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

Back Pass Rule

So what exactly did Minulette(sp? Sunderland go) get booked for? Did Phil Dowd just make up some sort of yellow card for deliberately handling a back pass? I've certainly never heard of any such rule, and even if the rule did exist its still incredibly harsh, its not as if he had any choice about handling it. Are we really at the stage where a keepers only choice is either concede a goal, or concede an indirect free kick in the box and take a yellow card.
«1

Comments

  • edited April 2013
    The rule has been around for over 20 years now I believe so I'm pretty shocked you've not heard of it. Seems fine to me to be honest...

    (unless I'm misunderstanding you)
  • back pass rule has been around since we were playing at Sellout - Stevie Brown was the first player penalised for a regular "up & under" clearance that the keeper caught.........travesty.
  • edited April 2013
    I will admit, I don't know the incident you're talking about - but from what you've said it sounds pretty clear cut; and the referee was in the right.
    An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:

    - controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession
    - touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player
    - touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
    - touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
    FIFA - Laws of the Game

    I've often been curious as to why it isn't always enforced - it's also one thing I used to find annoying about some of Michael Morrison's back-passes to Hamer when he was under pressure. (He's got a lot better at that to be fair.)
  • edited April 2013
    . double.
  • The point he's making is quite clear, why did the keeper get BOOKED? It's clear why he gave the free kick, but is it an automatic booking too?
  • Off_it said:

    The point he's making is quite clear, why did the keeper get BOOKED? It's clear why he gave the free kick, but is it an automatic booking too?

    According to Graham Poll - No. Because....
    'Inside his own penalty area a goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any misconduct related to handling the ball.'
  • The only thing I can think of would be denying a clear goal scoring opportunity; in which case should it not have been red? Strange decision to book, I agree.
  • Unsporting behaviour maybe? Just a guess.
  • Of course I've heard if the back pass rule ;)

    Just never ever seen a keeper booked for it, especially one forced to save a wayward back pass. Often when the keeper has been forced to save the ball its not even given as a back pass.
  • The keeper caught a back pass on purpose to stop a goal - I don't see the difference between this and a defender handling a goal bound shot. I don't know what the laws are in this situation but if they don't already, I think they should be changed to allow the ref to send him off. If anything, even more so than a defender handling a goal bound shot because the other team only get an indirect freekick in this instance.
  • Sponsored links:


  • It would be ridiculous to send the keeper off - he had no option but to stop it. Personally I think the booking was harsh.
  • Send him off? Oh perrrrleeeeassse!
  • It would be ridiculous to send the keeper off - he had no option but to stop it. Personally I think the booking was harsh.

    Should be a sending off. If a defender handballed in a similar situation he would walk .. goalkeepers are an overprotected species
  • edited April 2013
    Difference is if he handled it but didn't catch it, it wouldn't have even been a free kick.
  • I agree he should be sent off. By handling it, he is deliberately breaking the rules to save a goal, hows that fair?
  • Addickted said:

    Difference is if he handled it but didn't catch it, it wouldn't have even been a free kick.

    no .. touching or catching is deemed as deliberate handball by the keeper and would result in an indirect free kick .. see LuckyReds post above
  • Surprised some don't think he should've even been booked, think yellow is probably the right punishment. Maybe the indirect freekick should be a penalty instead when it's so deliberate?
  • GNelson said:

    The keeper caught a back pass on purpose to stop a goal - I don't see the difference between this and a defender handling a goal bound shot. I don't know what the laws are in this situation but if they don't already, I think they should be changed to allow the ref to send him off. If anything, even more so than a defender handling a goal bound shot because the other team only get an indirect freekick in this instance.

    I've just read this and totally agree
  • We're now into unintended consequences territory. The back pass rule was brought in to stop time wasting, not as a way to deprive teams of their keeper.
  • We're now into unintended consequences territory. The back pass rule was brought in to stop time wasting, not as a way to deprive teams of their keeper.

    agreed, but imo the point is still valid
  • Sponsored links:


  • The rules works as is though, it does prevent the time wasting and the turn over of the ball via indirect free kick is enough.

