Just been sorting out our old videos and DVDs and ended up watching the Centenary disc. In the 1947 semi-final against Newcastle Sam is beaten and is flat on the ground as the ball rolls towards the goal line but Peter Croker comes sliding in from nowhere to backheel it off the line and into the still prone Sam's arms . If that happened today would it be a back pass , with a resultant free kick, even though it went forward?
0
Comments
Also, as has been said, it does sound like Croker's was a goal ine clearance (intent to stop the ball going in the goal rather than a pass to Bartram) so wouldn't be classed as a back pass.
In the original question the key point would be whether it was deemed a pass to the keeper, or simply a clearance that happened to go to the keeper and therefore not a pass. Of course you're relying on the referees discretion and judgement then. Just ask Darren Pitcher the difference between a clearance and a backpass. At Selhurst he managed to slice a clearance from outside the area 20 or 30 feet up in the air and backwards, which Mike Salmon caught and a backpass was given.
As a ps to PG's comment, a player or players who flick or chip the ball up and then head or chest the ball to the keeper, in order to circumvent the law, should also be penalised.
That is, it doesn't matter where the player is, or what direction he kicked the ball. Of course FIFA circulate clarifications and guidance to referees all the time and things like the interpretation of 'deliberate' is a black art. I would think that a backheel would be open to such interpretation.
Attempting to use 'trickery' to circumvent the law - such as one player chipping the ball for another to head back to the keeper - is regarded as unsporting behaviour, and will attract a free kick and probably a booking.