested that -any touch of the ball - by an opponent defeats the intention of the pass back. Situations like yours began to have doubters and what-ifs attached as to the need to award the indfk for illegal use of hands in crazy or unclear situations.

A keeper reading the game can see that a pass from one teammate to the other is weak!
Or he might be aware that the defender just shielded the ball as he was being pressured and that's why the ball rolled towards his goal from between the legs. The keeper can be grateful that slide tackle by the teammate poked the ball free for him to grab safely instead of having to take it off the foot of the opponent. An attentive keeper will seek to intercept a soft or miss-hit clearance headed into touch before an opponent could. This is also when the keeper exits his PA to go get the ball and dribbles said ball back into the PA and then uses the hands to get 6 seconds of uncontested possession.

The million-dollar QUESTION a referee is asking themselves, was that deliberate kick by the teammate an intended pass to their keeper? If the referee holds the opinion, yup it was a 100% safety valve job, not worked to perfection, in it was not a dead straight pass, but it was what it was, then awarding the INDFK for illegal use of hands is correct in law!

With the change from the 4 steps to the 6 seconds and the fact, the keeper cannot use the hands after release or on a pass back from a deliberate kick by a teammate the ball is readily available to be in play much quicker. It was discussed at length, is awarding scoring opportunities for no real effort on the part of the team benefiting, from simple keeper confusion, a worthy outcome? The primary duty of the keeper is to save goals from being scored. Hence we as a group of officials here at AskTheRef.com believe a referee must be convinced the deliberate kicked with the foot pass by the teammate was clearly INTENDED for the keeper to clear using his own feet to find the reason for an indfk out of nothing. Otherwise, let play continue, apply the same standards at both ends I doubt you will have too many complaints. Still, my advice for any keeper who has doubts about what the referee is calling, kick the bloody ball away lol
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Barry,
In both the scenarios you describe, it is up to the referee to decide if the ball was deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper or not. As with many refereeing calls, it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to say what decision should be made, without actually seeing the incident in question.

One thing I would say (and I've mentioned this in other responses to similar questions in the past) is that the referee should be aware of the possibility that the players might be using a ploy whereby the ball is played towards a defender, but only in order for the goalkeeper to come and get it. However this would be a pretty rare occurrence in my experience and at least in the first instance, I'd be giving them the benefit of the doubt but might warn them, if I formed the impression that that was what might be happening.

If the players were subsequently to do the same thing again, even after being warned, I would probably be more inclined towards calling it as an offence.