Want to see what you think

[laffysoccermom]

Wanted to see what you knowledgable refs think about the wasting time call against Canada in the Olympics? I can see both sides.

[drogba]

I think that is a tough call. It is magnified by the hand ball coming directly off of that. I think ref trying to set the stage that hey I am not going to put up with this the rest of the game but the result of the call ended up being one of the key plays in the game.

I still think US would have found a way to win and Canada would have found a way to lose. I think the game though shows the great effect of equality of scholarships and how that has helped us women but also the canada where almost all of those ladies attended college in us on scholarship.

[dualyellow]

It was justified. Earlier in the game the referee warned the keeper and the keeper seemed to put her hand up in understanding. Her delays continued and she got whistled for it.

[Steven Gerrard]

If that call had been made against my keeper in a state cup game, I would still be livid about it. Sorry USWNT fans, but it was a poor call.

[happyjack]

Holding the ball for 11 seconds after already having been warned? I would have whistled well before 11...

[Steven Gerrard]

But, what was the warning? A comment by the AR just before half? Was that enoiugh of a warning? I would like to think that the CR went and specifically told the goalie "hey, I am going to call for delay if you hold on to that ball too long." I know, why give a warning about a law of the game that they should know. But, holding on to the ball for more then 6 seconds is almost never called. And, goalies do it all the time. With that as a backdrop, I think that both goalies should have recieved a very specific warning from the CR.

[coachray40]

it IS a rule. It is RARELY enforced to the teeth. It is INTENDED to be used to keep the ball in play. EVERY referee that I know is REASONABLE with their interpretation and enforcement of this rule. That being said, when a keeper, or ANY player is deliberately delaying the game it is an infraction of the laws of the game and a cautionable offense--even in STATE CUP STEVIE G, AND ESPECIALLY IF I ALREADY COUNSELED YOUR KEEPER ON IT. I'm sure EVERY official has seen GKs hold the ball longer than 6 seconds, and I also believe that we all are reasonable about the enforcement of this rule if we believe the keeper is making a good faith effort to get the ball back in play. Many a 10-year old holds the ball too long while working out the mechanics of trying to punt or throw it. Now, if you are standing there with the ball in your hands not doing anything with it, then you are deliberately time wasting...period. If I go over and WARN you (thus letting you know that I know what you're doing), and then you continue with this infraction, you should be penalized for being a KNUCKLEHEAD if nothing else!!!

I like how we deal with a GK possession in indoor--straight 5 second count, visible and aloud, and an immediate turnover for an indirect kick upon violation. Amazing how 1 whistle of this infraction eliminates it from the rest of the game. The Canada GK never held the ball too long after the whistle though did she?

[Steven Gerrard]

But, that is my point. I don't know enough about the warning. If she was specifically warned about it, fine. I agree with you. As a ref, I also don't like or tolerate time wasting by the team in the lead. Slowly walking to get an out of bounds ball? I will yell at them to hurry up and then probably add a little time for the infraction. I get all of that. But, holding on to the ball for more then 6 seconds is so rarely ever called. If something is never called, can it still be considered a law of the game? (Academically speaking). Again, I want to know what kind of warning she received.

[Ronaldinho]

I've always thought deliberate time-wasting by a goalkeeper or defender, whether delaying a punt or goal kick or whatever, is one of the dumbest things a player can do. All it does is result in an unnecessary yellow card, maybe even a free kick like USA-Canada, and the ref is just gonna add the time back anyway....maybe even overcompensate and add too much time. So it creates far more harm than good for the team wasting time. Professional goalkeepers all the time are willing to take yellow cards for wasting time on goal kicks, and I'm always baffled at how they think it helps their team when the ref can extend the game however long he wants to. And as a referee myself, it baffles me for the same reason when kids do it in front of me.

As for this incident, I'd say it's a harsh call to give a free kick in a game like this when it's hardly ever called.....unless it really was twice as long as allowed and she'd already received a warning. If the referee made his feelings known earlier in the game, and she still took 11 seconds, I don't have a big problem with it. One of the most important aspect of soccer as a sport is that the game constantly flows and keeps its rhythm. For that reason, very few things annoy me more than time-wasting by players (or, for that matter, excessive whistles/stoppages by referees).

