REFWATCH - Birmingham City (A) - Sat 20/12/08 12:45

[Man Friday]

"rarely"? I've NEVER seen one - has anybody else?

[Man Friday]

Agreed. How is it that officials can be the only people that see something? Like the Brum goal kick when it was clearly a Reading corner. Do they close their eyes and guess?

I don't think that he can be criticised too much over that decision. He got it wrong, but the two players were between him and the ball so he couldn't have seen it clearly. The linesman was the other side of the pitch so probably couldn't see it clearly either.

So he bottled it. Everyone was starting to prepare for a corner but he took the safe option and gave a goal kick in case he had got it wrong and we scored. "Respect". (My arse.)

[Dirk Gently]

Oh, and previously he had allowed Maik Taylor to stand in his penalty area with the ball in his hands for TWELVE seconds. I counted it on the clock on the screen.

I wondered about that too, so I had another look at the laws because I could not remember exactly what it said. This is the extract for giudance for referees

A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands
for more than six seconds. A goalkeeper is considered to be in control
of the ball:
• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any
surface (e.g. ground, own body)
• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand
• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air


So you are spot on and we should have had an indirect free kick.

No referee in the world will ever give that kind of free-kick, in the same way that they will hardly ever give a free-kick for a back-pass unless it's absolutely blatant - because trying to administer an indirect free-kick in the opposition penalty area is almost impossible to administer. They're actually coached not to give them!

As to the booking for time wasting, it's all about context - when Taylor was wasting time it was Brum,'s time to waste as they were trailing - when you're losing you can waste as much time as you like without it being ungentlemanly conduct. But when Fed was deemed to be time-wasting he was depriving the opposition of a chance to draw level, so it wasn't ungentlemanly conduct.

[Ian Royal]

I only saw the ball roll after Fed re-placed it.

I think the rule about time in the keeper's control is to stop piss taking. It's set at 6 seconds to you can be certain to avoid arguments if they are dallying with it deliberately. Where there is just a genuine attempt to find an option it's stupid to penalise it. Especially when the team in question are losing.

[JC]

I only saw the ball roll after Fed re-placed it.

I think the rule about time in the keeper's control is to stop piss taking. It's set at 6 seconds to you can be certain to avoid arguments if they are dallying with it deliberately. Where there is just a genuine attempt to find an option it's stupid to penalise it. Especially when the team in question are losing.

I agree with that in principle, but surely the modern way is for the authorities to be proscriptive about such things and not to allow referees latitude to use their common sense. If that were not the case then refs would not book goalscorers who take off their shirts.

[Ian Royal]

For a start it's much much easier to determine if a player has taken off their shirt, than how long a keeper has held the ball for.

Secondly the purpose of the keeper rule is to stop timewasting and is therefore about context. The rule about shirt's is (at least i believe so) to try to reduce the potential for winding up the crowd and causing trouble.

Timewasting is subjective, but to allow for a rule that doesn't result in appeal after appeal and all sorts of aggro a timescale has to be applied. There is nothing subjective about whether a player has taken their shirt off or not.

[RoyalBlue]

For a start it's much much easier to determine if a player has taken off their shirt, than how long a keeper has held the ball for.

As a ridiculous defence of professional referees, that really does take some beating!

I know a lot of us regard them as stupid, incompetent etc. but even we would credit most of them with the ability of being able to count from one thousand and one through to one thousand and six (one way of counting seconds)!! So they might have to walk/run or even signal at the same time but that level of multi-tasking really shouldn't be beyond them!!

I also don't have much sympathy with the 'Taylor was wasting his own time' argument. He held onto the ball for one simple reason, no one in his team had made themselves available to receive it. Had he been forced to kick/throw it out earlier (i.e. within six seconds) he could well have ended up giving possession straight back to us. Why should he be allowed to hold onto the ball to avoid that happening?!

[Ian Royal]

Why waste a ref's time with counting every time the 'keeper has the ball when he can just give a freekick if he's obviously taking the piss?

As has already been said, indirect freekicks in the box are a nightmare to ref and really aren't worth the hassle for the difference between 6 and 12 - 15 odd seconds.

The guy was looking to play the ball, not timewasting. People complain about refs not showing commong sense, yet when they do, the same people complain bitterly that they haven't enforeced the law to the letter.

[JC]

But there is a law that says the keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Either it should be enforced or scrapped. My point was why should a referee be able to decide whether or not to enforce that law but not others, ie use his common sense

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Dermot Gallagher was on 'The Last Word' on Sky a couple of weeks ago talking about this - basically the rule is now one that is being almost ignored but is still there in case a goalkeeper decides to hold on the the ball for a hell of a long time. Hence why you very rarely see free kicks given these days...

