PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
No I agree, you don't see them very often at the top, but I have seen one of those at Loftus Road this season as well!
Top 3 ignored laws
- Thread starter Quarryref
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Happens down south too. One step is to have team-sheets, even though these get abused.
The keeper IS allowed to save/parry the ball and then pick it up. There is only an offence if the keeper releases the ball from his/her possession and then picks it back up.
My pet hate is referees allowing keepers to hold the ball for 10, 15, even 20 seconds!
My pet hate is referees allowing keepers to hold the ball for 10, 15, even 20 seconds!
Er, no. Law 12:
A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside his own penalty area in the following circumstances:
A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside his own penalty area in the following circumstances:
- if he handles the ball again after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player:
- the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from him, e.g. after he has made a save
- possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball
Correct..... but you ever tried to define the difference between a save and a parry?....
It would need to be extremely obvious for me to penalise this....
Some referees try to find fault when we should be trying to use common sense and manage the game....
It would need to be extremely obvious for me to penalise this....
Some referees try to find fault when we should be trying to use common sense and manage the game....
I've always considered a parry to be a controlled redirection of the ball, as opposed to an uncontrolled deflection off the keeper's gloves. And it was penalised not so long ago in an England game... http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/san-marino-gk.3956/
As I noted above, if the GK parries the ball down to control it and picks it up fairly immediately, that's all part of the same action (to my mind). It's much like bouncing the ball.
If, on the other hand, the GK parries the ball down to control it, leaves it at his/her feet for 4-5s (or more) before an opponent comes to challenge, and then picks it up, that's where I have issue.
As it's rarely called, I'll typically warn them that time, then call it the next.
If, on the other hand, the GK parries the ball down to control it, leaves it at his/her feet for 4-5s (or more) before an opponent comes to challenge, and then picks it up, that's where I have issue.
As it's rarely called, I'll typically warn them that time, then call it the next.
I agree - we can make it harder for ourselves sometimes - but (pot & kettle!) ...
the word "save" - which is also used in the offside law ... is the definition of a "save" only limited to a GK / defender save / block of a goal-bound shot ..? .... as a GK I could "save" a corner from a deflected shot that is well wide of the goal ... is this allowed given a loose definition of "save" !?!?
Interesting to watch this thread develop. The point behind the point of my original post was that I think there is a problem with some laws that are written in a way that nobody (players, managers, referees, supporters) wants to see them enforced. Not hard to sort with a rewrite. So IMHO :
1. Gk parry law. Change it so GK can pick up from any parry, deliberate or otherwise (which puts it in line with the general principle we judge what happens rather than guessing intent), provided it is part of the same action. I.e. No dribbling to edge of box then picking up
2. Ditch the 6 second nonsense and bring it in line with judgement we apply on excessive time wasting taking a throw, free kick, etc. This is what happens in the real world anyway
3. GK moving at penalty kick. This is a harder one. Law already includes the word 'blatantly', which is probably the best we can do. Alternative is to go back to black and white no movement before the kick is taken, but that was never applied either.
By the way, at the same time I'd remove the nonsense about colour of stocking tape. Causes hassle for no practical purpose and a complete nonsense with the new style boots that come up over the ankle. Twice now I've had to tell a player to remove an innocuous piece of tape you could hardly see from more than 5 yards away whilst his mate has a big black band around his ankle that are part of his shiny new nike mercurials or similar.
1. Gk parry law. Change it so GK can pick up from any parry, deliberate or otherwise (which puts it in line with the general principle we judge what happens rather than guessing intent), provided it is part of the same action. I.e. No dribbling to edge of box then picking up
2. Ditch the 6 second nonsense and bring it in line with judgement we apply on excessive time wasting taking a throw, free kick, etc. This is what happens in the real world anyway
3. GK moving at penalty kick. This is a harder one. Law already includes the word 'blatantly', which is probably the best we can do. Alternative is to go back to black and white no movement before the kick is taken, but that was never applied either.
By the way, at the same time I'd remove the nonsense about colour of stocking tape. Causes hassle for no practical purpose and a complete nonsense with the new style boots that come up over the ankle. Twice now I've had to tell a player to remove an innocuous piece of tape you could hardly see from more than 5 yards away whilst his mate has a big black band around his ankle that are part of his shiny new nike mercurials or similar.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Agree 100% with everything you say above. Put this man in charge of IFAB now 
not forgetting that the count starts as soon as the keeper has the ball in his possession - which includes ball between hand and ground
difference being that ball is in play during six second nonsense so 1) you can't treat it as time wasting and 2) that is why a time limit has been given
Last edited by a moderator:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Come to think of it, I don't think there's any law as ignored as (aside from dissent, of course) Persistent Infringement
I posted about this very issuue a few months back totally agree usually between 10 and 15 seconds and every weekend i must hear the words " how long ref " 10 to 20 times when the keeper gets the ball only given it twice though i usually shout 4 ......5 then the ball gets released .
Personal view is 6 seconds is arbitrary and unnecessary. Not enforced as written anywhere from parks to World Cup. It is used when time wasting becomes excessive, but that's different from being enforced as a matter of course. From a common sense perspective I want (and every referee I've seen does) use common sense to distinguish between the keeper who goes full length to make a save and takes a bit of time to pick himself up and dust himself off and the one who is 1-0 up in the last few minutes and holds onto it until you yell at him to get on with it.
By the way I understand the ball is in play, rather than out of play, but there is no logic I can see that means there has to be a fixed limit in one situation and not the other. No different in terms of time wasting to a player holding the ball waiting to throw it in or standing over a free kick. In both cases we are waiting on one person to do something to get on with the game.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Yes, it's arbitrary - but so are all of the laws. The problem with the 'common sense' approach is that it invites inconsistence. '6 seconds' SHOULD be an easily understood law, and if it's applied consistently it will be respected. The only reason it's a problem is because referees don't apply it. Same as...well, any other law here.
Allowing the keeper a few moments to get up is fine IMO, but the problem we're talking about goes well beyond that.
Allowing the keeper a few moments to get up is fine IMO, but the problem we're talking about goes well beyond that.