USA vs. Canada Soccer...6 seconds by goalie: BS Call?

[dzeiger]

For the 6-second rule, the complaints about it seem to be something like when people complain for getting a ticket for doing 60 in a 55 zone because cops normally don't ticket people until they're 10 over. If you don't want to get called for the foul, don't commit it--acknowledging that you committed the foul and then complaining about the ref calling it just sounds pretty stupid.

For the hand ball--I had the match on my second TV muted, so it's possible I missed or misread something in the closed captioning, but I thought the commentators mentioned something about one of the Canadian players being known for "incidental" arm contacts on free kicks. If that's the case, then perhaps it may be a matter of a player with a reputation no longer getting the benefit of the doubt.

(and that's one of the problems with replays--you could never use it to fix incorrect no-calls)

[Lazy]

I am not someone who regularly follows soccer, but I have been led to understand that awarding an indirect free kick for violating the six-second rule essentially never happens at this level. Is this correct? Does anyone know the last time it happened in a high-level soccer game?

I have no problem in general with refs following rules, but I do have a problem with selective enforcement. A tense moment in an Olympic semifinal seems hardly the right place to begin putting one's foot down if it has essentially never happened in the last twenty years or whatever.

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by fachverwirrt

He didn't say it was the finals. All those things happened in the quarterfinal match against Brazil.

Ah, yes indeed. I was referring to the Brazil match, should have mentioned that.

[azraiel]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I'm not saying the hand ball call on Canada was wrong. At least get straight what calls I'm referring to.

I'm very clear what call you're referring to: a missed handball on Rapinoe. And I challenged you to back your claim of "terrible officiating" with more than a single example of a missed call.

Beyond that missed call, what in the match constituted "terrible officiating"?

[amanset]

Originally Posted by RedFury

I'll let someone else correct me if I am wrong, but once a goalie drops the ball to his feet, there no limit in the amount of "steps" or "time" he can take, for at that very point he becomes just another field player that can be attacked/pressured -- mind you, he is NOT allowed to pick-up the ball with his hands again unless there's a change of possession.

True, but the "with the ball" I was referring to was the common interpretation of a goalie being "with the ball": it is in his/her hands. So the old rules were three steps with the ball in the hands, now it is as many as you want but no more than a certain amount of time, the problem being that the certain amount of time rule sis rarely enforced and even more rarely away from the last few minutes of the game.

[amanset]

Originally Posted by Lazy

I am not someone who regularly follows soccer, but I have been led to understand that awarding an indirect free kick for violating the six-second rule essentially never happens at this level. Is this correct? Does anyone know the last time it happened in a high-level soccer game?

I have no problem in general with refs following rules, but I do have a problem with selective enforcement. A tense moment in an Olympic semifinal seems hardly the right place to begin putting one's foot down if it has essentially never happened in the last twenty years or whatever.

It only really happens at the end of the game. At the time this incident happened you'd be more likely to see the referee indicate with his/her hands that the goalie should play the ball (a common indication being a movement of both hands from around the buttocks to up in the air in front of the referee, in one round, swooping motion). If the goalie doesn't respond to that then a free kick and booking may well happen.

It is one of those rules that constantly get broken and the referee overlooks as being picky about everything ruins the flow of the game. As another example: where a team takes a free kick, throw in etc. In theory it is supposed to be where the ball went out/incident happened but in practice it is just done somewhere vaguely near where it should be. Often it is nowhere close. A poor referee is insistent that it be taken at exactly the right place and would be criticised for being pedantic.

[coolbyrne]

Originally Posted by amanset

It is one of those rules that constantly get broken and the referee overlooks as being picky about everything ruins the flow of the game. As another example: where a team takes a free kick, throw in etc. In theory it is supposed to be where the ball went out/incident happened but in practice it is just done somewhere vaguely near where it should be. Often it is nowhere close. A poor referee is insistent that it be taken at exactly the right place and would be criticised for being pedantic.

Oh, the throw-ins are the worst! And talk about time-wasters.