Quoted again for emphasis

N.B. For those of you who don't know who Dermot Gallagher is - use wikipedia.

[Pool and Darts]

Firstly, you don't have to count to six seconds. Every referee has a watch.

And, Dirk, who told you that referees are coached not to give them?
I'm a referee and have never been told not to give a free kick for a 'keeper holding on to the ball.

It is also incorrect about time wasting only applying to the winning side. Time wasting is time wasting full stop.

[RoyalBlue]

Why waste a ref's time with counting every time the 'keeper has the ball when he can just give a freekick if he's obviously taking the piss?

How does it waste the ref's time counting?

If they can't multi-task to that extent then no wonder some of them struggle to perform well!!

And as I said, regardless of whether he was looking to release the ball rather than waste time, had Taylor been forced to play the ball within the limit, rather than waiting until his pretty useless team mates got into a position to receive it, it was extremely likely that he would have conceded possession back to us.

Perhaps Cisse should have been allowed a bit more time to release the ball before Carsley challenged him!

[weybridgewanderer]

But there is a law that says the keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Either it should be enforced or scrapped. My point was why should a referee be able to decide whether or not to enforce that law but not others, ie use his common sense

If you scrapped the rule then a goalkeepr could pick the ball up in the 3rd second of a game and then just hold onto into until half time

[bcubed]

But there is a law that says the keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Either it should be enforced or scrapped. My point was why should a referee be able to decide whether or not to enforce that law but not others, ie use his common sense

If you scrapped the rule then a goalkeepr could pick the ball up in the 3rd second of a game and then just hold onto into until half time

Isn't this typical of the football authorities, which are quite happy to keep hold of a useless rule like this and rely on referees to ignore it?

I agree with JC, if there is a rule, enforce it or get rid of it and replace with something enforcable.

[SCIAG]

I only saw the ball roll after Fed re-placed it.

I think the rule about time in the keeper's control is to stop piss taking. It's set at 6 seconds to you can be certain to avoid arguments if they are dallying with it deliberately. Where there is just a genuine attempt to find an option it's stupid to penalise it. Especially when the team in question are losing.

I agree with that in principle, but surely the modern way is for the authorities to be proscriptive about such things and not to allow referees latitude to use their common sense. If that were not the case then refs would not book goalscorers who take off their shirts.

We complain about consistancy, so that needs to be a bookable offence. The reason the rule was introduced was that players were revealing slogans under their shirts in South America and the Carribbean.

[Dirk Gently]

....And, Dirk, who told you that referees are coached not to give them?
I'm a referee and have never been told not to give a free kick for a 'keeper holding on to the ball.

It is also incorrect about time wasting only applying to the winning side. Time wasting is time wasting full stop.

It was actually Keren Barrett, of PGMOL.

He was showing some ProZone examples of referees' performances in games, and he showed one where a PL ref had given a decision for a backpass, followed by a couple of minutes of pushing and shoving as he tried to get the players back onto the goal line.

Our dialogue was to the effect of :
KB : That referee was spoken to by the coaches about giving a decision which put him in a situation that was almost impossible to manage.
DG : So are you saying that no referee will ever give a back pass because of the difficulties they cause to manage?
KB : (with a grin) You draw your own conclusions .....

[Franchise FC]

We just have to accep that ALL refs are bad.

Wouldn't a more logical conclusion be that fans' expectations are unrealistic, or that fans are unable to accurately interpret the laws of the game?

Sorry to join the debate late (it's Christmas Eve and work doesn't have its normal attraction !!).

It's not the interpretation of the law that I think refs struggle with, they have more trouble with the facts. For example, apparently Jimmy the Shimmy's elbow is attached to the back of his hand.

[Franchise FC]

Don't forget that Birmingham don't like him either - last time he reffed them he sent Taylor off for that tackle on Eduardo!

Are you suggesting that Dean's decision to send Taylor off for that tackle was wrong ?

[Man Friday]

....And, Dirk, who told you that referees are coached not to give them?
I'm a referee and have never been told not to give a free kick for a 'keeper holding on to the ball.

It is also incorrect about time wasting only applying to the winning side. Time wasting is time wasting full stop.

It was actually Keren Barrett, of PGMOL.

He was showing some ProZone examples of referees' performances in games, and he showed one where a PL ref had given a decision for a backpass, followed by a couple of minutes of pushing and shoving as he tried to get the players back onto the goal line.

Our dialogue was to the effect of :
KB : That referee was spoken to by the coaches about giving a decision which put him in a situation that was almost impossible to manage.
DG : So are you saying that no referee will ever give a back pass because of the difficulties they cause to manage?
KB : (with a grin) You draw your own conclusions....[/quote]

Sums up refereeing.