RefSix

Goalkeeper Six second law.

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#21
I booked mot strikers for continuous blocking the keeper from doing a drop kick or knocking aside the ball as he’s bouncing it. One warning then bang him with a YC!
 

Goldfish

Well-Known Member
#23
Hi
It is not a caution. It is listed with the other technical offences that results in an IDFK such as handling a backpass.
They are not cautions so why would this offence be different.
Probably likely it will end up as dissent but not usb
 
#25
It is not a mandatory caution. Can you explain in law why you don’t have the option of cautioning for USB or dissent?
Why caution? The dimwit just gave up the ball in the PA, and took the ball out of his own hands to give the other team a strong scoring opportunity--it's not like SPAA, TF, or or reckless fouls. His stupid decision did nothing to harm the other team.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#26
To be fair @santa sangria never said the reason for his cautioned was solely the violation of 6 seconds clause. And by cautioning for USB he has not breached any laws. Personally it would be unlikely for me to caution there. But it is a context and YHTBT thing. I would say this is not dissent either. You can shoe horn it into dissent but dissent is disagreement with a decisions not instructions. For example if two players are challenging for the ball an you say "no fouls" and then one of them commits a careless foul, you shouldn't be cautioning for dissent because they didn't follow your instructions.
 
Last edited:

Goldfish

Well-Known Member
#27
Hi
If it mandatory the laws says so with no discretion. In his instance the law say IDFK and that imo is sufficient punishment.
In fact on the other IDFKs offences the law tells us that “If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.” So a goal keeper could stop a goal on a back pass and it is an IDFK only. In the scheme of things that would be more flagrant than taking x seconds more yet no card.
But hey a ref can do all sorts under usb
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
#28
The keeper holding onto the ball for longer than 6 seconds isn't a caution.

The same as the keeper picking up a ball that has been deliberately passed back to them by team mate isn't a caution.

It's technical offence, nothing more.

The only time I'd be cautioning along with the indirect free kick is if something happened after I'd awarded the free kick, such as the keeper gobbing off about etc.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#29
I remember reading somewhere that handling offences by the keeper are not sanctioned. Just IDFK
I would say that picking up a back pass would be more USB than holding for more than 6 seconds. And we don't caution for that in any event. Even if it ends up DOGSO.
You can't really caution a keeper for holding the ball for an excessive length of time as really, in law you should have punished it and awarded an IDFK at 6 seconds. So by saying you were unsporting you held it for 15 seconds is not very fair as this is the fault of the referee not following the laws. I get that no one does but the point is we shouldn't be then laying blame and cautioning keepers for it.
 

wazztie16

Level 7 Referee
#30
I remember reading somewhere that handling offences by the keeper are not sanctioned. Just IDFK
I would say that picking up a back pass would be more USB than holding for more than 6 seconds. And we don't caution for that in any event. Even if it ends up DOGSO.
You can't really caution a keeper for holding the ball for an excessive length of time as really, in law you should have punished it and awarded an IDFK at 6 seconds. So by saying you were unsporting you held it for 15 seconds is not very fair as this is the fault of the referee not following the laws. I get that no one does but the point is we shouldn't be then laying blame and cautioning keepers for it.
Didn't an english team gk get cautioned for holding the ball for about 25 seconds in a european cup match?

I think Liverpool keeper, for some reason.

Edit - googled it, Mignolet, no caution.
 
#32
Hi
If it mandatory the laws says so with no discretion. In his instance the law say IDFK and that imo is sufficient punishment.
In fact on the other IDFKs offences the law tells us that “If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.” So a goal keeper could stop a goal on a back pass and it is an IDFK only. In the scheme of things that would be more flagrant than taking x seconds more yet no card.
But hey a ref can do all sorts under usb
The only thing I can justify is “shows lack of respect for the game.”

But this is flimsy.

The problem is “what football expects” and what match control requires and maybe in the OP what the team deserves!

Because other blatant time wasting offences get a mandatory card.

It would be easier if the LotG put all time wasting offence scenarios together - the 6 sec law seems the odd one out ATM.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#33
The only thing I can justify is “shows lack of respect for the game.”

But this is flimsy.

The problem is “what football expects” and what match control requires and maybe in the OP what the team deserves!

Because other blatant time wasting offences get a mandatory card.

It would be easier if the LotG put all time wasting offence scenarios together - the 6 sec law seems the odd one out ATM.
Not quite. The 6 second punishment takes posession away from the offender and gives it to the opponents in a promising attack position. That should be punishment enough. The other 'time wasting' mandatory cautions don't change posession of the ball.

I can see rare contexts where it could bring about a caution (e.g PO) but not for time wasting.
 
#34
I don’t get the idea that losing position is “punishment enough.”

My logic goes something like: there’s an offence I don’t want to happen again - so a yellow card fits. Players lose the ball all the time. It’s not a great reward or deterrent. They can only get a YC once in a game (and stay on the field).
 

Justylove

RefChat Addict
#35
I don’t get the idea that losing position is “punishment enough.”

My logic goes something like: there’s an offence I don’t want to happen again - so a yellow card fits. Players lose the ball all the time. It’s not a great reward or deterrent. They can only get a YC once in a game (and stay on the field).
I get where you are coming from, but I still can't think of any way it's possible to be "correct in law" and apply a yellow card here.
There is a major issue in as much that the keeper with the ball in their hands is the only element in the game where there is an amount of time allowed. Part of the issue is that it's hardly ever enforced.

As for giving an IFK in the penalty area, it's at worst an opportunity for a promising attack and at best a goal scoring opportunity, so to say there is no reward or deterrent is incorrect
 
Top