Ball goes out of play somewhere at the half line.
Player goes and picks up the ball, moving about 5 yards closer to the opponent's goal, making a motion as if to throw it.
When really, he's not the throw-in man; he's just waiting for another teammate to come and get it.
Player sees his teammate approaching, so he drops the ball, about 2 or 3 yards closer to the opponent's goal.
Teammate comes up, picks up the ball, side-shuffles up the line closer to the opponent's goal, as he tries to find someone to throw it to.
Spots someone, then does a little run-up to get maximum distance on the throw.

Really, I've seen players move up 10-15 yards and waste about 30 seconds. That's not counting Rory Delap from Stoke City (EPL), who is actually allowed to wipe down the ball with a towel and release the ball illegally.

As for the rest, I don't think there was some grand conspiracy for the US to win that game. And I don't agree with any Canadian player/coach writing in to Sepp Blatter. He was the one who suggested a way to improve women's soccer was to get them to wear tighter shorts. He doesn't give a shit, implying there is a shit to be given here. There were bad/missed calls on both sides. The IFK is getting all the talk because it is so unusual. I could not believe it when I saw it, and I watch about 60 games a season. I have seen handballs miscalled or not called. I have seen player infractions (the stomp, an elbow, etc.) not called. But I have never seen time-wasting called for an IFK. It was bizarre.

[Freddy the Pig]

Why is stalling such a concern in soccer? Can't the referee just add stoppage time to compensate for stalling?

[garygnu]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

Why is stalling such a concern in soccer? Can't the referee just add stoppage time to compensate for stalling?

Yeah, but the rule is there to keep the game moving, not just about time.

[RedFury]

Originally Posted by amanset

True, but the "with the ball" I was referring to was the common interpretation of a goalie being "with the ball": it is in his/her hands. So the old rules were three steps with the ball in the hands, now it is as many as you want but no more than a certain amount of time, the problem being that the certain amount of time rule sis rarely enforced and even more rarely away from the last few minutes of the game.

Fair enough, didn't read it that way. And sure, I remember the old rules well -- they sucked as they could kill a match for the last ten minutes or more depending on the score.

As for time wasting, keepers still get away with huge gobs of it when taking goal kicks. They act like golf-players getting ready for a championship putt -- just "finding" and teeing-up the ball can take 5-10 seconds. The bookings-to-infractions ratio is ridiculous.

[Quercus]

As a comparison for those who don't watch a lot of soccer, its 6-second rule is called about as often as this (and violated about as often, too).

Originally Posted by MLB Rules of Baseball

8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

Maybe someone can let us know when the last time this was called.
If a world series game hinged on an umpire calling rule 8.04 for ball four, you'd see about the same level of outrage.

Good review, including language on how referees are instructed to interpret the six-second rule, at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/sp...pagewanted=all

I didn't see the game, but this is pretty out-there to call without a warning. Reports on warnings are mixed: the Canadian keeper says she got a vague mention at half time nothing more, the referees father says there were multiple warnings (how does he know?) and a U.S. player claims the referee gestured several times to speed things up and the keeper acknowledged it. Anybody (who, you know doesn't have a vested interest in having the U.S. seen as winning fairly) see these gestures/acknowledgements?

However, the only complaints I've seen regarding the referee are this call, the subsequent handball, and a similar handball not called on the U.S. (and some complaints that the ref let the Canadians get away with very physical play). So, pretty weak evidence for anything intentional. Sounds like the referee let herself get a little bullied into calling the six seconds without enough firm warnings (a definite poor refereeing decision), but it was just a mistake, not a deliberate throwing the game (especially given it sounds like she could have been yellow and red carding Canadians more if she was inclined).

[Lazy]

Originally Posted by Quercus

As a comparison for those who don't watch a lot of soccer, its 6-second rule is called about as often as this (and violated about as often, too).
Maybe someone can let us know when the last time this was called.
If a world series game hinged on an umpire calling rule 8.04 for ball four, you'd see about the same level of outrage.

Good review, including language on how referees are instructed to interpret the six-second rule, at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/sp...pagewanted=all

Thanks for the link and insight. At least the baseball call can only happen if the bases are empty. This call, combined with the following iffy handball call, is almost as if it had been called with bases loaded.

[Lazy]

Originally Posted by Quercus

As a comparison for those who don't watch a lot of soccer, its 6-second rule is called about as often as this (and violated about as often, too).