    A red card would be crazy and potentially result in teams hacking the ball randomly rather than risk anything beyond a simple back pass, which we don't want to see.
  • Addickted said:

    Difference is if he handled it but didn't catch it, it wouldn't have even been a free kick.

    no .. touching or catching is deemed as deliberate handball by the keeper and would result in an indirect free kick .. see LuckyReds post above
    But if it was deliberate handball in the area, then it'd lead to a penalty not an indirect freekick, wouldn't it? The only reason I can see for a booking would be as unsporting behaviour if he kept doing it, but suggesting penalties or red cards for this is overkill.
  • edited April 2013
    aliwibble said:

    Addickted said:

    Difference is if he handled it but didn't catch it, it wouldn't have even been a free kick.

    no .. touching or catching is deemed as deliberate handball by the keeper and would result in an indirect free kick .. see LuckyReds post above
    But if it was deliberate handball in the area, then it'd lead to a penalty not an indirect freekick, wouldn't it? The only reason I can see for a booking would be as unsporting behaviour if he kept doing it, but suggesting penalties or red cards for this is overkill.
    this is GNelson's point .. deliberate handball through touching a back pass by the keeper results in an indirect free kick inside the area .. deliberate handling of a back pass by any other player would result in a penalty. Handball by any player other than the keeper to prevent a goal is a red card, if a keeper does it, seemingly the ultimate punishment is a yellow card, and many on here regard that as too harsh .. one rule for keepers and another for all the other ten players and that is wrong
  • edited April 2013
    Are people really trying to compare a keeper handling the ball to an outfield player? Seriously?

    And of course there are different rules for keepers. They're the only ones allowed to deliberately handle the ball. That rule has been around for at least a couple of years now.
  • Off_it said:

    Are people really trying to compare a keeper handling the ball to an outfield player? Seriously?

    And of course there are different rules for keepers. They're the only ones allowed to deliberately handle the ball. That rule has been around for at least a couple of years now.

    a keeper is allowed to touch the ball within the Laws of Football, outside those laws he is (or should be) as liable to the same punishment as any other player. There is a conflict in the laws .. 1) a keeper handling a back pass will concede an indirect free kick at the spot where the offence took place .. secondly, a player committing handball to prevent a goal being scored will be sent off .. except it seems if the player is the goal keeper when transgressing the back pass law.. this is wrong
  • Off_it said:

    Are people really trying to compare a keeper handling the ball to an outfield player? Seriously?

    And of course there are different rules for keepers. They're the only ones allowed to deliberately handle the ball. That rule has been around for at least a couple of years now.

    keepers can only handle in certain situations though. ie - penalty area.
    scenario 1 - shot comes in, defender saves with hand to prevent goal = penalty and red card
    scenario 2 - bad backpass, keeper handles to prevent goal = indirect free kick and yellow card
    Is this fair? Keepers get red carded for deliberate handball outside the area and IMO this is pretty much the same thing. Harsh on the keeper but he's getting punished for the defenders mistake.
    If a defender does a bad backpass, the keeper handling it is doing it to prevent a goal. IMO the punishment for breaking a rule is unjust at the moment. Its just my opinion though, I can see why some will disagree.
  • Problem with taking further action against keepers for "deliberate handball" is that the back pass is open to interpretation by the Ref and dependent on what the Ref believes another players intention was. How many times have we seen what was a back pass not given and when it wasn't a deliberate back pass and the Ref's decided it was?
    Deliberate handball by an outfield player is never open to interpretation and the decision is based on what that individual player does. To interpret if a goalkeeper's deliberately handled the Ref has to decide the intention of another player not the keeper. I can't see how's it's fair judging a player based on the interpreted actions of another.

    The rule's fine as it is and actually effects very few games, and is way down in the stupid rules list. Need to sort out the offside rule and the one with players having to go off after treatment first. These are every game occurances that influence games and rule changes that haven't worked as intended (imo).
  • Well the going off when injured rule, as originally written, has never been enforced correctly. I don't know what the current wording is (they've probably changed it to match the reality), but the original intention was for players to leave the pitch before receiving treatment, hence avoiding the game being stopped and players feigning injury to waste time. Now players can waste time all they like and players who are genuinely injured see their team reduced to 10 men when play resumes.

    Regarding bookings for back pass handling, the more things that become bookable offenses the more inconsistency we will see from referees. They are under pressure to not turn every game into an 8 v 9 farce, but if everything is potentially bookable then you'll see more and more players not getting booked for second offenses and rules being enforced based on something other than the wording of those rules.
  • back pass rule has been around since we were playing at Sellout - Stevie Brown was the first player penalised for a regular "up & under" clearance that the keeper caught.........travesty.

    I'm sure pitcher got caught out before Brownie's time. It was in a league cup game at sellhurst. I think we drew 1:1 but went out as we had lost the home leg.
  • All of you lot saying he should be sent off, or whatever......how many of you would cry and go mental if Hamer got sent off for doing something similar? A red is stupid. If he palmed it away I'm pretty sure it's not a free kick.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!