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).
[QUOTE=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.”
[/QUOTE]
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Then your reply didn’t make any sense at all. Here is your reply:
You can’t be referring to the MISSED handball call here. Rapinoe wasn’t “called for it,” so which call are you referring to?
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
Formal warning is always given first, not a vague “I told this other refe to mention to you to speed things up,” and
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I realize that is hyperbole, but seriously, wtf? The correct information has already been posted in this thread.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.