Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

A quick refereeing question.

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?

Comments

  • I'm not a referee but my understanding is a pass forward is ok, just as a pass to a player in an offside position is ok if the ball goes backwards.
  • that same scenario happened only a couple of weeks back in I think a champions league match. was deemed to be fine and the match carried on as normal. none of the opposing players complained either.
  • I dont think any pass to the keeper can be picked up regardless of it going back or forward. I'm sure we would see it more in modern football if it was. Just a guess though.
  • Nicholas said:

    I dont think any pass to the keeper can be picked up regardless of it going back or forward. I'm sure we would see it more in modern football if it was. Just a guess though.

    I'm with Nicholas, I would imagine though that a referee may deem that Croker was clearing the ball and that it was not an intentional back pass.
  • It depends if it was a deliberate back pass or not
  • edited October 2013
    I'm sure you would see goalkeepers moving forwards of a defender (when the situation allowed) to recive a forward (back) pass if this applied. I think the 'back' in passing back is because the goalkeeper is deemed to be the deeper position, even if he is slighly forward of the passer.

    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.
  • The direction of the pass has no impact on whether it's a "back" pass or not. In fact in the very first season the rule was introduced a defender tried this by dribbling the ball to a position behind the keeper before passing it.

    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.
  • The direction of the pass has no impact on whether it's a "back" pass or not. In fact in the very first season the rule was introduced a defender tried this by dribbling the ball to a position behind the keeper before passing it.

    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.

    I remember that - it was a riduculous decision, either that or Pitcher had the ability to do that on purpose. Like I said, a ridiculous decision.
  • This, or at least similar scenarios, are quite a common occurrence .. 99 time out of 100 the referee deems it as an accident and not an intentional pass to the keeper which is subsequently handled
  • Here is a definitive answer: If in the opinion of the referee it is deliberate, then an indirect free kick is awarded, regardless of direction of the "pass". Mr Muttley - there are no rules in football, the game is governed by 17 laws. Another quirk is that when the illegal backpass was introduced, the defending player was not allowed to stoop down to head the ball back to the keeper (thus avoiding the illegal back pass with the foot); he would be cautioned for Ungentlemanly Conduct and an indirect free kick awarded.
  • Sponsored links:


  • WSSWSS
    edited October 2013
    I used to like the Jorge Costa back 'pass' with his knee/quad.
  • Indeed, the ball must be 'kicked' ie with the foot.

    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.
  • The long or short of it, is if a Charlton player did it a free kick would be awarded, if anyone else nothing. Just like Palace away Pirtcher back pass, Ipswich at home Petterson six aecond rule.
  • The FIFA law says this: "An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, ...touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate."

    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.
  • The direction of the pass has no impact on whether it's a "back" pass or not. In fact in the very first season the rule was introduced a defender tried this by dribbling the ball to a position behind the keeper before passing it.

    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.

    Wasn't our dear old friend Kelvin Morton in charge that night?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!