The Ref Stop

Fulham vs Ipswich

I observed a L4 referee a few years ago who penalised something very similar to this. He was having a great game up until that point, he then gave a decision that not a single participant understood and he ended up losing complete control of the game.

No referee at any senior level, not just SG1, would be penalising this as that just isn't what football expects. If he'd stood up, dribbled it to the edge of the area and then picked it up then I'd agree it should be penalised, but we are talking a fraction of a second of him taking his hands off the ball. That isn't what the law what was in place to stop happening.
 
The Ref Stop
RustyRef said:
I observed a L4 referee a few years ago who penalised something very similar to this. He was having a great game up until that point, he then gave a decision that not a single participant understood and he ended up losing complete control of the game.

No referee at any senior level, not just SG1, would be penalising this as that just isn't what football expects. If he'd stood up, dribbled it to the edge of the area and then picked it up then I'd agree it should be penalised, but we are talking a fraction of a second of him taking his hands off the ball. That isn't what the law what was in place to stop happening.
Click to expand...
Football would expect it if it was penalised at the top levels. But they see them getting away with it, so they assume they can.

The bit in bold; how do you know? Genuine question.
 
Runner Ref said:
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.
Click to expand...
But I'm not talking about impact on how a game finishes. Im talking about impact from the action.

For example now you can encroach at a penalty if you have no impact.

You can stand offside if you don't impact your opponent.

Everything we punish has some kind of impact.
Runner Ref said:
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
Click to expand...
I agree the issue here is around the six seconds, not the fact the keeper lets go of the ball for less than a second.
Runner Ref said:
Football doesn’t want players cautioning for taking their top off; guess what? Always a caution.
Click to expand...
Impact - the restart of the game is delayed whilst we wait for said player to get dressed again. It's not always about what football wants when there is a clear impact from an action
 
Runner Ref said:
Football would expect it if it was penalised at the top levels. But they see them getting away with it, so they assume they can.

The bit in bold; how do you know? Genuine question.
Click to expand...
Same for the 6 second keeper holding the ball law though. You've said yourself that you don't penalise this, so it is a bit hypocritical to criticise referees for not penalise another keeper handling law.
 
JamesL said:
But I'm not talking about impact on how a game finishes. Im talking about impact from the action.

For example now you can encroach at a penalty if you have no impact.

You can still add offside if you don't impact your opponent.

Everything we punish has some kind of impact.

I agree the issue here is around the six seconds, not the fact the keeper lets go of the ball for less than a second.

Impact - the restart of the game is delayed whilst we wait for said player to get dressed again. It's not always about what football wants when there is a clear impact from an action
Click to expand...
Impact from the action is I can pretty much guarantee they will have started the ‘6 seconds’ again. Thus slowing the game down.

Okay- and a player just putting a top over their head? That isn’t delaying the restart as there’s no need to get dressed
 
RustyRef said:
Same for the 6 second keeper holding the ball law though. You've said yourself that you don't penalise this, so it is a bit hypocritical to criticise referees for not penalise another keeper handling law.
Click to expand...
If I was criticising a fellow grassroots referee, I’d agree it’s hypocritical. But when it’s criticising our so-called elite who make our lives that much harder by ignoring basic law, I don’t think it is.
 
Runner Ref said:
If I was criticising a fellow grassroots referee, I’d agree it’s hypocritical. But when it’s criticising our so-called elite who make our lives that much harder by ignoring basic law, I don’t think it is.
Click to expand...
But if you were an elite referee you wouldn't penalise this, as I said you've already admitted you wouldn't penalise a keeper for holding for longer than 6 seconds. They are literally both in the same law.

If I was coaching a L7 referee and they penalised this I would be telling them to not bring unnecessary trouble upon themselves. Closed book advice as obviously not incorrect under the laws, but literally no one expects this to be penalised.
 
RustyRef said:
But if you were an elite referee you wouldn't penalise this, as I said you've already admitted you wouldn't penalise a keeper for holding for longer than 6 seconds. They are literally both in the same law.

If I was coaching a L7 referee and they penalised this I would be telling them to not bring unnecessary trouble upon themselves. Closed book advice as obviously not incorrect under the laws, but literally no one expects this to be penalised.
Click to expand...
The bit in bold is the exact problem; they’re basically coached to ignore basics laws. If they were told to do it, they’d do it. But the higher echelons seem to think they know what football wants. But sadly with the state of officiating at the moment, I don’t think they do.