8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

Maybe someone can let us know when the last time this was called.
If a world series game hinged on an umpire calling rule 8.04 for ball four, you'd see about the same level of outrage.

Good review, including language on how referees are instructed to interpret the six-second rule, at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/sp...pagewanted=all

Thanks for the link and insight. At least the baseball call can only happen if the bases are empty. This call, combined with the following iffy handball call, is almost as if it had been called with bases loaded.

[Snarky_Kong]

The main difference between the baseball rule and this, of course, is that you cannot win a game by having the pitcher slow his delivery. Canada could have won by running out the clock.

I don't really get why people think it's bad form to count out how long the keeper was holding the ball.

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Huh, I didn't see that at all, and I'm Canadian. I thought the Americans and Canadians both sucked up a lot of punishment without any flopping. I didn't see one dive in the entire match.

Go figure.

To be fair, I've never seen cheese, wounded or unwounded, flop around.

[Lazy]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

The main difference between the baseball rule and this, of course, is that you cannot win a game by having the pitcher slow his delivery. Canada could have won by running out the clock.

I don't really get why people think it's bad form to count out how long the keeper was holding the ball.

My problem is not with the rule per se. It is just that the sanction for this of an indirect kick in the penalty area seems to be very rarely applied. It is normally handled in another way. The way it happened, it is almost as if there were a little asterisk attached to the rule, and at the bottom of the page it read "only to be applied if the US women are losing in the Olympics."

Showing a little good will to the ref, we can assume it was incompetence, or maybe being swayed by one of her soccer heroes standing beside her counting out loud, and not deliberate bias. But it is understandable that it feels like that to the Canadians.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by azraiel

I'm very clear what call you're referring to: a missed handball on Rapinoe.

Then your reply didn't make any sense at all. Here is your reply:

I cannot see what in the world was wrong with the handball call. The defender clearly put her arms out perpendicular to her body in an attempt to reduce the target area. It doesn't matter if she reached or not, she positioned her arms illegally between the striker and the goal and she was called for it.

You can't be referring to the MISSED handball call here. Rapinoe wasn't "called for it," so which call are you referring to?

Beyond that missed call, what in the match constituted "terrible officiating"?

In the first half both teams committed assault and battery on more occasions than really should have been allowed to pass. I appreciate that a degree of contact is to be expected, and that female players don't flop and dive the way men do so it might be a little easier to let them play, but Jesus, it was tougher than Olympic boxing. You also had the incredibly blown call giving the USA a corner kick just before the end of regulation; I mean, that wasn't a close matter, either. We're not talking about close calls where you have to live with the fact that the referee can only see things from one point in the field, these were blown sky-high. If you read blogging accounts of the game done in real time people were saying "Jesus, the officiating's worse than ever" from the fifth minute. (In fairness, though, not one bad offsides call was made all day, so not everyone had an off day.)

The more I read about the delay of game call, the more bullshitty it is. The NY Times ran an article today with references from USA Soccer's writing and interpretations for referees, and referees noting that the universal interpretation of the six second rule is completely at odds with Pederson's application of it in that

1. Formal warning is always given first, not a vague "I told this other refe to mention to you to speed things up," and

2. The six seconds are not supposed to begin the moment the goalkeeper gets the ball; they're supposed to begin when the goalie has moved into position and begun looking for someone to get the ball to, and even then it's not a hard and fast rule. As USA Soccer logically points out, you can't apply a six second rule from the moment of catching the ball or else you'd be penalizing every goalie who had to dig him/herself out of a pile or collect themselves after hitting the ground.

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

I don't really get why people think it's bad form to count out how long the keeper was holding the ball.

I don't get that either. Abby Wambach is not a disinterested party, it's her job to win soccer games. If she can push the ref into making a favourable call, that's part of sports.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by dzeiger

For the 6-second rule, the complaints about it seem to be something like when people complain for getting a ticket for doing 60 in a 55 zone because cops normally don't ticket people until they're 10 over. If you don't want to get called for the foul, don't commit it--acknowledging that you committed the foul and then complaining about the ref calling it just sounds pretty stupid.

You have a warped idea of fairness, then. You've just said it's okay for a police officer to follow you around and only enforce driving rules on you alone.

