Question Number: 5664

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

RE: Pro

of , asks...

Pass Back Query - On a match on TV today an indirect free kick was awarded inside the penalty box when the goalkeeper picked up a ball which was passed back from a defender. The goalkeeper argued he was entitled to pick up the ball because it had deflected off an opposing attacker after the defender struck it (which was evident to all) but the referee still awarded the free kick. Is this correct?

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I would agree with the keeper. Once the ball was touched by the opponent he should have been allowed to handle it. In Advice to Referees 12.20 it says a keeper infringes the Law if he touches the ball with his hands DIRECTLY after it has been deliberately kicked to him.Furthermore, there was an article in Fair Play magazine last year discussing the use of the word "direct". The only time direct has an ambiguous meaning is when considering Law 11, Offside where a deflection does not change a player from being in offside position. To quote from the article which is official USSF policy "the use of the word "direct" in Laws 12,13,15,16,and 17 is fairly clear: if the ball goes from point A to point B without interference, something can or cannot happen" In the US, it's clear to me that if the ball touches a player on the way back to the keeper, even if it was deliberatly kicked to him by a teammate he may pick it up with his hands.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

I, too, agree with the goalie. Once the attacker deflects the ball the keeper is entitled to handle it. The main question here is whether the attacker intended to deflect it or not and there is no difference in my mind. I don't judge intent in this case, I judge the fact that an opponent made contact with the pass back. ..Granted the Law states touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate. This prohibition is slightly different than touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate. The word directly is absent when prohibiting handling from a deliberate pass. Was that intentional or just an oversight? ..In America we may consult Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game where there are questions such as these. The applicable paragraph, 12.20, includes the word -directly- when speaking of the pass back to the keeper. Was that intentional or just an oversight? My thinking is, even though the deliberate pass happened, the goalkeeper didn't play the ball with his hands until after an opponent had touched it and that's the key. To me this is the same as touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession and has not touched another player...To say when an attacker who is between the pass back and the goalkeeper, or anyplace else for that matter, deflects a deliberately kicked ball sent to the keeper by a colleague, that handling by the keeper is out of the question is a huge restriction on him and not within the spirit of the Law, preventing the wasting of time. Further, suppose that deflection is headed into the goal mouth, wouldn't we be saying a goalkeeper could not legally use his hands to stop a goal scoring opportunity, last touched by an opponent. Isn't it the keeper's right to use his hands, within his penalty area, to stop his opponents from scoring goals? Isn't the keeper's job to stop the opponents from scoring goals? This ball came from an opponent, just because it started as a deliberate pass to the keeper doesn't mean it still is, in my mind...Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Laflin

I agree with the goalkeeper as well, I think, if the ball is deflected then it's not a backpass. The ball should come directly and deliberately from the defender. No free kick..What did the commentators say?..Jim

