• Home
• About
• Ask A Question

Question:
A defender throws in the ball to a team mate who intentionally heads the ball to the keeper who catches it. Is this allowed or is the team trying to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12 which would result in an IDFK where the defender headed the ball to the goalkeeper?

Answer (February 10. 2013):
Let’s start off with an excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” (2011/2012):

12.21 BALL THROWN TO THE GOALKEEPER
A goalkeeper infringes Law 12 by touching the ball with the hands after receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a teammate. The goalkeeper is considered to have received the ball directly by playing it in any way (for example, by dribbling the ball with the feet) before touching it with the hands. Referees should take care not to consider as trickery any sequence of play that offers a fair chance for opponents to challenge for the ball before it is handled by the goalkeeper from a throw-in.

NOTE: The goalkeeper may always handle the ball inside his/her own penalty area unless he/she:
• Takes more than 6 seconds while controlling the ball with his/her hands before releasing it from possession
• Regains hand control prior to a touch by another player
• Touches ball with the hands after it comes directly from a throw-in or deliberate kick to the ‘keeper by a teammate
The restart for any of these infringements is an indirect free kick*.

Things have changed since 1992, when FIFA issued Circular 488 on July 24. The sense of the circular was encapsulated in an article in “Fair Play,” a no-longer published USSF referee magazine, in 1998. The article as quoted here has been modified by its author to reflect the change in the way the Laws are numbered (now Arabic numbers rather than Roman numerals) and the replacement in the Laws of “ungentlemanly conduct” by “unsporting behavior.”

What about players who seek to get around the Letter of the Law? In response to numerous queries from around the world, FIFA issued its Circular Number 488 on July 24, 1992. Circular 488 will not appear in the Laws of the Game, but must be known and understood by every referee. Because it directly affects the way in which the referee will treat time wasting, it is worthwhile to quote the Circular at length:

Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick in order to circumvent the amendment to Law 12, the player will be guilty of unsporting behavior and will be punished accordingly in terms of Law 12; that is to say, the player will be cautioned and an indirect free-kick will be awarded to the opposing team from the place where the player committed the offense.

Examples of such tricks would include: a player who deliberately flicks the ball with his feet up onto his head in order to head the ball to his goalkeeper; or, a player who kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with his knee, etc.

In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the text and the spirit of Law 12, and the referee must only be convinced that this was the player’s motive.

It is obvious from the text of Circular 488 that players who use trickery in an attempt to get around the conditions of the amendment to Law 12 must be dealt with immediately and firmly. The initiator of the trickery must be cautioned for unsporting behavior and the match properly restarted. If the ball was already in play, an indirect free-kick from the spot where the initiator touched—not merely “kicked”—the ball is appropriate. If the ball was out of play, the restart for a violation depends upon how the circumvention began. If the action began from a free-kick or goal-kick that was properly taken, the restart will again be an indirect free-kick from the spot where the initiator of the trickery played it, regardless of whether he took the kick or was further along in the sequence of play. If the goal-kick or free-kick was not properly taken, then the restart must be that goal-kick or free-kick. This could lead to a situation where the offending team has a player cautioned (or sent off for a second cautionable offense), but still retains the ball on the restart.

The Law was rewritten in 1997 to reduce the number of options available to players for wasting time. Playing the ball to one’s goalkeeper was traditionally used as a way of “consuming” time. By the time the Law was rewritten, the practice had become synonymous with time wasting. Normal interplay of the ball among teammates is not a matter of concern to any referee; however, the referee must be concerned with obvious deliberate attempts to circumvent the requirements of the Law. In this case the player using the deliberate trick to circumvent the Law is committing unsporting behavior, for which he must be cautioned and shown the yellow card.

One clue to the correctness of the player’s action is whether it is a natural part of play or is clearly artificial and intended only to circumvent the Law. In such cases, the action is considered misconduct whether it ultimately is touched by the goalkeeper or not.