No, the way it works in the real world is that, if you don't enforce a rule, then, for all intents and purposes, that rule doesn't exist. To suddenly enforce a rule that you previously had been letting slide is to essentially create a new rule. And, honestly, it smacks very much of judges who are partial.

And I didn't even follow this game (no cable/HD receiver), and haven't read closely enough to figure out whether fixing this would help the U.S. or Canada. I don't care. An unfair sports competition might as well not take place.

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by Lazy

. The way it happened, it is almost as if there were a little asterisk attached to the rule, and at the bottom of the page it read "only to be applied if the US women are losing in the Olympics."

Or, the way it happened was that McLeod was routinely holding the ball for double the allowed time and got called on it.

It's like the speed limit is 65, and everyone drives 70 and doesn't get pulled over. Then one person drives 100, is warned several times, and people write letters to the police chief saying "WTF? This is dangerous!?" The person gets pulled over and complains that the rule is never enforced so it's not fair.

[Lazy]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

Or, the way it happened was that McLeod was routinely holding the ball for double the allowed time and got called on it.

It's like the speed limit is 65, and everyone drives 70 and doesn't get pulled over. Then one person drives 100, is warned several times, and people write letters to the police chief saying "WTF? This is dangerous!?" The person gets pulled over and complains that the rule is never enforced so it's not fair.

It is my understanding that this analogy is not close. McLeod's behaviour was not unlike that of goaltenders, even goaltenders who are not ahead, in perhaps a majority of high level games. This call is virtually never made. Instead, the ref himself gets the attention of the goaltender and counts down. If the behaviour continues, there is a yellow card, not an indirect free kick in the penalty area. But, as I said above, I am not really very knowledgeable about soccer. If this is not right, maybe someone will jump in to correct me.

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by Lazy

This call is virtually never made. Instead, the ref himself gets the attention of the goaltender and counts down. If the behaviour continues, there is a yellow card, not an indirect free kick in the penalty area. But, as I said above, I am not really very knowledgeable about soccer. If this is not right, maybe someone will jump in to correct me.

The call is never made because keepers never continue to hold the ball.

Refs absolutely don't count down until they're going to give a free kick. An indirect free kick is the correct penalty, if one is given, that's not in dispute by anyone.

Yes, a warning or warnings are usually given. The keeper acknowledges at least one and we have reports of motioning as more non-verbal warnings (extremely common). We also know she held the ball for significantly longer than 6 seconds on several occasions.

It's an unusual call, sure. That doesn't mean anyone was at fault. I actually tend to think the PK was pretty damn iffy. That being said, what's her face stomped on Carli Lloyd's head. Fuck 'em.

[coolbyrne]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

Or, the way it happened was that McLeod was routinely holding the ball for double the allowed time and got called on it.

It's like the speed limit is 65, and everyone drives 70 and doesn't get pulled over. Then one person drives 100, is warned several times, and people write letters to the police chief saying "WTF? This is dangerous!?" The person gets pulled over and complains that the rule is never enforced so it's not fair.

Your analogy is a bit muddied. Most people aren't going to complain if they get busted driving 35 over the speed limit. And according to several sources, she wasn't warned several times. The keeper claims to have been given a warning in the tunnel. Okay, but really, that "warning" counts for nothing if it's not on the pitch. Why not issue a yellow card?

I don't have the game recorded; I'm interested in knowing how long Hope Solo held on to the ball throughout the game.

[Lazy]

Just for a bit of perspective, here is the opinion of Scott Murray at The Guardian

With Canada leading 3-2, and Pedersen repeatedly honking her horn, the referee paused her comedic parping to penalise Canadian keeper Erin McLeod for holding on to the ball for 6.00000000000000001 seconds. Given that nobody in any form of professional football has been pulled up for this since the days crossbars were made out of tape, balls were made out of solid varnished teak, and women players were kept locked in the FA's basement while the menfolk grappled with each other and their own inadequacies, this was a peculiarly harsh decision.

Grant Wahl at Sports Illustrated

managed to track down a single instance from 10 years ago:

The only previous incident I could track down took place in the Premier League in 2002, when referee David Elleray blew his whistle on Bolton's Jussi Jaaskelainen against Newcastle United. (Alan Shearer tied the game on the ensuing free kick sequence.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz22zy5iKD0

The call was very controversial at the time. From The Guardian

Four minutes later his goalkeeper Jussi Jaaskelainen held the ball, under pressure from Shearer, for nine seconds. Football's most infrequently enforced law allows six seconds.