If no one expects or wants it, why haven’t they just taken it out of the laws and replaced it with something along the lines of ‘if in the opinion of the referee, a goalkeeper holds on to the ball for too long’? That’s what happens anyway, so they might as well put it into law. It would lead to a lot of inconsistency, just like we have now. But at least it would be backed up in law.
 
Nobody expects it be penalised because referees haven't historically penalised it so the vicious circle continues.

Same with the 6 second law.

Same with penalties not being given if a player doesn't go down.

Same with penalties not being given if a player has already got a shot away.

Same with goalkeepers coming off their line at penalty kicks (non-VAR games)


Don't think many other sports ignore laws like football does
 
Runner Ref said:
The bit in bold; how do you know? Genuine question.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20250107-080104.png

Here is the first reason of why the law was introduced... It was brought into "avoid unnecessary delays by the goalkeepers releasing the ball. This amendment is to make goalkeepers expedite their clearances."

So the reality is, what the goalkeeper did when he momentarily stopped touching the ball had no affect on how quickly he released the ball i.e. the intention of the law. The issue as I have agreed with all along is the theatrics prior to this, but football and I suspect the law writers would not wish to see such minor transgressions punished.
 
Runner Ref said:
I absolutely ignore the 6 seconds to a point. Why? Because the elite referees choose to ignore it,
Click to expand...
The truth of the matter is every referee chooses to ignore some laws.
Let's set aside those that do it to make the game easy for themselves but hard for others (LWR).
For me, the laws we ignore fall into two categories, when the wording of law is different to what it intended, or different to what football expects. The problem is we all have different thresholds/understangs for both those categeries.
For me, this incident here is a very clear case that falls under both categories, though the wording of the law, as written now, may mean it has to be punished, they never intended it to be applied to this specific case. And football doesn't expect this to be punished either. The vast majority of referees don't punish it for the same reasons as I.

Punishing this would be akin to disallowing a goal because when it was scored, a team mate sub had his foot on the sideline in front of the technical area watching the exiting moments unfold.
 
So everyone is in agreement that 2 basic laws were ignored at the elite level of the game, as it might upset some people.

If we’re going to ignore laws that will upset people, remove the law.

If you strongly believe that football doesn’t want this, maybe you need to look at the long drawn out offsides in which someone may or may not be adjudged to have a loose toe nail clipping offside. Football certainly doesn’t want that and isn’t a justification of C&O, but guess what, they still do it.
 
Last edited:
Runner Ref said:
So everyone is in agreement that 2 basic laws were ignored at the elite level of the game, as it might upset some people.
Click to expand...
Disagree the strongest possible way with the highlighted part of your statement.

I think you are twisting words to prove your point. I do get it if it was a case of LWR, but this is not.

You have already admitted you are also ignoring laws because it is hard for you to enforce. But blamed it on elite referees. However I think the real reason you ignore it is because of "football expects".

To avoid another twisting of words, sometimes ignoring some laws because of "football expects" doesn't mean ignoring it all the times.
 
Runner Ref said:
So everyone is in agreement that 2 basic laws were ignored at the elite level of the game, as it might upset some people.

If we’re going to ignore laws that will upset people, remove the law.
Click to expand...
No agreement here. 1 of the laws you refer to was ignored because it was not the intent of the law, which is why, not because, football would not expect it.
 
one said:
Disagree the strongest possible way with the highlighted part of your statement.

I think you are twisting words to prove your point. I do get it if it was a case of LWR, but this is not.

You have already admitted you are also ignoring laws because it is hard for you to enforce. But blamed it on elite referees. However I think the real reason you ignore it is because of "football expects".

To avoid another twisting of words, sometimes ignoring some laws because of "football expects" doesn't mean ignoring it all the times.
Click to expand...
It’s not my job as a grassroots referee to be a martyr for such situations, it’s for the powers that be and the elite to enforce. If they don’t want to enforce it, fine, but take it out of the laws entirely. FWIW, I don’t expect anyone here to blow up for this. Purely down to my first sentence. It’s for them to enforce and the rest of us to follow

People keep using; football expects, impact, the reason the law was brought in; this is all just fancy talk to justify ignoring things. I’ve mentioned it in here so many times; ‘football expects’ doesn’t actually mean anything. Yes they wrote it in a sentence in the laws, but there is no clear known description or justification of it from what I have seen. If there is, can someone share it and then justify not giving a red card for a DOGSO penalty when the game is 8-0? After all, football wouldn’t really want this.

Who actually knows what football expects? That is up for large interpretation. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think football expects (or wants) 5min+ VAR checks to see if someone nipple was erect enough to be classed as offside. But we still get it on an almost weekly basis.
 