This would also apply to a ball kicked by a player to a teammate, who then heads the ball to the ‘keeper. In most cases this would be considered to be a part of normal play.

On July 23, 2002, we stated:

If a goal-kick, taken by the goalkeeper, goes to a teammate outside the penalty area, who heads the ball back to the goalie, this does not infringe the requirements of Law 12. The referee must recognize the difference between situations during dynamic play, when opponents are constantly exerting pressure, and events developing from static situations, such as free-kicks, when the opposing team must be at least ten yards from the ball. The referee must always consider the distance between members of opposing teams as well as members of the same team before making the call.

And finally a direct answer to your question:
First, the situation involving a throw-in directly to a goalkeeper by a teammate of the goalkeeper is not an example of the so-called “pass back” to the goalkeeper, it is an entirely separate indirect free kick foul which is listed in Law 12. The only things they have in common is that the action starts with a teammate, followed by the ball going directly to the hands of the goalkeeper, and that it is one of several indirect free kick violations by a goalkeeper designed by the Laws of the Game to discourage instances when, because the ball is being held by the goalkeeper, opponents cannot legally challenge for control.

Second, the “trickery” issue is misconduct, not a foul, and is therefore governed by a different set of requirements (in fact, the misconduct itself is being committed by the teammate, not the goalkeeper, and the goalkeeper does not even need to touch the ball in order for the misconduct to be committed).

Third, as a foul, the “pass back” or the “throw back” offenses are rare; as misconduct, “trickery” is even more uncommon. Whereas the foul only requires the referee to see where the ball came from (kick from a teammate, throw-in by a teammate), the trickery offense requires evaluating what is going on around the play in question and why (in the opinion of the referee) the play was performed this way.

“Ttrickery” should not be considered if the opponents had a fair chance to challenge for the ball. If the referee decides they did not and that is why this sequence was performed, then “trickery” should be considered.

Question:
This question opened an intense debate on a referee discussion forum (http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/where-did-this-cool-site-come-from-and-why-did-noone-tell-me.1981356/):

“A shot taken on goal is blocked by a defending player inside his own team’s penalty area. The defending player then starts to dribble the ball while having full control of it. Before the defender dribbled the ball out of the penalty area, the goalkeeper picked up the ball dribbled by the defender (his teammate). The Referee should stop the play and award an Indirect Free Kick to the opposing team.”

Some (including with reference to contact with high level referees) have argued that a dribbling player has not deliberately kicked the ball to the keeper within the meaning of ATR 12.20 (sepcifically Note (a)). Others have argued that Note (a) does not define deliberately kicked to the keeper, and that by the ATR definitions a dribbling player has kicked the ball (because the player has used the foot) and the kick is deliberate (because the player has control of the ball), such that the triangle and the violation are complete (though there could be possibility that the offense was trifling depending on other surrounding facts).

Would you care to share your interpretation?

Answer (January 22, 2013):
And the referees who cited info from the high-level referees are correct: there is no infringement of the Laws here.

Those who argue for saying the ball deliberately kicked is “not defined” are sophists (those who use a specious argument to deceive someone, in this case, themselves) and are full of hokum (a polite word for something apparently impressive or legitimate but actually nonsense). Pay no attention to those people behind the screen.

Question:
Should this (please see video…Newcastle v Tottenham on 18 Aug 2012) be considered trickery? [Note, it was not called in the EPL match]. Not too different from flicking the ball in the air in order to head it to keeper.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/the-best-back-pass-ever-steven-taylor-for-newcastle-v-tottenham/

and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b88k1ZxDuQ&feature=youtube_gdata

I imagine we’ll see kids imitating this move. This has many tactical and skill implications for those of us who coach. I guess I will stop having players shield the ball while the keeper comes out for it, and instead teach them to bend one knee and use the other thigh to pass it back to the keeper and therefore alleviate pressure more easily.

Goal kicks are now easier. The keeper kicks to the side of the PA and a runs out to the line (or stands there while a back kicks it), a player stationed at the side gets down on the ground and heads it to the keeper just inside the area.