From 17 yards Shearer drilled the ball into the bottom corner. From the stands the Bolton manager, Sam Allardyce, emerged on to the touchline to abuse the referee David Elleray. Elleray could miss a decapitation under his nose, but time-keeping, that is far more important.

You could understand Bolton's sense of injustice. "You must be," began the first question to Allardyce afterwards. "Gutted?" he interjected. "Yes."

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by coolbyrne

Your analogy is a bit muddied. Most people aren't going to complain if they get busted driving 35 over the speed limit. And according to several sources, she wasn't warned several times. The keeper claims to have been given a warning in the tunnel. Okay, but really, that "warning" counts for nothing if it's not on the pitch. Why not issue a yellow card?

I don't have the game recorded; I'm interested in knowing how long Hope Solo held on to the ball throughout the game.

Yeah, that's sort of the point of the analogy. Maybe the keeper shouldn't have flaunted the system.

According to several sources she was warned several times, not all warnings are verbal. An off the field warning absolutely 100% is a valid warning. Why wouldn't it be? It's not like there's an official warning system and log book.

[Lazy]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

The call is never made because keepers never continue to hold the ball.

According to US Soccer (from Jeff Z. Klein of the New York Times, reprinted in the Calgary Herald:

“Technically the goalkeeper must release the ball within six seconds of having established full control, which would not count rising from the ground or stopping their run (if they had to run) to gain the ball," U.S. Soccer noted. “However, goalkeepers throughout the world routinely violate the six-second rule without punishment if the referee is convinced that the goalkeeper is making a best effort."

[divemaster]

Originally Posted by Lazy

Just for a bit of perspective, here is the opinion of Scott Murray at The Guardian

With Canada leading 3-2, and Pedersen repeatedly honking her horn, the referee paused her comedic parping to penalise Canadian keeper Erin McLeod for holding on to the ball for 6.00000000000000001 seconds.

I realize that is hyperbole, but seriously, wtf? The correct information has already been posted in this thread.

But McLeod pushed the rule to the extreme. The first time she caught the ball Monday night — off a deflected header — she held it for 17 seconds before punting it away. A couple of minutes later, she controlled it for 16 seconds. There was another 16-second possession later in the half as she cradled the ball, gave it a bounce, walked forward and directed traffic.

She was at at least 10 seconds for the instance receiving the call, after (supposedly) being warned. The goalie should just man up and accept that she got caught speeding.

[coolbyrne]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

Yeah, that's sort of the point of the analogy. Maybe the keeper shouldn't have flaunted the system.

According to several sources she was warned several times, not all warnings are verbal. An off the field warning absolutely 100% is a valid warning. Why wouldn't it be? It's not like there's an official warning system and log book.

How did she flaunt the system, when this is something a large percentage of goalkeepers do? Again, I'd love to see someone tally how long Hope Solo held the ball. It is so common, the main reason keepers get yellow cards is for time-wasting. With the Barclays Premier League starting in 10 days, I'll start watching for this indirect free kick call.

Why wouldn't an off-field warning not count? Because, in the interest of information for all players, both teammates and opponents, as well as coaches, the referee should issue a warning on the pitch, so it doesn't become an issue of she said/she said. It also gives coaches an opportunity to discuss the player's actions with the player. That way, it doesn't come as a complete shock to the team when the player gets carded/sent off/gets penalized for time-wasting later in the game.

[dzeiger]

Originally Posted by BigT

You have a warped idea of fairness, then. You've just said it's okay for a police officer to follow you around and only enforce driving rules on you alone.

No the expanded analogy would be that the other drivers on the road are loudly complaining on public forums--that both the police and the driver can see--about this driver exceeding the speed limit. The cops gave the driver a warning, though it may have been an off-duty cop telling them about it in passing rather than an "official" cop in uniform pulling them over and warning them. Then when they did it again, the other drivers called 911 and had big neon signs pointing to the car.

