Fulham vs Ipswich

[Runner Ref]

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.

I’ll bite on this one.

They’re very compatible. They’re both actions that have no impact, as you say. However, one in consistently punished when it’s done and the other isn’t. And I’d say goalkeepers holding onto the ball for long periods happens a lot more often than someone lifting their shirt over their head. But the latter is the one that is punished at a higher rate……

 

[JamesL]

I’ll bite on this one.

They’re very compatible. They’re both actions that have no impact, as you say. However, one in consistently punished when it’s done and the other isn’t. And I’d say goalkeepers holding onto the ball for long periods happens a lot more often than someone lifting their shirt over their head. But the latter is the one that is punished at a higher rate……

So you'll get no argument from me on that because you are focussing on the time wasting element of the GK. I've agreed with that all along. Which has zero to do with what you were originally arguing for which was to punish the milliseconds the keeper let go of the ball for, before picking it up again, which wasted no time, it was everything else around that, that did.

 

[RefereeX]

I can not possibly fathom how anyone can come to the conclusion that the goalkeeper releasing the ball for half a second was a result / consequence of OR aided him in slowing the game down.
Therefore if you want to penalise the goalkeeper for exceeding the time allowed to be holding the ball, then fine (but you've already said you wouldn't do this)
The fact he releases it for half a second changes absolutely nothing.

At the end of the day, you're perfectly entitled to use the laws of the game to referee how you wish at grass roots level, and you deal with the consequences of the way you implement them, the same as everyone else, but if you want to progress as a referee you'd be expected to know when to use discretion to decide that the laws did not intend for this situation to be punished and thus, we choose not to punish it. Whether people like it or not, that's how we're asked to do it. (And that comment isn't aimed at you as a grass roots referee - I don't know what level you are, it's just a generalisation about refereeing)

 

[Runner Ref]

So you'll get no argument from me on that because you are focussing on the time wasting element of the GK. I've agreed with that all along. Which has zero to do with what you were originally arguing for which was to punish the milliseconds the keeper let go of the ball for, before picking it up again, which wasted no time, it was everything else around that, that did.

read back my first post on the matter, it was always about time wasting……

 

[JamesL]

read back my first post on the matter, it was always about time wasting……

You’re being very silly @es1. You’re openly forgetting Law 18; ‘thou shalt ignore basic laws when they get to the elite level, as it may upset some people due to football not expecting it’

This was in response to the video where the question posed was not about time wasting but for "releasing the ball".

Do you think releasing the ball and picking it up again allowed him to waste time?

I do

And this is just factually incorrect. It's less than 1 second of not touching the ball. The rest of the GKs actions caused some delays, beyond the six seconds but the milliseconds, of not touching the ball had zero contribution to that.

 

[Runner Ref]

This was in response to the video where the question posed was not about time wasting but for "releasing the ball".


And this is just factually incorrect. It's less than 1 second of not touching the ball. The rest of the GKs actions caused some delays, beyond the six seconds but the milliseconds, of not touching the ball had zero contribution to that.

Read my posts after that and you’ll get the context.

You still haven’t explained why the time wasting isn’t picked up on but putting a shirt over one’s head is…….

 

[RefereeX]

Read my posts after that and you’ll get the context.

You still haven’t explained why the time wasting isn’t picked up on but putting a shirt over one’s head is…….

Scratch this, new post coming up...

 

[Runner Ref]

As far as I'm aware (and I may be wrong) but lifting the shirt over ones head would be cautioned as it's considered to be disrespectful rather than for delaying the restart.

Disrespectful to who? Has anyone in the history of football ever kicked off because an opposition player did it?

 

[RefereeX]

Read my posts after that and you’ll get the context.

You still haven’t explained why the time wasting isn’t picked up on but putting a shirt over one’s head is…….

There is a whole section in law on goal celebrations, what is acceptable and what isn't. We can't say a player putting their shirt over their head isn't intended to be a caution by law when it's there in black and white. Law is crystal clear that it's a caution.
Our argument for not penalising the goalkeeper is that this isn't what the law intends. You can't make that argument about the goal celebration as (whether we agree with it or not) it clearly is what law intends.

Celebration of a goal​

Players can celebrate when a goal is scored, but the celebration must not be excessive; choreographed celebrations are not encouraged and must not cause excessive time-wasting.

Leaving the field of play to celebrate a goal is not a cautionable offence but players should return as soon as possible.

A player must be cautioned, even if the goal is disallowed, for:

• climbing onto a perimeter fence and/or approaching the spectators in a manner which causes safety and/or security issues
• acting in a provocative, derisory or inflammatory way
• covering the head or face with a mask or other similar item
• removing the shirt or covering the head with the shirt

 

[Runner Ref]

There is a whole section in law on goal celebrations, what is acceptable and what isn't. We can't say a player putting their shirt over their head isn't intended to be a caution by law when it's there in black and white. Law is crystal clear that it's a caution.
Our argument for not penalising the goalkeeper is that this isn't what the law intends. You can't make that argument about the goal celebration as (whether we agree with it or not) it clearly is what law intends.

But law is black and white on the goalkeeper 6 seconds, as well as putting the ball down and picking it back up

This is basically my whole point…….

 

[one]

read back my first post on the matter, it was always about time wasting……

So if his team was down by a goal in the 90th minute and he did this will you punish?

If yes, why bring the time wasting element into it? Is it because we we are taking what football expects or what the law intended?

If no, why argue about "what other laws do we ignore"?

 

[JamesL]

Read my posts after that and you’ll get the context.