Innovation will abound. Not sure I like it, but, as they say, change is the only constant. The game could change a bit because of this, I can’t be the only one whose brain started to whirl when I watched the match.

Answer (August 23, 2012):
The play itself was perfectly legal. If, as sometimes happens, this link has disappeared from the original site, the situation was that Newcastle player Steve Taylor stopped with his foot a ball going over the goal line and, knowing his his ‘keeper could not play the ball with his hands if Taylor deliberately kicked the ball to him, Taylor dropped to the ground and headed it to his ‘keeper, who could then play the ball with his hands within both the letter and spirit of the Law. One cannot and must not call this perfectly legal act “trickery” or trying to circumvent the Law.

Question:
In a game i played in today the referee sent off the opposition goalkeeper for picking up a back pass and i was just wondering if there are any examples of this happening before and if the referee was right to do so? The situation the ball was kicked long the defender misread the ball and turned at full stretch he tackled the striker the ball rolled to the keeper who under pressure from another striker shutting him down picked up the ball. The referee then decided to send the goalkeeper off for denying a goal scoring opportunity and gave a indirect free kick was he right to do so? thanks harry.

USSF answer (November 28, 2011):
The referee was wrong to send off the goalkeeper in at least two ways: (1) by kicking the ball away from the opposing player, the defender was not kicking the ball to the goalkeeper, he was simply clearing it and it happened to go to the goalkeeper; (2) the goalkeeper may not and cannot be sent off for denying a goal or a goalscoring opportunity by handling the ball in his penalty; that is stated specifically in Law 12.

Question:
The first I cannot figure out after reviewing the LOTG etc. and asking fellow referees their opinions. It has to do with equipment. Team A was at the 18 yrd line with the ball. Defender from team B won the ball and passed it 10 yrds forward to another teammate. A player from team A ran toward him and in the process his boot came off. The team A player caught the team B player gaining control of the ball. I whistled for a foul and awarded the B team an indirect kick as Player A was not in uniform. I read something about a dropped ball being called but I would guess that would be rewarding the A team. Anyway, I am not sure what to do and seek your guidance.

The second has to do with kicking the ball back to the GK. I was told by one of our senior referees that we cannot read the field players mind when the ball is kicked to the GK, intentional or not and should award an IFK when if occurs unless it is so obvious that there was no intent. For example, the player kicks the ball into the wind and it blows back to the GK who grabs it. I was the center at a u14 game.

The ball was in the middle of the penalty area.

the defender ran and took a mighty kick at the ball which glanced off the foot and rolled towad the GK who picked it up. I did not award an IFK causing dismay in one of the opposing players who questioned me about it. What is the proper interpretation of the pass back rule regarding intent?

USSF answer (November 24, 2011):
1. A player is expected to replace his footwear as quickly as possible if it comes off during play, but that does not mean that he has to do it immediately. You would have been wrong to caution this player for misconduct; there was no foul committed in the scenario you present, so no kick was necessary. You should have started with a dropped ball (for stopping play incorrectly) and apologized to all concerned

2. The referee should not be looking for fouls to call when none occurs. You would have been mistaken in punishing the goalkeeper for his teammate’s misplayed ball. The ball was truly deliberately kicked, part of the foul, but it was not sent to any place where the goalkeeper could play it; that was pure happenstance, not a foul. Furthermore, the teammate kicking the ball in this sort of scenario is NEVER the one who commits the foul. The foul — if it exists at all — is committed by the goalkeeper if he chooses to use his hands instead of some other part of his body.

Question:
Please explain the goalkeeper back pass rule which says the goalkeeper can’t handle the ball when it is passed directly to him. I ask because I thought this rule was clear but I see professionals often doing what appears to be a clear violation or rules.

USSF answer (June 20, 2011):
The Law is clear: “An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, . . . touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.”