When you're ahead in a critical game, that is not the time to think "Hmmm, the opposing team is making it explicitly clear to the ref that I am violating rules that can have disastrous consequences if I get caught, but they never call that so I'll keep doing it." It's the time to think "Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't give the ref any excuse to call anything, the risk of an IDK in the goal area isn't worth 10 seconds extra off the clock."

[Busy Scissors]

Originally Posted by Lazy

Just for a bit of perspective, here is the opinion of Scott Murray at The Guardian



Grant Wahl at Sports Illustrated

managed to track down a single instance from 10 years ago:


The call was very controversial at the time. From The Guardian

I definitely recall Neville Southall being penalised for this against Nottingham Forrest in a cup match, and I less definitely remember the resulting free-kick costing us the game. That was prior to the premiership era, though, before football was invented.

A warning for time-wasting from the ref is very common though - any keeper holding on to the ball at the end of a tight game gets this, see it all the time. The next step is really rare because most keepers aren't stupid enough to blatantly take the piss in this situation.

[coolbyrne]

Originally Posted by dzeiger

No the expanded analogy would be that the other drivers on the road are loudly complaining on public forums--that both the police and the driver can see--about this driver exceeding the speed limit. The cops gave the driver a warning, though it may have been an off-duty cop telling them about it in passing rather than an "official" cop in uniform pulling them over and warning them. Then when they did it again, the other drivers called 911 and had big neon signs pointing to the car.

When you're ahead in a critical game, that is not the time to think "Hmmm, the opposing team is making it explicitly clear to the ref that I am violating rules that can have disastrous consequences if I get caught, but they never call that so I'll keep doing it." It's the time to think "Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't give the ref any excuse to call anything, the risk of an IDK in the goal area isn't worth 10 seconds extra off the clock."

That's because, even if she could hear what the Americans were doing (at Old Trafford, mind you- capacity being about 76k), and she was doing it on purpose, her line of thinking may have been, "The risk of a yellow card is worth an extra 10 seconds off the clock, because if you add it all together, I've taken 2 minutes off. So a yellow card- which is the standard referees give out in every league around the world- is worth it."

The point isn't that she was called on it; the point is she was punished by a rule of game that hasn't been used in about 10 years.

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

According to several sources she was warned several times, not all warnings are verbal.

Which sources, exactly? I've seen that mentioned by
a) the referee's father; and
b) the U.S. player who bullied the referee into making the call.

If you have more, um, neutral sources, I'd be interested to hear their statements.


Anyway, the analogy is not being busted for speeding; it's being busted for one of those archaic 18th century laws that Ripley's trots out on occasion; Exercising a Beast on the Sabbath or something.

[pulykamell]

Stupid question: Why don't they just add the time the goalie holds on to the ball or whatnot as stoppage time?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Quercus

Which sources, exactly? I've seen that mentioned by
a) the referee's father; and
b) the U.S. player who bullied the referee into making the call.

Lobbying the ref isn't "Bullying," it's a captain's job.

Every great player is on the ref. Michael Jordan did it, Wayne Gretzky did it. Christine Sinclair, the Canadian captain, was on the ref all game; barely a call when by that she wasn't barking at the ref about it. It's part of sport.

Abby Wambach did nothing wrong in lobbying the ref for a call, though even she was probably surprised they got an IFK; the usual result is a warning and then a yellow card. The ref screwed up. If you can let a captain lobbying for a call not only get you to make the call but to forget how it's customarily applied, you're not a good ref. I'm sorry to make this point again, but as much as I think Canada got screwed big time, the American players are not in any way at fault. They're out there representing their country, charged with trying to win a soccer game, and they should do everything within the bounds of the rules and customary sportsmanship to win the game. Lobbying the ref, especially if you are the designated captain in such sports as recognize that position, is customarily within the bounds of sportsmanship.

And yeah, the speeding ticket metaphor is starting to break down.

[dzeiger]

Originally Posted by coolbyrne

That's because, even if she could hear what the Americans were doing (at Old Trafford, mind you- capacity being about 76k), and she was doing it on purpose, her line of thinking may have been, "The risk of a yellow card is worth an extra 10 seconds off the clock, because if you add it all together, I've taken 2 minutes off. So a yellow card- which is the standard referees give out in every league around the world- is worth it."