Last edited:
JamesL said:
No agreement here. 1 of the laws you refer to was ignored because it was not the intent of the law, which is why, not because, football would not expect it.
Click to expand...
Football wouldn’t expect it because they never pull it up. If they pulled it up, football would expect it.

As I said earlier, no one wants someone cautioned for listing their shirt over their head. It still happens on a very consistent basis. They’re very good at picking and choosing which laws ‘football expects’ and which it doesn’t.
 
Runner Ref said:
It’s not my job as a grassroots referee to be a martyr for such situations, it’s for the powers that be and the elite to enforce. If they don’t want to enforce it, fine, but take it out of the laws entirely.

People keep using; football expects, impact, the reason the law was brought in; this is all just fancy talk to justify ignoring things. I’ve mentioned it in here so many times; ‘football expects’ doesn’t actually mean anything. Yes they wrote it in a sentence in the laws, but there is no clear known description or justification of it from what I have seen. If there is, can someone share it and then justify not giving a red card for a DOGSO penalty when the game is 8-0? After all, football wouldn’t really want this.

Who actually knows what football expects? That is up for large interpretation. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think football expects (or wants) 5min+ VAR checks to see if someone nipple was erect enough to be classed as offside. But we still get it on an almost weekly basis.
Click to expand...
Your 8-0 example is an apple to an orange. Not comparable.
One is a physical offence against an opponent. Football is about goals scored. Championships and relegations can rest solely on the number of goals scored / conceded.

A GK not touching a ball for milliseconds in the process of getting up from the ground is so far removed from a DOGSO comparing the too is an unreasonable argument.

This scenario is so infrequent it cannot be a well if the elite enforced it. I accept all the other scenarios (dissent, six seconds) they do impact how able we feel to enforce, but this is a very rare event and so there is no Elite level set example to follow.

I am 99.9% certain no one penalises this in their own game. Not because Darren Bond didn't but because we know in our minds and we have now demonstrated the reason this law exists in the first place, is not to punish these situations.
 
Of course a goalkeeper continually delaying the restart is affecting goals scored. Less time the ball is playable, less time there is for goals.

You’ve just mentioned goals scored/conceded, yet earlier you said the action isn’t about how a game finishes. That basically means end scoreline……

This is the last post I’m going to make as we’re going round and round in circles. But ultimately, the elite pick and choose what they want because they think they know ‘what football wants’. Ultimately this doesn’t really mean anything, as football is not a person, so I don’t understand how anyone can know what it wants. Football has some of the simplest laws in sport, but we probably ignore them most than other sports. If football doesn’t expect goalkeepers to be punished for holding onto the ball or for putting the ball down after holding it, fine, take it out.
 
Runner Ref said:
Football wouldn’t expect it because they never pull it up. If they pulled it up, football would expect it
Click to expand...
If this was pulled up I expect we would see a clarification to suggest this is not a punishable scenario Knowing the laws is one skill. Knowing how/when to apply them is another.
Runner Ref said:
As I said earlier, no one wants someone cautioned for listing their shirt over their head. It still happens on a very consistent basis. They’re very good at picking and choosing which laws ‘football expects’ and which it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Another orange. You're argument is losing all credibility just throwing out random scenarios that have no bearing on this situation. There will be a reason excessive goal celebrations have been deemed as unsporting - I CBA to go looking for this one.

The issue at hand here is goalkeepers wasting
time. That's it. This whole situation is avoided by that. So it you want to strictly enforce six seconds to ahead. You get your idfk. You're on a hiding to nothing and winning no friends including referees being a smart alec and pulling him up for touching the ball after releasing it.
 
Runner Ref said:
Of course a goalkeeper continually delaying the restart is affecting goals scored. Less time the ball is playable, less time there is for goals.
Click to expand...
Now we are getting somewhere. The real issue.
Runner Ref said:
You’ve just mentioned goals scored/conceded, yet earlier you said the action isn’t about how a game finishes. That basically means end scoreline……
Click to expand...
What effect did this specific incident have on anything at all?
Runner Ref said:
This is the last post I’m going to make as we’re going round and round in circles. But ultimately, the elite pick and choose what they want because they think they know ‘what football wants’. Ultimately this doesn’t really mean anything, as football is not a person, so I don’t understand how anyone can know what it wants. Football has some of the simplest laws in sport, but we probably ignore them most than other sports. If football doesn’t expect goalkeepers to be punished for holding onto the ball or for putting the ball down after holding it, fine, take it out.
Click to expand...
It does when it is done to waste time. This exact specific scenario had no bearing on how much time was wasted. You are focussing on the wrong offence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top