You still haven’t explained why the time wasting isn’t picked up on but putting a shirt over one’s head is…….

This is a much wider discussion and one which I am largely in agreement with. I have repeatedly said that the issue here (relating the the content on this thread) is the wasting of time but that the milliseconds of not touching the ball are inconsequential to any of that which you have continued to argue against.

As I said it's one thing to know what the law says, but when/how to apply it is another skill all together, one which the very best referees master.

The way laws are written always lead to potential unintended consequences. Which is why in real life laws you have case law. Ultimately a referee on law 5 is asked to apply the law in spirit and within the framework. I can get on board with an argument about time wasting. I cannot agree in any world where the keeper gets done for letting go of the ball for half a second whilst getting to his feet.

 

[Runner Ref]

So if his team was down by a goal in the 90th minute and he did this will you punish?

If yes, why bring the time wasting element into it? Is it because we we are taking what football expects or what the law intended?

If no, why argue about "what other laws do we ignore"?

So you’re now doing what I was accused of earlier ‘comparing apples & oranges’

@RefereeX has basically just proven my whole point. Law is in black & white for cautioning someone putting their shirt over their head, so it’s punished. Just like what I’m talking about is in black & white.

The ‘how the law was intended’ excuse is majorly flawed as we don’t always know how it was intended. Just look at the wolves vs nffc topic; @JamesL & @RefereeX seem to have differing ideas on how the ball was meant for handball…..

 

[santa sangria]

Ironically (?) in futsal this would be punished and a whistle expected. In football not.

The laws are word for word the same.

This what is great and awful about football refereeing. And this thread is like the back page of the Mirror in microcosm.

 

[RefereeX]

So you’re now doing what I was accused of earlier ‘comparing apples & oranges’

@RefereeX has basically just proven my whole point. Law is in black & white for cautioning someone putting their shirt over their head, so it’s punished. Just like what I’m talking about is in black & white.

The ‘how the law was intended’ excuse is majorly flawed as we don’t always know how it was intended. Just look at the wolves vs nffc topic; @JamesL & @RefereeX seem to have differing ideas on how the ball was meant for handball…..

Forget everything else that's been said (including a totally irrelevant discussion on handball).

If your issue is the goalkeeper taking longer than 6 seconds, then fine, but then why highlight the releasing of the ball?
If your issue is the releasing of the ball, then our argument is that we don't believe the law is intended to punish this situation, as backed up by @JamesL 's picture of an old law ammendment.
There can be no discussion as to whether law intends to punish the shirt thing, as thats exactly why the law is there.
As James' image showed, this is not why the goalkeeper releasing the ball law is there...

 

[Runner Ref]

Forget everything else that's been said (including a totally irrelevant discussion on handball).

If your issue is the goalkeeper taking longer than 6 seconds, then fine, but then why highlight the releasing of the ball?
If your issue is the releasing of the ball, then our argument is that we don't believe the law is intended to punish this situation, as backed up by @JamesL 's picture of an old law ammendment.
There can be no discussion as to whether law intends to punish the shirt thing, as thats exactly why the law is there.
As James' image showed, this is not why the goalkeeper releasing the ball law is there...

Law is black & white on both matters. As it is for the shirt over the head, which you copy & pasted here.

If law isn't intended for this, then law needs to read such matters shouldn't be published if this happens under x,y & z circumstances. But it doesn't, it just says its punishable by IDFK.

 

[RefereeX]

Law is black & white on both matters. As it is for the shirt over the head, which you copy & pasted here.

If law isn't intended for this, then law needs to read such matters shouldn't be published if this happens under x,y & z circumstances. But it doesn't, it just says its punishable by IDFK.

Is your issue the time wasting or the releasing of the ball? As you've previously stated that it was the time wasting.

You've not explained how you feel that releasing the ball for half a second aided him in wasting any additional time?

 

[RefereeX]

Law is black & white on both matters. As it is for the shirt over the head, which you copy & pasted here.

If law isn't intended for this, then law needs to read such matters shouldn't be published if this happens under x,y & z circumstances. But it doesn't, it just says its punishable by IDFK.

Further to this, can you fathom any other reason that law might say a player should be cautioned for putting their shirt over their head than for situations where they put their shirt over their head?

As James has pointed out, the reason that law states that a goalkeeper can't release the ball and then recollect it is to stop goalkeepers from doing it to waste time effectively. This action clearly does not waste time, and hence we don't feel it needs punishing. The argument about whether the keeper is wasting time with his other actions is a totally separate one, but that renders the goalkeepers release of the ball totally irrelevant.

 

[RefereeX]

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.

And funnily enough I had a test where we were asked about a similar situation (a player rounds the goalkeeper and is about to tap in to an empty net and the manager enters the FOP in celebration, but does so slightly before the goal is scored). We were told (rightly so) that the correct answer was to allow the goal to stand.

 

[one]

Law is in black & white for cautioning someone putting their shirt over their head, so it’s punished. Just like what I’m talking about is in black & white.

Not quite. Easy to apply black and white laws to black and white situations. The problem is when the situation is not back and white.

Let's take your shirt covering black and white celebration law. A player scores, slides on the ground to celebrate and while on ground his team mate covers the scorers head with the scorers shirt. Will you caution? Whatever your answer, it requires some lateral thinking and situational analysis rather than black and white application.

In post 19 situation, the keeper clearly didn't intend to release the ball. While the release may fall under a strict definition, he was always in control of it by English definition. There was nothing sinister there, by intent or consequence. IMO picking on it is looking for a problem that doesn't exit.