*shrug* So we've now moved from "This foul is never called" to "This foul is often called, but a different punishment is usually given."

I have no conceptual problem with changing the rules to match what you think should have been done so as to remove any future doubt, but in the context of the debate for this particular call, it's really goalpost-moving.

[amanset]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Stupid question: Why don't they just add the time the goalie holds on to the ball or whatnot as stoppage time?

They can, but it spoils the flow of the game too. It isn't American football, where everyone resets, a large part of football is trying to drag people out of position. Time wasting allows a team to reset and reshuffle. Perhaps the goalie's team had committed too many players forward and was lucky to end up with the ball and has a rather exposed defence. Holding on to the ball allow defenders to come back, instead of having to play the ball forward and risk it coming straight back with the defence exposed.

Stuff like that.

Additionally, clock control is rather lax in football. I believe in each half of 45 minutes that ball is usually in play for 27-30 minutes or so. Picking and choosing which delays to add on to the end would cause all sorts of arguments, so the fourth official usually just picks a number that "feels" right. Football also has an (in my opinion flawed) idea that the game should be officiated in the same way at all levels, which for a long time was one of the main arguments why television replays should not be allowed. Not every game at every level has the facility for as close clock watching as say, the World Cup, Olympics or the English Premier League.

[amanset]

Originally Posted by dzeiger

*shrug* So we've now moved from "This foul is never called" to "This foul is often called, but a different punishment is usually given."

I have no conceptual problem with changing the rules to match what you think should have been done so as to remove any future doubt, but in the context of the debate for this particular call, it's really goalpost-moving.

It is a very good point that I hadn't considered.

The usual punishment is a card for the goalie yet the goalie keeps the ball.

Interesting.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by amanset

They can, but it spoils the flow of the game too. It isn't American football, where everyone resets, a large part of football is trying to drag people out of position. Time wasting allows a team to reset and reshuffle. Perhaps the goalie's team had committed too many players forward and was lucky to end up with the ball and has a rather exposed defence. Holding on to the ball allow defenders to come back, instead of having to play the ball forward and risk it coming straight back with the defence exposed.

Stuff like that.

That's kind of what I assumed--that holding on to the ball indefinitely could disrupt the flow and cause the offense to get into just the right position before the ball is released.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Lobbying the ref isn't "Bullying," it's a captain's job.

The coach's job, too. Working the refs isn't entertaining and nobody likes to watch it, but it's part of sports. Players and coaches (and even owners and fans) will try to draw a ref's attention to a particular violation to try to increase their chances of getting a call. It's not bullying and it's not even unethical.

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by coolbyrne

How did she flaunt the system, when this is something a large percentage of goalkeepers do?

Holding the ball for 11, 16, 17 seconds is not something a large amount of keepers do. That's the point. A large amount of keepers hold the ball for 6.5,7, 8 seconds. They don't get called because their infractions aren't blatant.

The usual call is not the keeper getting a yellow and keeping the ball. That is for a delay of game, usually on a goal kick. It's a different, albeit similar, penalty.

[RickJay]

On a related-sort-of note, after watching the bronze medal game and now watching the gold medal game between the USA and Japan, I must conclude this is much better entertainment than the men's World Cup. Still not a single dive in evidence.

[coolbyrne]

Originally Posted by dzeiger

*shrug* So we've now moved from "This foul is never called" to "This foul is often called, but a different punishment is usually given."

I have no conceptual problem with changing the rules to match what you think should have been done so as to remove any future doubt, but in the context of the debate for this particular call, it's really goalpost-moving.

Nope. I think you've misread some posts. I know I certainly haven't stated this foul is never called. Time-wasting never called?? Perhaps people are debating whether or not it was actually time-wasting, but as I mentioned, I watch about 60 games a year, whether it's La Liga, EPL, Serie A, Champions League, Europa League, FA Cup, Carling Cup, Copa Del Rey, Bundesliga, and even some Ligue 1. I've seen the keeper get called for time-wasting many, many times. I've seen players get called for it. It was only two years ago that both Xabi Alonso and Sergio Ramos (Real Madrid) got warned in the same game for time-wasting. Their punishment? Both got yellows. In fact, they were accused of purposely time-wasting in order to get the yellows. (It would make them miss the next "nothing" Champions League game, then re-set their card count to zero in the next and more important rounds.) Let me say that again- Jose Mourinho, one of the most experienced managers of all time- told his players to time-waste so that they would get yellow cards. He expected yellows. Because that's how archaic an indirect free kick is as a punishment for time-wasting.

