For all you referees out there. . .

[Tilla]

Test yourselves. . .

[Mosiah]

Test yourselves. . .

No. 1: The goalkeeper broke no laws and he can continue the play with a punt or throw.

No. 2: This one is tricky. I'm feeling there is no foul as there must be some intention. Too bad for the striker!

No. 3: I think the injured striker should be allowed to take the penalty kick after treatment. I guess you could allow him to leave the field, then come back for the penalty. Of course there would be suitable time added for all of this.

[Karl]

Test yourselves. . .

1. Indirect Free Kick!
Goalkeeper cannot receive ball passed to him from member of defending team (his team) in his penalty-area and take it in hand or hands. If he does take that back pass into his hand or hands in his penalty-area, Free-Kick to attacking team...

...back pass = coming from his own player...matters not if he heads it back or uses other part of his body...still passed back by teammate. I am thinking if he was in his penalty-area and headed the ball to self before taking it in hand or hands IINDIRECT FREE-KICK...so what is the difference if he played it out OF his penalty-area and then back in...or intercepted it outside his penalty area and then back in? I see none!...therefore INDIRECT FREE-KICK to attacking team!


2. Play just continues. Accidental collision occured.

3. Does the EPL and or FIFA stipulate that an injured player who received treatment must leave the field?

Well if the regulations insist...then unfortunately so it must be - player leaves. ...does the regulations also state that the player must remain off the field until after the game has been re-started? I have not a clue.

Maybe the player would have to leave the field (it certainly appears that in the games I have seen the refs always signal that the injured player leaves the field. That would suggest some rule or regulation is being followed. ..but I do not know that as fact!)...and then maybe the TEAM that has been given the penalty...ask/request his immediate return and he takes the penalty.

My guess - Hell...not knowing the regulations...I would certainly allow the player to take the penalty. Why should I penalise him for being fouled...I would say?

Give me the answers...as I sure as hell will not be checking any FIFA Referee's Chart or EPL rules and regulations?
Thank you!

[Lazie]

I'm no ref but ..

1. No offense.
2. Penalty!!
3. The law says a player should leave the field after receiving treatment. He has to go!

[myYout]

Mi nuh ref neighdah but...
1. Keeper kyaan pickup a backpass, irrespective if him head it our not. If him chess a lofted backpass him still kyaan pick up di ball.
(Unless di backpass si wid di head/chess den him can pick up di ball, if wid foot him kyaan pick up di ball)
Free kick to di opposition.
2.On a wet pitch him nah tumble forwod suh easy widout contact, him ago slide. Derefore, picture show challenge from behind aftah accidental slip. Penalty
3. Him receive treatment on di field of play, player must leave pitch and return. PJ "I shall return" to take di penalty.

[Bruce]

1. No infraction. Play on

2. A foul, and a direct free kick nothing more. If the player was brought down inside the box, then it is a penalty kick.

3. The injured player must leave the pitch and recieve the referee's permission to re-enter.

[Mosiah]

Karl, why di guh round? Of course we are not sure of the rules or regulations that pertain to any of these situations. And Tilla was not asking you to go look them up.

Yuh good like gold, bwoy!

[Mosiah]

But for 3, does the ref allow the player to come back for the PK?

[Lazie]

But for 3, does the ref allow the player to come back for the PK?

Doubt it! Whenever the player leaves the pitch I've always seen the play restart before the player is given permission to go back on the field.

[Mosiah]

I agree, but this could be considered a special case.

Tilla give di ansa dem yet?!?! Cho!

[Mosiah]

I am sticking with my answer for No. 1 because I don't believe the goalkeeper intentionally headed the ball back into the penalty area so he could collect it. It says, "In the clash...", which implies to me that he is rushing out to clear it from the onrushing attacker and the ball is inadvertently headed back into his area. If that is what the ref sees, then play continues. If not, then an indirect kick to the attacking team.

[Karl]

I am sticking with my answer for No. 1 because I don't believe the goalkeeper intentionally headed the ball back into the penalty area so he could collect it. It says, "In the clash...", which implies to me that he is rushing out to clear it from the onrushing attacker and the ball is inadvertently headed back into his area. If that is what the ref sees, then play continues. If not, then an indirect kick to the attacking team.

...if the back pass i.e. heading to self was inadvertent why the use of the term "headed"? The use of "headed" signified deliberate action.

...with the ball strikes a player it matters not where on the body it strikes...you do not hear anyone speaking about a player "bellying" the ball? You hear the ball struck the player "x"!

..but if it came from an American magazine or US referee or US referee trainer...then it would not surprise me if your interpretation was correct.

[Mosiah]

Okay! But you get my point. An inadevertent header means nothing happened and play continues.

[Tilla]

Keith Hackett's official answers:
1) Penalise the goalkeeper for handling the ball from a deliberate back-pass. His header outside the area makes no difference. Give an indirect free-kick from the point where the keeper handled it.

2) Play on. But it's an immensely difficult situation. Intent is no longer in the laws of the game – so the fact that the defender did not intend to bring the defender down is irrelevant. Instead, the question you have to ask is whether the defender could have avoided the collision if he had taken more care – was it down to carelessness? If your answer was yes then you would give a direct free-kick or penalty, with a possible red card if an obvious goalscoring opportunity had been denied. But if the incident isn't down to carelessness, and is obviously a complete accident like this one, let play continue.

3) The defenders are right – the laws state that, after treatment, an injured player must leave the field of play. It's unfortunate, and it has happened before, memorably to Thierry Henry at Arsenal a few years ago.

[Mosiah]

Great answers! I like the explanation to the second one, because sometimes defenders try and get away with murder by running close to attackers, hoping that legs entangle and the attacker goes down. Well, that is careless behaviour and should be penalised. But the scenario described is a little different and just unfortunate.

Thanks, Tilla! I guess I got 1 (1 1/2?) out of 3 for this quiz.