This rarely seen infringement came into the Laws of the Game in 1992 as part of the general effort to restrict opportunities for goalkeepers to waste time by unfairly withholding the ball from active challenge by taking possession of the ball with the hands. Other measures along the same lines include the 6-second limit on goalkeeper possession, the second possession restriction, and the throw-in to the goalkeeper by a teammate.

The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
- The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
- This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and
- The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)

When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.

When the teammate deliberately kicks the ball and it then goes to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can play it, then there is an infringement of the Law if the goalkeeper picks it up. It either happened or it did not. No intent necessary. Plain and simple.

In addition, the goalkeeper may leave the penalty area (which includes the goal area) and retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the penalty area and play it with his/her hands only if the ball was played (a) in any manner by an opponent or (b) by a teammate in a legal manner, i.e., not deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper or to a place where he or she could play it.

Referees, players, and spectators (which includes coaches) need to remember that there is no “intent” to be found in the ball deliberately kicked (and that means that the ball was kicked deliberately, not deflected or miskicked) that happens to go to the goalkeeper.

To answer the second part of your question, the referee is permitted to make a judgment (“if, in the opinion of the referee, . . .”) as to whether or not the player “intended” that the ball go wherever it went, but that judgment or opinion must be based on what the player actually did. In other words, we are not mind readers — in most cases — and must make our judgment based on clear and visible evidence. All of that is expressed in a position paper of May 21, 2008, as well as in the Advice to Referees.

Question:
In a soccer game a player deliberately used his knee to pass the ball to the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper then picked the ball up with his hands. Does this count as a pass-back to the keeper?

What part of the body can a player use to send the ball to his/her goalkeeper and have the keeper pick it up with his/her hands? Or maybe I should ask what part of the body can’t a player use to pass the ball to the keeper if the keeper intends to pick it up?

USSF answer (November 12, 2010):
The Law is pretty clear. See the back of the Law book 2010/2011, Interpretations, Cautions for unsporting behavior:

• 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 offense 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

Even with that information, we would be remiss if we did not point out that, subject to the terms of Law 12, a player MAY pass the ball to his (or her) own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc., if he does NOT use trickery. Furthermore, just to lock it down tightly, for the misconduct offense to be called the referee must decide that the action was done to circumvent the Law.  Merely observing that the ball was played from foot to head is not enough, even if the ball subsequently goes to or toward the GK.  Because we are dealing with misconduct here (the “trickery”) and not the foul commonly referred to as “pass back to the ‘keeper,” we are required to evaluate the intentions of the defender.

In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12.

Question:
During one of our U-14 games one of our defensive players and opposing team members were shoulder to shoulder heading towards our goal. Our defensive player then reached his foot out to try and kick the ball away towards the side and instead he toe tipped it out in front towards the center of the goal and our goalie picked it up.

This maneuver also landed the opposing teams player on the ground and our kids catching his balance in sprint. The Ref then called an indirect kick for the opposing team on the “pass back rule” I am under the understanding that it only applies if it is intentionally kicked back to our goalie. Obviously two players sprinting shoulder to shoulder and the defense trying to get it out of there can not be taken as intentionally can it? This IDK lead to another messy situation where the Ref then told our players they could not make a wall stating they must be 10 yds from the goal line (ball was 8 yds from goal line) then when our players looked confused and moved away he tried to save himself and say 10 yds from the ball. Yelling at them.

Our Goalie was trying to get our people back on the goal line when the ref proceeded with game play (no whistle, or asking goalie if ready).

Our Goalie was not ready and well tap tap ball in. I want to contest this however I want to make sure I have the right answer before doing so.

USSF answer (October 15, 2010):
Let’s start with the good things the referee did (or may have done):
• The call for the “pass back rule” was correct if your player deliberately kicked the ball to the goalkeeper or to a place where the ‘keeper could play the ball. The emphasis on “deliberately” means that the player did not miskick or deflect the ball, but knew essentially where it was going to go.
• No whistle is necessary at a free kick unless the referee has had to move the opposing back the minimum ten yards from the ball; a whistle is necessary if the opponents had to be moved.

