A&H

Taking to long to kick the ball

Danwilliams

New Member
Level 7 Referee
Team a is wining 1-0 and when the keeper had the ball he was holding it for 12 seconds each time he made a save ect. clear time wasting so I gave him multiple chances to kick the ball out and 10 mins to go I decided to book him for time wasting. My question how is play restarted?
 
The Referee Store
Team a is wining 1-0 and when the keeper had the ball he was holding it for 12 seconds each time he made a save ect. clear time wasting so I gave him multiple chances to kick the ball out and 10 mins to go I decided to book him for time wasting. My question how is play restarted?


If the keeper has the ball in his hands and it's not a goal kick, then you award an IFK to the opposition and do not caution the keeper.

If it's a goal kick or free kick and he's taking too long, you caution the keeper and the goal kick or the free kick is then taken.
 
To explain the first case, there is no such thing in the LOTG as "time wasting", that's player speak. In referee speak, the cautionable offence is "delaying the restart" which means the ball has to be out of play for the offence to occur.
 
As others have said there is no need to caution here. No restart has been delayed as the ball remains in play whilst in the keepers hands. Indirect free kick to opposition from the position of the offence.
If the keeper has persistently offended (and by that I mean you have penalised him multiple times not just you got fed up and penalised him the once) you could justify a caution for persistent offending.
 
Team a is wining 1-0 and when the keeper had the ball he was holding it for 12 seconds each time he made a save ect. clear time wasting so I gave him multiple chances to kick the ball out and 10 mins to go I decided to book him for time wasting. My question how is play restarted?
Read the laws and think about justifying your decision based on what is in the book. 'Time wasting' isn't in the laws, as others have said, so I don't know where that has come from?
 
"Unsporting behaviour - other" for the caution if you really want to, but I would stage that to happen on the second offence, because any keeper doing it again after having been punished by an IFK is probably pushing it.
 
"Unsporting behaviour - other" for the caution if you really want to, but I would stage that to happen on the second offence, because any keeper doing it again after having been punished by an IFK is probably pushing it.
Not with you on this one. The law prescribes what should happen in this scenario so I don't think a USB caution is justified.
If the laws wanted a caution here then they would say so (irrelevant of any argument about laws being written poorly etc. Etc.)
 
Team a is wining 1-0 and when the keeper had the ball he was holding it for 12 seconds each time he made a save ect. clear time wasting so I gave him multiple chances to kick the ball out and 10 mins to go I decided to book him for time wasting. My question how is play restarted?
As others have implied, you have rather gone about this the wrong way. The punishment prescribed in Law for a goalkeeper holding onto the ball too long, is an indirect free kick. However, because this is such an unusual and therefore unexpected occurrence (though one could argue it perhaps shouldn't be) I would say you should probably give him at least one warning first, before proceeding to an IFK.

After warning him and then awarding an indirect free kick at least once, if he still continues to do it, then you could consider a caution for persistent offences.

You can't book him for "timewasting" - there's no such thing in Law. You can book a player for delaying the restart, but this isn't a restart.
 
Not with you on this one. The law prescribes what should happen in this scenario so I don't think a USB caution is justified.
If the laws wanted a caution here then they would say so (irrelevant of any argument about laws being written poorly etc. Etc.)

Fair enough.
 
Not with you on this one. The law prescribes what should happen in this scenario so I don't think a USB caution is justified.
If the laws wanted a caution here then they would say so (irrelevant of any argument about laws being written poorly etc. Etc.)
Exactly.

The punishment for a keeper failing to release is that the team offending goes from having the ball and the chance to then use it, to having to defend an IFK within their own 18 yard box. As a sanction, that's pretty big.

The difference being for a keeper delaying the restart from a goal kick is that because the ball is dead you can't change the restart, so the only sanction you can give is a caution.
 
After warning him and then awarding an indirect free kick at least once, if he still continues to do it, then you could consider a caution for persistent offences.

If he does it a second time, I think you are far more likely to be sending off his teammate for punching him . . . .

But personally, I wouldn't mess with PI anyway. The GK is turning GK possession into a great opportunity for the other team to score. Why mess with a caution? (Not that, in the real world, a GK is ever going to do it twice . . . .)
 
PI for excessive obstruction and tackling from behind . . . not to mention too many steps by the GK. Yeah, some of these are just hard to break . . . I'll have to work on giving PO cautions so I can get that one into my instincts!
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
BUPA to SPA was was easy. Pretty much every I know changed usage pretty easily. PI to PO seems to be proving difficult.
 
Back
Top