The foul is called all the time. The punishment is not.

[dzeiger]

Uh, pretty much this entire thread has been talking about how rare this call is, how it's only been called once in 10 years, etc.

The only cite given so far for this situation clearly spells out a IDK for this infraction. So I see two possible cases that you're talking about

1) This foul is called very often, but the refs tend to give out a punishment that is completely different than what's in the rulebook.

2) You're talking about some completely different rule than most everyone else on the thread, and this other rule has a yellow card as punishment, and is constructed in such a way that one particular infraction is equally in violation of two different rules with two different punishments.

Both of these cases would be problems with the FIFA rules committee, bit not a problem for the ref officiating this particular game.

[Gorsnak]

I've come to the view that I just don't know enough about soccer to have an opinion on the appropriateness of the IDFK call.

However, saying "you can't complain, it's in the rulebook, even if they don't usually call it" is BS. If it's never called (or if it's called, but with a different penalty - remember, this is the part I officially take no position on due to ignorance on my part) then issuing the by the book penalty is, or at least can be, unfair.

An analogy:

It's game 7 of the NBA finals and the Bulls trail by 1 with mere seconds on the clock. Michael Jordan drives the lane and rolls the ball into the net. The whistle blows just as the buzzer sounds. Traveling is called, basket disallowed, Bulls lose.

Of course, the call is technically correct, but every single Jordan layup in the game and about 90% of those made by other players were technically traveling too, and not a single traveling call had been made. Disallowing that basket is a travesty of officiating even though it's entirely by the book.

[coolbyrne]

Originally Posted by dzeiger

Uh, pretty much this entire thread has been talking about how rare this call is, how it's only been called once in 10 years, etc.

The only cite given so far for this situation clearly spells out a IDK for this infraction. So I see two possible cases that you're talking about

1) This foul is called very often, but the refs tend to give out a punishment that is completely different than what's in the rulebook.

2) You're talking about some completely different rule than most everyone else on the thread, and this other rule has a yellow card as punishment, and is constructed in such a way that one particular infraction is equally in violation of two different rules with two different punishments.

Both of these cases would be problems with the FIFA rules committee, bit not a problem for the ref officiating this particular game.

I am talking about #1.

The call/punishment, not the foul.

The call/punishment: an idk for time-wasting

The foul: Time-wasting.

You said:

*shrug* So we've now moved from "This foul is never called" to "This foul is often called, but a different punishment is usually given."

To me, the foul is time-wasting. Referees make that decision all the time, and I don't know if anyone disputed that fact.


As an aside, I should withdraw the Alonso/Ramos analogy, because they aren't goalkeepers.

[Quint]

Basically it is the same as the 1972 USA USSR basketball game. Officiating overshadowing the game itself. Happens a lot in sport, always a shame when it does.

[brad_d]

What happened here is a different foul, covered by a different rule, than that of a goalkeeper stalling while waiting to take a goal kick, yes? (Snarky_Kong pointed this out, but I think it needs to be reiterated.)

Possibly the biggest distinction is that while waiting for a goal kick to be taken, the ball is dead. "Delaying the restart of play" is one of the seven itemized violations listed as "Cautionable offences" in the Laws of the Game. No other sanctions are listed: the player gets the yellow card, and then whatever restart was being delayed is tried again.

What happened here was not "delaying the restart of play" because play was not stopped - the ball was live. There are a lot of things listed in the Laws calling for a indirect free kick, and the very first one is

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
* controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession

If the referee is going to call that foul, I don't see how he could possibly levy any different penalty. Additionally, if he stops play to call it, what other method of restart would one envision? A dropped ball? Indirect free kick for the offending team?

I think many people in this thread are trying to draw an equivalency between the two cases that just isn't supported by the rules. While superficially similar, stalling while taking a goal kick and hanging onto the ball for too long are not the same foul, and warrant different punishments.