Now we move to the bad things the referee did:
• The defending team has no right to form a wall at free kick. In fact, they have only one right to anything at a free kick, and that right is not to be confused by the referee. By giving them bad directions on where they could be, the referee misled your players. At an indirect free kick near goal, all opponents must be at least 10 yds from the ball until it is in play, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts.
• Referees should never yell at players.

Your game is not protestable. Even though the referee misled your team through his poor mechanics, that does not mean that he “set aside a Law of the Game.”

Question:
We were playing a high school soccer match in Illinois and a player on my team flicked the ball up to his head and headed it back to the goalie so he could pick it up and would not be in violation of the pass back to the goalie rule. The ref did not know the rule but the linesman did and called it trickery and gave the player that passed the goalie the ball a yellow card.

I was wondering what the real rule would be.

USSF answer (October 15, 2010):
The assistant referee was correct; the practice of flicking the ball to one’s head and then heading the ball to the goalkeeper is trickery, punished with a caution of the heading player for unsporting behavior and an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the misconduct occurred. Here is an article on the matter that appeared in the USSF referee magazine Fair Play five years ago. It should answer your question.

Trickery
FIFA has demanded that referees deal quickly and firmly with timewasting tactics. One of the least understood forms of time wasting is trickery in passing the ball to the goalkeeper. This article describes trickery and how the referee can combat it.

Law 12 was rewritten in 1997 to reduce the number of options available to players for wasting time. Playing the ball to one’s goalkeeper was traditionally used as a way of “consuming” time. By the time the Law was rewritten, the practice had become synonymous with time wasting.

Normal interplay of the ball among teammates is not a matter of concern to any referee; however, the referee must be concerned with obvious deliberate attempts to circumvent the requirements of the Law. Players may pass the ball to their goalkeeper in any legal way and not infringe on the requirements of Law 12. It is when a player uses trickery that the referee must act. Trickery is any contrived scheme or unnatural way of playing the ball in an attempt to circumvent the requirements of Law 12 when passing the ball to the goalkeeper. Examples of trickery include a player who deliberately flicks the ball with the foot up to the head, so as to head the ball to the goalkeeper, or a player who kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with the knee or head.

If the ball was already in play, an indirect free kick from the spot where the initiator touched—not merely “kicked”—the ball is appropriate. If the ball was out of play, the restart for a violation depends upon how the circumvention began. If the action began from a free kick or goal kick that was properly taken, the restart will again be an indirect free kick from the spot where the initiator of the trickery played it, no matter where the kick was taken or when it occurred in the sequence of play. If the goal kick or free kick was not properly taken, then the restart must be that goal kick or free kick. This could lead to a situation where the offending team has a player cautioned (or sent off for a second cautionable offense), but still retains the ball on the restart.

If more than one player was involved in the trickery, the question as to which defender to punish can be answered only by the referee. The referee must be sure that the sequence of play was meant to circumvent the Law and to prevent opponents from having a fair chance to compete for the ball rather than have it unfairly handled by the goalkeeper. If, in the referee’s opinion, there was trickery, then it is the teammate who played the ball immediately prior to it going to the goalkeeper who would be cautioned.

The punishment for trickery is a caution for unsporting behavior, with the restart to be taken at the place where the trickery was initiated, not where the goalkeeper handled the ball. The referee does not have to wait until the ‘keeper handles the ball to make the call. The referee must only be convinced that trickery was the player’s motive for the act.

However, this is a high school match and the action becomes cautionable to the defender playing the ball to his goalkeeper only if the goalkeeper actually handles the ball. Rule 12-7-4 (Note). The Laws of the Game do not care if the keeper handles the ball or not, it is misconduct by the defender either way.

Question:
In a recent professional match, a defender under pressure kicked the ball (with an indeterminate amount of deliberation) back toward his defensive penalty area. As his ‘keeper was coming out to play the ball, the ‘keeper seemed to make gestures that seemed to be asking the referee whether it would be permissible to play the ball with his hands (i.e., silently asking the referee whether this would be a “back-pass” infringement). It was not clear from the video whether the referee did pre-authorize the ‘keeper to use his hands, but the ‘keeper did so, and was not penalized for it.

