CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
No wonder it's so hard to actually pull it up....
One thing that i have called a few times is when they run out of the box to do a quick fly kick and are quite clearly still holding it outside the box starting the action. They normally end up 3-4 metres outside the box at the end of the action. Hard to spot front on (without linos) but if you are still around the edge of the box its an easy spot. If i've suspected him doing it I've sometimes lagged behind to confirm my suspicion.. This really pisses of goalkeepers as they are all a bit mad....
Agreed - 6 seconds is surprisingly long when you count it out.
I do recall the game and I'm not saying the referee was techically incorrect to award the free kick but I think you've slightly misrepresented it. The incident in question took place in the 77th minute so there's no way the ref had spoken to the keeper about it "after 90." And while she had held on to the ball for way too long on several occasions (I timed one example at 15 seconds) I don't recall her getting any previous warnings and on a quick scan of the video I did not detect any obvious warnings although it is always possible that the ref had given her a quiet verbal warning that was not noticeable on the video. There was certainly nothing that would lead me to believe that "everyone on the pitch had heard these warnings..."Some of you may recall a match in the Olympics wherein a goalkeeper had been taking 12-15 seconds. The referee and her assistants gave the GK several shouts throughout the first and second half to speed things up and then spoke to her about it in the tunnel at after 90. By now, everyone on the pitch had heard these warnings, and the GK had been personally warned face-to-face. Nevertheless, the GK decided to take well more than 6 seconds during extra time (of a 1-1 semi-final match) and the referee awarded the IFK to the opposing team.
Why scrap it as a Law, when it actually works just as you are suggesting? It's really a sensible compromise. OK, so no-one rigidly sticks to it as 6 seconds, but if a keeper starts clearly wasting time, then you can enforce it as written. It has to be a reasonably short amount of time, if the Laws said 10 seconds, or fifteen, then keepers would push that to the limits. If, as you suggest, it was just left to the referee's discretion, then everyone would moan about needing some kind of uniform idea of how long constituted "too long". The Laws used to say a keeper could only take four steps, but there was nothing to indicate how long he could simply stand still holding the ball and waste time. What we have now is a workable fudge, generally to be treated with a wide leniency, but if needed (because of clear time wasting) it can taken very strictly.I find it be a very random length in time. My opinion would be to for ifab to scrap that as a law. However say something to give referee discretion if he feels its deliberate time wasting.
And an opponent could shoulder charge him.The Laws used to say a keeper could only take four steps, but there was nothing to indicate how long he could simply stand still holding the ball and waste time.