Odd refereeing

[BensGrandad]

Yeah... except this one.

No trickery may be used to get around the terms of the amendment to Law 12. A player may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper using his head, chest, knee, etc.; however, if, in the opinion of the referee, the player uses a deliberate trick -- such as flicking the ball to his head with his foot and heading it to the goalkeeper or kneeling and deliberately pushing the ball to the goalkeeper with his head or knee -- he must be cautioned for ungentlemanly conduct. It makes no difference whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands; the offense is committed by the player who is seeking to circumvent both the Spirit and Letter of the Law.



From this it would appear the ref got it right.

 

[Bigtomfu]

I hark for the golden days of refereeing such as the 66 1/4 final where Ratin was sent off for "the look in his eye". Marvellous.

 

[Gazwag]

The way refs ignore back passes nowadays it seems a bit of a pathetic booking

 

[GT49er]

An infraction would not occur if a team mate uses his head, chest, knee etc. (everything but foot) to make the pass (no matter where the point of impact with the ball is). It would, however, be an infraction if a player were to use a trick to pass the ball to the goalkeeper, such as kicking the ball up and then using their head. If a player uses such a trick, he must be issued a caution.[3]

uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own
goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee, etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/log2013en_neutral.pdf

Thanks. Looking at that, it looks as if the ref got that one right. Interestingly, I can't see anything on there which would prevent say, Dunk chipping the ball up to Duffy, and Duffy heading it back to Stockdale. "Kicking the ball up and using their head", it says - nothing about someone else's head.

 

[studio150]

Totally justified, given that this was made clear when the rule was introduced. The only surprise to me is that Dunk didn't try this at Fulham to get his 10th Booking

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The actual offence took place inside the penalty area. Why didn't the referee award a penalty?

 

[GT49er]

The actual offence took place inside the penalty area. Why didn't the referee award a penalty?

Indirect free kick.

 

[Postman Pat]

The actual offence took place inside the penalty area. Why didn't the referee award a penalty?

and play is restarted with an indirect free kick

Because it isn't a direct free kick offence.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

The similar offence that also isn't allowed anymore is the throw-in onto the opponents back. It's also deemed unsportsman-like behaviour and should be punished with a yellow card. Personally don't like the rule: I think it should be fair game.

 

[TheJasperCo]

The player would have been cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Thanks. Looking at that, it looks as if the ref got that one right. Interestingly, I can't see anything on there which would prevent say, Dunk chipping the ball up to Duffy, and Duffy heading it back to Stockdale. "Kicking the ball up and using their head", it says - nothing about someone else's head.

"The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12"

 

[GT49er]

"The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12"

OK. Dunk pings a cross-field 40 yard pass to Duffy, but over-hits it so Duffy jumps up and heads it back to Stockdale. How would that be? Difficult one, really - I suppose if it was repeated several times, then the ref could have reason to believe it was intentional, not just an accidentally over-hit pass.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

It comes under the same law that you can not use a player on your own side to gain an advantage to get to a header ie levering yourself off the back of another player to head the ball. Thus gaining height over ungentlemanly.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Interesting that. Never knew that rule - I guess the player didn't either, nor half the team that surrounded the ref. You'd think if you were a pro player, you ought to know the bloody rules of the game.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Can you get booked for rolling back onto the pitch..?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[McTavish]

The similar offence that also isn't allowed anymore is the throw-in onto the opponents back. It's also deemed unsportsman-like behaviour and should be punished with a yellow card. Personally don't like the rule: I think it should be fair game.

It's allowed. From the current Laws:
"If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, intentionally throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but neither in a careless nor a reckless manner nor using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue."

 

[SussexSeahawk]

It's allowed. From the current Laws:
"If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, intentionally throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but neither in a careless nor a reckless manner nor using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue."

I stand corrected. Do you know when this was introduced?

 

[Questions]

No trickery ? What is 'The Little Magician' to do now then.

 

[McTavish]

I stand corrected. Do you know when this was introduced?

It has been specifically allowed for at least ten years.

 

[jcdenton08]

Should the topic title not be amended to "Outstanding Refereeing"?