Did the referee miss a back pass yesterday?

[Yorkie_FFC]

The Laws of the Game are full of randomness that make things complex when they don't need to be, like other posters have mentioned above about the deliberate part, it always opens up grey area and different interpretations from one referee to another. Personally I don't really see the reason for bringing in the back pass law as most professional keepers can control a ball with their feet just as well as hands if not better. Scrapping the back pass law wouldn't harm the modern game also how many indirect free kicks have we seen in say the last 5 years in the Premier League, or even the football league for that matter, it would be interesting stat to note as realistically its another law there which if removed would stop any debate. 

[The Cravenette]

Well keepers have had to learn to control and play the ball with their feet because of the rule change. Not sure we should be changing it back now just because they have adapted to it.
I actually thought it wasn't given as it wasn't a BACK pass but a lateral one. Who knew a keeper could shout for a pass from a defender to a defender so he could pick it up?

[Sting of the North]

The Laws of the Game are full of randomness that make things complex when they don't need to be, like other posters have mentioned above about the deliberate part, it always opens up grey area and different interpretations from one referee to another. Personally I don't really see the reason for bringing in the back pass law as most professional keepers can control a ball with their feet just as well as hands if not better. Scrapping the back pass law wouldn't harm the modern game also how many indirect free kicks have we seen in say the last 5 years in the Premier League, or even the football league for that matter, it would be interesting stat to note as realistically its another law there which if removed would stop any debate. 

I think you are ignoring quite an important difference between a keeper having the ball at his feet or in his hands. In the former situation he is acting like an outfield player that can be challenged, in the latter he is untouchable and can't lose the ball. Scrapping the back pass law would give you every opportunity to time waste forever, and it would negate every high press.

I think it would be a seriously detrimental change to modern football.

[filham]

Surely if no Fulham player touched the ball between the backheel and the keeper it is an offence. The possibility that the backheel may have been intended for someone else is irrelevant.

No, the law is quite clear on that. The pass must be deliberate.

So the ref has to read the mind of the player. I always thought that the "deliberate clause covered against
 a shot on goal striking a defender a defender and then being stopped by the keeper keeper .

[Rupert]

Surely if no Fulham player touched the ball between the backheel and the keeper it is an offence. The possibility that the backheel may have been intended for someone else is irrelevant.

No, the law is quite clear on that. The pass must be deliberate.

So the ref has to read the mind of the player. I always thought that the "deliberate clause covered against
 a shot on goal striking a defender a defender and then being stopped by the keeper keeper .

No, the referee does not have to be a mind reader. Anyone with common sense, which strangely does include most referees, can see if a player has passed the ball towards his own goalie. Should the goalie then pick up the ball, the referee will think, aha, deliberate pass, and give an indirect free kick.
If player A kicks the ball towards player B, then the goalie shouts for it, so B either leaves the ball for him, or he moves to intercept it, the referee will think, aha, not a deliberate pass (assuming he has heard the shout, so this could be a risky move for the defence if the goalie is soft voiced or the crowd very loud).


The "aha" bit is the important part of all this.

It means the referee has to think about it.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to call out referees and their bias against us, God knows, but by claiming the correct decisions are wrong you merely reinforce the notion neutrals may have that our legitimate complaints are sour grapes.

[heylookitsjacob]

Surely if no Fulham player touched the ball between the backheel and the keeper it is an offence. The possibility that the backheel may have been intended for someone else is irrelevant.

No, the law is quite clear on that. The pass must be deliberate.

So the ref has to read the mind of the player. I always thought that the "deliberate clause covered against
 a shot on goal striking a defender a defender and then being stopped by the keeper keeper .

No, the referee does not have to be a mind reader. Anyone with common sense, which strangely does include most referees, can see if a player has passed the ball towards his own goalie. Should the goalie then pick up the ball, the referee will think, aha, deliberate pass, and give an indirect free kick.
If player A kicks the ball towards player B, then the goalie shouts for it, so B either leaves the ball for him, or he moves to intercept it, the referee will think, aha, not a deliberate pass (assuming he has heard the shout, so this could be a risky move for the defence if the goalie is soft voiced or the crowd very loud).


The "aha" bit is the important part of all this.

It means the referee has to think about it.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to call out referees and their bias against us, God knows, but by claiming the correct decisions are wrong you merely reinforce the notion neutrals may have that our legitimate complaints are sour grapes.

If this exact thing (goalie shouted for it, etc.,) happened 3, 5, 10 times in one game, do you think the ref would not consider it a backpass on #10?

[Brawn]

I'm not sure he touched it when I first saw it from my seat in H3. It wasn't worth looking at that much.

[Rupert]

If this exact thing (goalie shouted for it, etc.,) happened 3, 5, 10 times in one game, do you think the ref would not consider it a backpass on #10?

I personally would warn the goalie not to push his luck the second time, never mind the tenth.
That said, it rarely happens once per game. If somebody was somehow trying to deliberately use this as a tactic, there are so many ways it can go spectacularly wrong and end in a conceded goal.

[flyingfish]

I'm not sure he touched it when I first saw it from my seat in H3. It wasn't worth looking at that much.

Not so sure as arsenal made a very quick break following a ball out from Raya, had they scored then it would have been worth looking at!

[bobbo]

Similarly, does anyone know if Saka's goal was checked for offside?

aw I thought it could well have been even on replays it difficult to tell the camera is on saka an not the player who passed it all in one go . It's looks so close in fact the sort you see given when only a shirtsleeve is offside.

[Whitesideup]

Similarly, does anyone know if Saka's goal was checked for offside?

They probably looked at it but he wasn't offside when the ball was played.

I thought it was very tight. Saka was either in line or marginally ahead of the defenders. I could not be as sure as CookieG that he was definitely on-side. However, personally I think that's good enough and the on-field decision should stand. However, how many times do we see the replay with the lines drawn in that show the attacker to be offside by a margin that the human eye in real time could not see? So go with the on-field decision for Saka's goal, but be consistent and do the same each time for every side.

[LC]

I was more concerned with the referee taking out Iwobi (I think it was Iwobi) which allowed Arsenal a quick break.. can't believe he didn't call a drop ball

[Yorkie_FFC]

The Laws of the Game are full of randomness that make things complex when they don't need to be, like other posters have mentioned above about the deliberate part, it always opens up grey area and different interpretations from one referee to another. Personally I don't really see the reason for bringing in the back pass law as most professional keepers can control a ball with their feet just as well as hands if not better. Scrapping the back pass law wouldn't harm the modern game also how many indirect free kicks have we seen in say the last 5 years in the Premier League, or even the football league for that matter, it would be interesting stat to note as realistically its another law there which if removed would stop any debate. 

I think you are ignoring quite an important difference between a keeper having the ball at his feet or in his hands. In the former situation he is acting like an outfield player that can be challenged, in the latter he is untouchable and can't lose the ball. Scrapping the back pass law would give you every opportunity to time waste forever, and it would negate every high press.

I think it would be a seriously detrimental change to modern football.

The keeper only has 6 seconds with the ball in his hands before he has to release under that current Law, unless he ends up passing it to a defender and back again constantly granted that could waste some time but no different from taking time at a thrown in or keeping the ball in play at the corner flag. If high pressed against, the keeper is likely to look for midfield options.