Answer provided by Referee Dawson

Wow, this portion of LAW 12 is being given thorough going over as of late. I would feel as referee a deliberate kick of the ball with the foot by a teammate to his keeper fits the criteria of what the law was designed for. The non use of the keeper's hands to prevent timewasting. ..Now in the USSF ATR.Quote .12.20 BALL KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER.A goalkeeper infringes Law 12 if he touches the ball with his hands ....DIRECTLY..... after it has been deliberately kicked by a teammate. The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it has been played with the foot. The requirement that the ball be "kicked to" the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place where the keeper can legally handle the ball. The requirement that the ball be "deliberately kicked" means that the play on the ball is deliberate and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion of the referee, accidentally deflected or misdirected. The goalkeeper has infringed the Law if he handles the ball after initially playing the ball in some other way (e.g., with his feet)..End quote..NOW LAW 12 Fouls and Misconduct.. touches the ball with his hands after it has.been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate..In attempting to quantify the observance of this portion in law 12. I personally feel there is too much emphisises on the word of deliberate to infer the same as intentional as not enough on the words TO HIM as being a controlled pass intended for the keeper. In resetting the offside criteria we do not allow deflections or non control to set things different. In this issue, is the word (DIRECTLY), as placed into the mix by the USSF, the out for the referee to not award a INDFK for the handling?..Even if we look to the wording which states we can consider the word deliberate not to include a miskick or deflection by the TEAMMATE. "The requirement that the ball be "deliberately kicked" means that the play on the ball is deliberate and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion of the referee, accidentally deflected or misdirected".Does the same logic apply to a small deflection off an attacker by the ball on its way back to the keeper? ..Lets put this in a manner which leaves us clear on the action and judgements. A defender in trouble hears the keeper call PASS IT BACK I am in support. The defender uses his foot to deliberately kick the ball in the direction of his keeper. There is an offside positioned attacker who had fallen and was just in the process of picking himself up when the ball strikes the back of his leg but continues to the keeper. The ball was deliberately passed back by a defender as a controlled pass to his keeper. The attacker made no effort to play the ball it simply touched him on the way by. ..Could it be a miskick or is the attacker intervention a play on the ball? What if it was not an attacking player but the referee it had bounced off? Is not the referee part of the playing field? So now we would apply an INDFK? Does it make a difference if the attacker makes a play on the ball and touches but does not control it?..There is an element of risk in a PASS BACK senario in that the keeper CAN NOT use his hands when the referee is of the opinion it was a deliberate foot kicked ball by a teammate played TO THE keeper. A closing attacker can make the keeper's poor footwork come into play very quickly. If as a referee I was convinced 100% this was a passback and the deflection off the attacker was unintentional occurring prior to the keeper handling the ball it is an INDFK. ..The word directly is not mentioned in the laws. I feel this was added by the USSF seeking to place the meaning or context of the law into a sense of fairness. Ref Fleischer makes a possible valid assumtion in comparing the incident to a second touch where any touch by a player permits him to play it and by the word directly in the throw in concept. Yet we do not allow the deflection off an opposing player to reset the criteria of offside as the intent remains. .Maybe I am naive but if the wording was a controlled kick with the foot by a teammate directly to the keeper then only semantics seperate us from agreement. Sometimes we try to hard to weed out the word intentional from the laws. Granted we are not mind readers but we can generally tell if the ball is under control and if the keeper was the one destined to get it. Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Powell

I really have no problem with allowing the goal keeper to pick the ball up...The back pass law is there to avoid time wasting. But it is still illegal for a defender to deliberately play the ball to his keeper if an attacker is going to shoot in the six yard box, we may say it was a tackle and not a pass back but lets accept that the defender says "Here keeper" plays the ball to him and the keeper picks it up. This is not why it was enshrined in LOTG yet we have no option but to penalise in Law..Now if we say there is a deflection off an opponent that sends the ball towards goal then the keeper may use his hands because it was not last "touched" (I was going to use "played" but USSF state to much importance on the word "Played") by a team mate..Once we accept that the keeper can use his hands in such a situation then we must accept that if it takes the mearest touch on an opponent then the keeper may pick it up...This does not negate the fact that you may penalise the defender for circumventing the backpass if you believe he has tried to do...Keep Smiling.Steve Powell

Answer provided by Referee Ref

From: "Alastair Shaw" .Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:02:28 +0100 .To: .Subject: Query 5664 ..Thank you for all your comments. The question clearly provoked as much debate as it did in my office. Between you you seem to have covered all the possibilities ..Some clarification of the exact circumstances. ..1. the defender was about a yard inside the 18 yard box and the intent to pass back to the keeper was clear .2. the opposing attacker was just outside the 6 yard box and his contact appeared to be incidental and could probably best be described as an automatic reaction to a ball passing him than any serious attempt to control the ball .3. the goalkeeper initially took a stance to kick the ball. The pace of the ball was sufficient to allow time for him to change his mind and he clearly did so and opted to fall on the ball once it was clearly deflected. He immediately protested at the referee's decision on the basis he could have kicked it but didn't require to because of the deflection .4. both match commentators agreed with the referee .5. I was surprised that a professional keeper would not know what rules applied in such circumstances and I posed the question to see if the issue was cut and dried or debatable. The latter it seems given the differing opinions. .6. Finally the resultant free kick did not lead to a goal and overall the incident did not appear to affect the result of the match one way or the other - but it might have! ...Alastair Shaw ..We thank you for the information. A little healthy debate is a good thing. Cheers