[tonygalinto]

I would be willing to bet that if the referee had to do it all over again that in hindsight the call would not be made. There are many things that can be done strictly within the LOTG, but that doesn't mean you will ever be assigned at that level of competition again.

[laffysoccermom]

I always thought the keeper had 10 seconds. Granted, I am not a ref. Just a parent trying to learn. Thanks for always answering my questions.

[happyjack]

Stevie - there is no infraction for walking to get a ball out of touch, no requirement that a player "hurry up." as long as they are moving tj get the ball and put it in play, there is no reason to tell them to hurry up. If the other team thinks it is taking too long, they have the option o running and refriekving the ball.

There is an infraction for a keeper holding a ball more than 6 seconds. I personally give a very loud "let's go keeper" the first time they hold past 6 - that is my warning. Using your "I wonder what type of warning" analogy, if a player comes studs up into the calf on an opponent, would I be justified in taking no action since I hadn't previously warned him not to do that? Or just called a foul but issued no card? Of course not...rules are rules and players who circumvent know what they are doing...good officials deal with this...regardless of where or when it occurs in a match

[Steven Gerrard]

Aug 11, 2012 21:40:26 GMT -6 happyjack said:

Using your "I wonder what type of warning" analogy, if a player comes studs up into the calf on an opponent, would I be justified in taking no action since I hadn't previously warned him not to do that? Or just called a foul but issued no card? Of course not...rules are rules and players who circumvent know what they are doing...good officials deal with this...regardless of where or when it occurs in a match

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with your analogy. Sliding in studs up is an infraction that is called all the time. However, the 6 second rule is not. Heck, just a few comments above, a poster (whom I assume has been watching soccer for a few years) thought that the rule was 10 seconds. That is how sparingly the rule is used. Some people (most?) don't even know that the rule exists.

What if the studs up foul was never called? Players would do it every game and never get called. Everyone knew it was against the rules. But, refs never called it. So, players did it all the time. Then, suddenly, one day it was called as a foul in a game of huge importance. Is that right? To allow players to get away with it, and then call it one day?

Again, I go to the warning. What was it? I would like to think that both goalies were specifically told that the CR planned to enforce the 6 second rule. Or, that the Canadian goalie had been warned earlier after she had held on to the ball for longer then 6 seconds. Maybe at that level they don't need much of a warning. I get that. But, they should have something.

The bottom line is that if the roles had been reversed, and the call was made against the Americans in a Canadian victory, the soccer fans in this country would be screaming bloody murder.

[laffysoccermom]

I will let my player who is just starting to play keeper about the rule and just remind her that anytime a ref says anything to you, consider it a warning. They aren't talking to hear the sound of their voice or to get to know you.

[tonygalinto]

Aug 12, 2012 8:21:51 GMT -6 laffysoccermom said:

I will let my player who is just starting to play keeper about the rule and just remind her that anytime a ref says anything to you, consider it a warning. They aren't talking to hear the sound of their voice or to get to know you.

That's good advice for all your players, not just the keeper.

[dualyellow]

Y'all are making this way too complicated. Twice during the match I saw the referee referee spoke to the keeper about it. As I mentioned in a previous post the keeper even acknowledged one of them visually. I saw the call coming and it was no surprise to me. I don't understand why it seemed to catch the rest of the world off guard.

[happyjack]

Just because many referees don't cal it does not make it less of a foul. Many also don't recognize impeding or persistent infringement, but I'm not going to stop calling it because others don't realize it is happening.

[futbolislife]

The referee warned the keeper a couple of times. And dont for one second be fooled, the Canadian GK knew full well what she was doing and took the risk that it wouldnt be called late in a big game. She guessed wrong. And from what I "hear" shw was commended for the decision by FIFA. As a GK, I often took chances like this making assumptions what the referee would or would not do. And I did sometimes guess wrong.