Question Number: 34290

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/9/2021

RE: Competitive Adult

Eric Glover of Wichita, Kansas USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 33969

After taking a lot of grief for calling an IDFK on a intentional pass back it really got me thinking about the rule. The scenario im thinking about is a defender in front of the keeper. Intentionally trapping a ball and then leaving it for the keeper to pick up. If the keeper then picks it up is it a foul? In my mind, the player intentionally played the ball for their keeper to pick up which would violate the spirit of the law. Is that over thinking the law?
THanks!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Eric
Thanks for the question.
No you are correct. As described this is an offence under Law 12 which is punished by an IDFK from where the goalkeeper picked the ball up. The control / trap of the ball is the same as a kick as per the glossary of terms as quote by Referee Grove.
My experience is that players and goalkeepers know this law pretty well and in an odd instance a goalkeeper may test the resolve of a referee in calling it when it goes beyond doubtful.

My advice to all referees is to only call the definite offences and not anything that is doubtful involving a tackle, challenge etc.
Here are examples that should not have been called
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7esEwniKXqQ

The first one is a total mis kick with even the Red team surprised by the call. The second one is a challenge that could have been played by the attacker off the defender. There is sufficient doubt not to call it and the goalkeeper has to put the ball back into play smartly. Having said the goalkeeper did not take account of the previous call by the referee. If the referee called the first one he most certainly was going to call the second one! The Red team figured that out as there was no appeal on the first one there was on the second one.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Eric,
the concept of the INDFK offence of a deliberate kick of the ball by a teammate to the keeper was to stop time-wasting. AT that time the 4 step rule was in effect but there was no time limit to hold on to the ball per se.

I held the opinion that the introduction of the 6-second keeper possession almost made the team mate passing by deliberate kick a non-sequitor until the 6 seconds stated turning into 8,10, 12 even 20. Often we allow a keeper additional time to recover after a difficult save even before worrying about the timing of the release.
We even consider if the opposition is in tight trying to shadow the keeper with borderline interfering movements. Perhaps goading the keeper into a release of the ball at them in frustration or at a difficult angle given the keeper can go anywhere in the PA it seems odd that the opposition tries to find ways to be there at that release point given it is an INDFK offence for them to interfere with the release.

In essence, we are pretty liberal when it comes to the 6 seconds.

To some extent they we are also fairly liberal in interpreting what a deliberate kick of the ball by a teammate, to the keeper is! Perhaps one of the very conditions where we are really thinking "intent" which no longer is part of the foul process. For example, a slide tackle challenge where a ball is taken off an opponent redirected towards the keeper is NOT a deliberate kick to the keeper despite the teammate used his foot. As long as the tackle was legal the ball is free to be picked up by the keeper using their hands inside the PA. Neither is a missed/deflected kick or wind-assisted curving ball, that was supposed to be pounded into touch. Also, note if ANY opposition gets so much as a jersey touch on the ball no matter it was destined for the keeper by a deliberate kick of a teammate that slight touch frees the restriction of the non-use of hands!

I had a situation rather similar to yours where the defender facing goal had his foot on the ball desperately shielding off an opponent and he actually tried to roll the ball into the diving keepers grasp as the opponent reached in and got a wee knick on the ball. Keeper dives and saves, screams for a passback violation echoed across the FOP by the attackers but even if you agree it was, that small touch released that restriction because it happened first before the hands contacted the ball.

Let's examine this trapping of the ball by the defender.
Did it stop the ball from entering the goal?
Was he facing the goal or facing outward?
Was the keeper right there diving to get it also but arrives a bit late?
Was an opponent trying to knock that ball into the goal?
Did he have time & options to clear the ball off the line well ahead of the keeper involvement?

REMEMBER this, the offence was not designed to prevent the defender from stopping a goal it was DESIGNED to prevent time-wasting

If the defender stretches out to stop that ball from crossing the goal line while being hassled by an opponent and the keeper sweep in and dives at their feet collecting the ball that is a SAVE, not a deliberate kick to the keeper. Always consider the circumstances because in awarding the INDFK against you could be creating an undeserved scoring opportunity for the opposition.

If the defender is at the right post traps an uncontested ball with the keeper at the left post then waits for the keeper to get there. The keeper crosses over to pick up the ball, now we have sufficient reason to think an INDFK offence is occurring. The fact the defender might be forced to actively shield the ball from the opposition, in this case, is far different than trying to clear the goal line and make a save.

I will add this though, opposition players who use PRESSURE tactics to force mistakes should be rewarded if they force these actions on poor defenders. By taking away the defenders options the FACT he can not deliberately kick the ball to his keeper is a TACTICAL advantage..

Cheers.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Eric,
While, as ref Dawson points out, intent is not part of the considerations for physical contact fouls, it is still to be considered for a number of other offences. The offence of deliberately kicking the ball to the goalkeeper is one of these. (In fact, the words "deliberate" or "deliberately" still appear literally dozens of times in the Laws).

In terms of a trapping the ball being subject to this part of the law it is worth noting that according to the official glossary of terms, found in the Laws of the Game document:

"The ball is kicked when a player makes contact with it the foot and/or the ankle."

So it is quite clear that trapping the ball falls within the definition of a kick. That part is easy. It's the "deliberately to the goalkeeper" part that is a little bit more tricky, since we are not mind readers.

What I would say is that we should not overreach in trying to find intent on the part of the teammate playing the ball. So for me if there's any doubt about whether the player intended the ball to go to the keeper the offence should not be called - at least in the first instance. If the action looks suspicious, you should warn the player and if after being warned, the player repeats the same action then you can be more comfortable in giving the offence. However on the first occurrence I would tend to give the defender the benefit of the doubt (unless of course it's blindingly obvious).

There is a phrase that was actually used for a slightly different part of the law that I would say is probably just as applicable here. The phrase was used in FIFA circular 488 issued in July 1992 that actually dealt with the tangentially-related offence of circumvention and it states:

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

I think this is the standard we should apply when judging the offence of deliberately kicking the ball to the goalkeeper. In my opinion you should only give the offence if you are convinced that the player's motive in kicking (which as we have seen, includes trapping) the ball was to allow the goalkeeper to pick it up. By the same token if you are not convinced that this was the player's sole motivation, then you should not give the offence.