Sent off for diving!

[4eyesbetter]

No, never. The only time they've tweaked that law was in about 2000 when they also made it so the goalkeeper can't pick the ball up direct from a throw-in.

It's my nominee for "Most Successful Law Change In Any Sport, Ever"; it did exactly what it was designed to do, almost as soon as it was brought in, with no unintended consequences, and with no fuss and bother or rending of garments, even though it completely changed the entire fabric of the sport. It's simple and easy to understand, they got the form and wording of it correct first time round, it's unarguably made football better in every way, and it's now almost impossible to imagine the sport without it.

 

[crossref]

in that clip - was his pass back actually intentional?

none of the three white players we can see even appealed, it looked unintentional to me.

 

[pedr]

I think the prevailing interpretation is that the "intention" is about whether the player kicked the ball intentionally, not whether the intent was that the goalkeeper would pick it up - so a ball which hits the defender's feet (or perhaps which is intentionally blocked by him) can be picked up, one which the defender accidentally miss-hits cannot.

 

[Jacko]

I think the prevailing interpretation is that the "intention" is about whether the player kicked the ball intentionally, not whether the intent was that the goalkeeper would pick it up - so a ball which hits the defender's feet (or perhaps which is intentionally blocked by him) can be picked up, one which the defender accidentally miss-hits cannot.

My understanding is that the absolute opposite of this is the case. A mishit but deliberate kick can be picked up without being adjudged a back pass.

 

[Phil E]

When I worked at West Brom I spoke to a couple of referees about back passes, because they didn't seem to penalise it. Referees confirmed it's one of those things they never gave because it just made them look like a prat and caused too many issues. I guess like a few laws in our book that we would never blow for.

 

[crossref]

Here's the Law (or is it a rule? )

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

that seems to accord with Jacko, and would seem to make the FK in the OP seem rather harsh to me.

 

[4eyesbetter]

It's an edge case. I could see why he gave it, but you give every possible benefit of the doubt to the defender. A big tackle that just happens to knock the ball back to the goalkeeper is fine, even if you're pretty sure it happened accidentally-on-purpose. That's not what the law's there to stop. The law is there to stop passages of play like this, which against less clued-up (or fit) opponents could last for minutes at a time, with the goalkeeper having it passed back and rolling it out again until the strikers wasted energy by chasing them down.

https://youtu.be/u7HvbpezC08?t=1h49m05s
https://youtu.be/u7HvbpezC08?t=1h56m45s
https://youtu.be/u7HvbpezC08?t=1h58m0s

(A better candidate would be the modern law about the goalkeeper having to release the ball six seconds after taking hold of it; but again, that law is not there so you can have a stopwatch on it and be stupid and persnickety and give loads of indirect free kicks, it's there to threaten the keeper with if they start taking the piss while defending a 1-0 lead.)