Jump to content
IGNORED

Back Pass


chipdawg

Recommended Posts

I was watching the highlights last night for the first time since I watched the game and while I appreciate it no longer matters as wewon, but the incident when the Millwall defender sold his keeper short on a back pass and Albert nearly stole in should surely have been classified as a back pass and a City free kick? Is there a point of law that i'm missing as to why it isn't because I don't think Albert touched the ball. Or did the referee/lino just miss it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching the highlights last night for the first time since I watched the game and while I appreciate it no longer matters as wewon, but the incident when the Millwall defender sold his keeper short on a back pass and Albert nearly stole in should surely have been classified as a back pass and a City free kick? Is there a point of law that i'm missing as to why it isn't because I don't think Albert touched the ball. Or did the referee/lino just miss it?

Not entirely sure, maybe he took a look at his surroundings and thouhgt better of it!

I thought any intentional backpass that you picked up, you automatically got a indirect free kick from where the ball was picked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely sure, maybe he took a look at his surroundings and thouhgt better of it!

I thought any intentional backpass that you picked up, you automatically got a indirect free kick from where the ball was picked up.

Didn't Albert get a touch when him and the keeper (with his feet) went for the ball thus allowing the keeping to pick it up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Albert get a touch when him and the keeper (with his feet) went for the ball thus allowing the keeping to pick it up?

Might of, I can't remember, are we taling about the back pass which he saved with his legs?

If so I think he got a touch, if he didn't then he hasn't saved it with his hands, but do you then get a chance to pick the ball up because the phase of play has changed? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might of, I can't remember, are we taling about the back pass which he saved with his legs?

If so I think he got a touch, if he didn't then he hasn't saved it with his hands, but do you then get a chance to pick the ball up because the phase of play has changed? I don't know.

I am pretty sure albert got a touch to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Albert didn't touch it, i wondered whether because he'd caught it between his legs first it was classed as a save an therefore picking it up afterwards made no odds :dunno:

Like i said, made no difference to a cracking result, i was just wondering

Watch the highlights on the BBC website. The 'keeper gets there first, but with his feet, then Albert clearly gets a touch, which again hits the 'keepers' feet, then he picks it up. No backpass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This made me look up the rule to see if it said at what stage the keeper can then pick the ball up, and seen this:

[...]a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player: 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."[3]

I dont think i have ever seen that enforced? I imagine it means for example player passes back to keeper, keeper flicks ball up so player can head back to him? seems a pretty innocuous rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This made me look up the rule to see if it said at what stage the keeper can then pick the ball up, and seen this:

[...]a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player: 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."[3]

I dont think i have ever seen that enforced? I imagine it means for example player passes back to keeper, keeper flicks ball up so player can head back to him? seems a pretty innocuous rule

Quite possibly the most pointless and stupid rule in football.

5-a-side passbacks work so much better than 11-a-side rules. The game is kept quicker because the goalkeeper and defenders must work together to make a quick pass available, rather than just launching the ball as is common with 11-a-side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...