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