Fulham vs Ipswich
- Thread starter Runner Ref
- Start date
Sorry my bad, you're right. I'll go back to reffing by the book and sending off players who call me a cheat
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Really? You want to give a FK for the GK not holding the ball for half a second while standing? That to me is a quintessential examp,e of a trifling infraction that the Game does not expect to be sanctioned.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Well, yes. He pretty openly broken the laws of the game in order to time waste. When trifling was in the laws, my understanding was that it was there to try and help the game flow. Allowing a goalkeeper to waste time is doing the exact opposite.
Do you think releasing the ball and picking it up again allowed him to waste time?
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
I do
I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Well what else is he doing?
He has a brain lapse and puts the ball down when he gets up.
He doesn’t place it down to slow the game down any more. Yes, he’s slowing the game down, but he would have slowed it down just as much if he didn’t temporarily release the ball.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
So you’re admitting he was time wasting, as well as put the ball down intentionally and picked it back up. So that’s 2 offences ignored.
It’s 1 of 2 possible scenarios; they’ve chosen to ignore it or they all turned their back and missed it. Which is amateur hour at its best.
If you’re letting him off for a brain lapse, what else do you let off for a brain lapse?
Time wasting? What offence is that then?
No it's just safe, sensible refereeing. It has no impact what so ever and calling this "offence" is just gotcha refereeing which no one wants and I am almost certain not one of us would pull this rabbit out of the hat in our own games.
I am not sure this is really a situation law intends to penalise albeit the law as explicitly written says it should be (notwithstanding really really really bending the laws as the keeper has made save.) The issue we really have is the GKs action before the "offence" that we all need better laws and focus to apply as it's roundly ignored by referees all around the world. And if you say you don't ignore the six second law pls let me know what games you have coming up coz i'd love to come and watch that carnage unfold
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
A lot of law is very ambiguous and can be interpreted one way or another. But this instance is a very black & white scenario.Time wasting? What offence is that then?
No it's just safe, sensible refereeing. It has no impact what so ever and calling this "offence" is just gotcha refereeing which no one wants and I am almost certain not one of us would pull this rabbit out of the hat in our own games.
I am not sure this is really a situation law intends to penalise albeit the law as explicitly written says it should be (notwithstanding really really really bending the laws as the keeper has made save.) The issue we really have is the GKs action before the "offence" that we all need better laws and focus to apply as it's roundly ignored by referees all around the world. And if you say you don't ignore the six second law pls let me know what games you have coming up coz i'd love to come and watch that carnage unfold
I absolutely ignore the 6 seconds to a point. Why? Because the elite referees choose to ignore it, thus making it 1000% more difficult for ourselves lower down the ladder. Much like it does with dissent & offinabus. If they actually started to deal with it, it would no longer become safe refereeing, but refereeing.
If referees at the top level did their jobs correctly, it would make our lives a lot easier. I don’t expect them to get every decision correct, as there is always interpretations. But when stuff is clear and matter of fact, they need to deal with it. The fact that IFAB are trialling other options for the 6 seconds delay would suggest that they’re aware that this issue needs sorting. Sadly they have a fix, they just choose to ignore it.
An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
• controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player
Last edited:
I know what the law says. I even said it in my post. But what happens in that clip is not impactful and not the situations this law is meant to stop. No referee, well at least I thought, in their right mind penalises this. It's just ridiculous that we are even considering applying law so strictly.
I'd even hazard a guess that if you described that to IFAB they would say not to penalise it.
As I said there's no way any of us would call this in our games.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
So we now only penalise offences that have an impact? How do you know this situation isn’t what the law is meant to stop?
I’ve actually seen my previous sentence pop up on a few threads and I have zero idea what it means or where anyone got it from.
If a game is 8-0 in the 88th minute and a defender commits an act of DOGSO in the penalty area in which wasn’t a genuine attempt to play the ball, do you ignore the red card as it will have no impact?
Well if you look through the q&a all the qs and as that relate to this offence all talk about the GK doing the action to prevent an opponent being able to get challenge/get the ball. Strangely, nothing about keeper momentarily, for less than a second trying to get up. There is also the exemption provided for when the keeper has made save
I've no idea what you mean by this.
There is an impact. An OGSO was denied. That is an impact.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Well of course it won’t cover this scenario, it can’t cover every scenario. But on the basis of not preventing an attacker from playing the ball; you’re happy for a goalkeeper to continually put the ball down and pick it up just because no one is challenging him for it?
This is the sentence I was referring to- How do you know this situation isn’t what the law is meant to stop?
Well no, they’ve still got an OGSO as they’ve got a penalty. And even then, it’s 8-0. So surely there’s no impact……. Cautioning players when they put their shirt over their head, referees are pretty consistent cautioning for this. What impact does the player doing that have?
You could well be right about decisions not beijg made because they have no impact. It would explain why he allowed Wilson to call him an effjng cheat, along with players surrounding him. And the rest of them for allowing it.
I’ve seen many many goalkeepers ‘hugging the ball on the ground to waste time’ and I’ve seen them manage to stand up normally many times also. I don’t understand how the 2 are linked…
Exactly. The real issue here is the lying on the ball.
It may have no impact on the result. But I'm not talking about winning and losing.
What are you actually punishing the keeper for here? What have the prevented/denied? They've literally stood up and for half a second let go of a ball to aid them standing up. Its just nonsensical to think that's what the law wants and what football wants and I don't believe for 1 second you would give this in your own game.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
You could say anything may or may not have an impact on the result. That’s how much of a vague and pointless phrase it is.
You can punish for for 1 of the 2 things he literally does-
controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player
Football doesn’t want players cautioning for taking their top off; guess what? Always a caution.