In discussing this, some referees see no problem with this. Others suggest that the referee should not get involved in giving “extra help” in this fashion to either team. This seems qualitatively different than the verbal guidance that referees typically give to players who are close to the edge of an offense (“Stay off his back”, or “Let go of the shirt”), in that it is asking prior permission to avoid an offense. For example, I believe that an assistant referee should not respond to a nearby attacker’s query, “Am I offside?” before the player decides whether to chase a long pass – mainly because the AR can’t determine that until the player actually makes chase.

Without criticizing the referee involved in this match (and, honestly, without knowing whether this referee did any such thing), what guidance does USSF give its referees on this issue?

USSF answer (March 19, 2010):
The decision as to whether a player deliberately kicked the ball to his/her goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper could play it is up to the referee on the game.

As to “individual help,” without having either seen the match or spoken with the referee, we cannot give you a definitive response. In general it is good for referees to speak with the players, but definitely not good to give advice on how to play. Giving advice would simply encourage the players to give the referee “advice” on how to referee — and we get enough of that without soliciting it.

Question:
Defending team has been awarded a free kick outside the penalty area. The kicker pass back the ball to his goalkeeper. The keeper touches the ball with his hands but the ball, anyway, enters the goal.

How the referee should reiniciate the game?

1. Awarding an IFK against the goalkeeper because he used his hands after the ball was passed to him by a team mate?

2. Allowing the goal because the goalie touched the ball before it entered the goal? or

3. awarding a corner kick because a team can not kick a free kick into its own goal?

USSF answer (February 12, 2010):
For direct free kicks taken outside the penalty area, the Law requires only that a ball is kicked and moved to be in play and thus be eligible to enter the goal for a score (or a corner kick, if taken by the defending team). That happened. The ball was kicked by a player directly to his own goalkeeper. If the goalkeeper had let the ball go, it would have been a corner kick for the opponents. If the goalkeeper had stopped the ball with his hands, it would have been an indirect free kick for the opponents. Unfortunately for his side, the goalkeeper touched the ball but allowed it to continue on its way to goal. The referee should invoke the advantage clause and record the goal. Restart with a kick-off for the defending team.

Question:
Defender under pressure kicks the ball back to the keeper, it is a crappy rainy day, the keeper misplays the ball trying to kick it away but it bounces up an into the air only a short distance away where it bounces and as attackers and other defenders are now close at hand the keeper chooses to grab this ball with the hands.

Is this an INDFK offence?

Can it be ignored as the keeper tried to do the right thing the first time but failed?

Should it be ignored if a pursuing opponent was there to challenge but prevented because the keeper WAS able to use the hands?

Is the ONLY reason to make this call if time wasting was the reason?

Does the intention of the passer or the intention of the keeper matter?

USSF answer (November 16, 2009):
There is no issue here at all if the scenario is to be given its face value meaning. A teammate kicks the ball back to his goalkeeper — no violation.

The goalkeeper kicks the ball (badly, but that doesn’t matter) — no violation. The goalkeeper subsequently handles the ball — since this occurred directly (no intervening play of the ball by anyone ELSE) — violation.

In short, there is no issue that a violation has occurred. The only question is whether it was trifling or should be whistled. This HAS to be decided by the referee based on the circumstances of play, taking risks, maintaining flow, etc. The only fact bearing on the matter is that the goalkeeper DID illegally take hand control of the ball under pressure from the opponents. In other words, he illegally withheld the ball from challenge, which is what this infringement is all about. Accordingly, although the decision must be up to the referee, the scenario tends to favor whistling this indirect free kick foul.

Referees often make the mistake of treating this as an issue involving time-wasting when, in fact, the central issue is unfairly withholding the ball from challenge.

And, no, the “intention” of the passer is not relevant to this decision because that was resolved when the action was determined to be a violation.