Question Number: 35695

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/14/2024

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

This question is a follow up to question 35693

Link for Mr Grove

https://www.facebook.com/theifab/photos/practical-advice-for-referees-back-passsince-1992-a-goalkeeper-cannot-touch-the-/2052017748299701/

'The ball has not been deliberately kicked TO THE GOALKEEPER.

An indirect free kick is not awarded because it was not the intent of a team-mate to pass the ball in the direction of the goalkeeper.

Example:

A player (Team A) passes the ball back to a team-mate who does not touch it. As a result, the ball goes to Team’s A goalkeeper who picks up the ball, being under pressure from an attacker (Team B player).

Correct decision:
The referee allows play to continue. This is NOT a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper within the spirit of the Law because the ball was not originally intended for the goalkeeper.'

So I wrote to them how it is in my situation. They say it's okay, because we can't know if it's intentional. I understand their advice to mean that it applies if it results from the flow of the game.

They see it differently. Or is it about who is sitting at the computer and answering the questions? Your answers just make more sense than theirs.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Petr,
The LOTG allow a referee discretion because the exact meaning or effect on the match in any given situation can be a nuanced rather than a clear cut decision.
To a certain extent manufactured USB on a infraction that was created to fix a long ago problem, you are not incorrect when you ask who is sitting at the computer but for a FACT of law versus an opinion on a decision it can get cloudy as to the exact wording or action necessary. The spirit of the law are often thrown into the mix as to the reasoning when you are perhaps looking too hard to find fault.

For example, the LOTG use careless, reckless and excessive to determine the foul but eliminating intent then state it is a foul if you trip or attempt to trip, but given the timing and force used we can judge the incident as a "fall" rather than a trip, if the ball is first contacted and we see no INTENT to sweep into and through the player, rather than slide past the player who then falls over us. .

For example in a match where the two teams were getting far too chippy and aggressive my match control was spiraling in a decidedly wrong direction so upon the start of the 2nd half I called the captains over, read the riot act and proceeded to award free kicks if they simply smelled bad. Small pushes, pulls almost any physical contact resulted in a whistle, the match slowed to a crawl and I cautioned the first hard tackle on the first late tackle in the second half to drive home this BS was going to stop or we were on a likely 7 verses 7 match show down.

The INDFK for handling the deliberately kicked ball by a teammate remains written into the LOTG. Yet we are aware, a slide tackle to strip an opponent pushes/redirects the ball into the keepers possession the INTENT was to stop the opponent not pass the ball. So no whistle.

You do not know what you do not know and we all have been advising you, do not find a foul for something that happens very rarely and you can not be sure, but as a referee, you have every right to believe and decide, "Hmm Wait this does NOT pass the smell test knowing , just as players WILL dive to unfairly trick the referee as much as sell a foul they think the referee seems to be missing, there could be a hint of odour but we are not awarding free kicks and scoring opportunities for a nose wrinkle.

On the throw in example where it goes over the head of the defender and the keeper gets to it, thus indirectly receiving it directly, they do it once we might cut some slack, they do it 2 or 3 times in a row then you KNOW!

What do you know?

The #3 defender deliberately kicks the ball to their #1 keeper and yells at his #9 teammate who is running to get it, Let John (their keeper) get it so #9 stops and Keeper uses their hands!
It's an INDFK only, no caution keeper was clearly identified as the pass recipient

Same thing except the ball was in the air #9 gets a touch off his head, keeper gets it!
"Play on!"
Player #9 ducks, keeper gets ball you raise your eyes hmmm?
Play on?
Player does this 2 or 3 times? Nose sniffing like crazy!
You no longer think Hmm, Play on, you think, Stop the nonsense!

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
This law change has had the desired impact in that in the clear deliberate kick to the goalkeeper has resulted in the ball being kicked away by goalkeepers in most instances.

There are then the doubtful and trifling ones where goalkeepers either take the risk of picking the ball up or kicking it away. They really don’t happen all that often and as such make little impact on a game.

If it looks egregious or a tactic and needs to be called then give the IDFK.
Its somewhat like the 6 second rule. How often do we see those called?

So for me don't sweat the small stuff. Focus on the big ticket items .

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
If what the IFAB is saying here, is that any and every time a player kicks the ball towards an outfield teammate but it then ends up with the goalkeeper, this cannot ever have been a ball deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper, then I do not believe that they are interpreting the law correctly (although I'm not sure that is quite exactly what they're saying).

Anyway, for me the law requires the referee to judge the intent of the player who kicks the ball. And the intent of the player is not decided by whether a teammate is between them and the goalkeeper.

Having said that and as I have pointed out in relation to this question in the past, I hold that the referee must be convinced of the motive of the player who kicks the ball. I would agree with the IFAB that when the ball is kicked directly towards a teammate, but then somehow ends up with the goalkeeper anyway, there is going to be some element of doubt as to intent of the player. Where there is doubt I believe you should err on the side of caution and not give the offence.

However I don't believe that you can make a blanket ruling on this and say that it is always necessarily the case that a ball kicked towards a teammate is never, ever intended to go to the goalkeeper. So I feel it must be left up to the referee to make the call based on the totality of the circumstances as the referee judges them to be.