Question Number: 34249

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/19/2021

RE: Amateur Adult

Graham Durbin of Derby, UK asks...

Why is the law which states that an indirect free kick should be awarded if the goalkeeper controls the ball for more than 6 seconds with his hands universally ignored?
Pickford clearly held the ball for 25 seconds in England's recent match v.Croatia. How does it happen that every ref. ignored this offence? It can only happen with the agreement of the whole hierarchy of football, right to the very top. So why is does law still still exist?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Graham

,As you have adroitly pointed out often 6 seconds is a loosely defined timespan. It kind of reminds me of the stepping off the line at PKs everyone did so but no one really thought about enforcing it unless it became ridiculous. Well in my opinion 25 seconds of a keeper standing around in the PA holding the ball is certainly in the ridiculous category.

The 6 seconds is a relative term we generally allow a keeper additional time to regain their composure pick themselves up & dust themselves off after a save if they were hurt or winded. . We also usually warn a keeper if they get too complacent simply because awarding a goal-scoring opportunity out of essentially nothing is a bit disconcerting. So too if the opposition is being a fly buzzing about just kinda of pushing that interfering envelope that in theory they are not supposed to do but try to goad a keeper into kicking the ball at them. I have seen keepers frustrated at their players for not seeking outlet pass opportunities where you can see them searching for someone to release the ball to where possession might be kept rather than a free for all punt into the air!

Keeper handling issues were altered significantly when they could no longer accept deliberate kicks from teammates to pick up the ball with their hands. The idea of wasting playing time was behind the concept. The 6 seconds took the place of the 4 steps and it was thought given the players were not permitted to interfere with the keeper's release this was sufficient time to look about and decide what to do about releasing the ball back into play. Personally, if I sense a keeper is unaware of being a tool I might warn hurry it up sport, you really want to gift them a scoring opportunity because you cannot count to six or keep track of time??

Have a look here

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/sports/olympics/referees-call-in-womens-soccer-semifinal-prompts-debate.html

https://youtu.be/-5zQPBnhzUQ

cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Graham
You correctly point out that this Law is not strictly enforced as per the letter of the Law. In games both teams goalkeepers will be guilty of breaching the 6 seconds to some degree or another
When the law was amended the law makers put in 6 seconds as a time that was sufficient to allow goalkeepers put the ball back into play. Over the years this 6 seconds got to be very loosely enforced to a point now where it is not now sanctioned as an IDFK and only used by the opponents to put pressure on the goalkeeper with say shouting at the goalkeeper and referee for a release.
Some years ago I looked at a few games with a stop watch and the time varied from 1 to 2 seconds right up to 15. Rarely did it go beyond that.

In the situation mentioned by Referee Dawson the referee spoke to the Canadian goalkeeper about her tardiness in putting the ball back into play. The warning went unheeded and from the resultant IDFK the US got awarded a penalty kick for handling. The referee took a huge amount of abuse about the decision and it ended her international career. I would say many top referees took that as a signal that the authorities do not want the law enforced strictly hence some of the absurd timing such as the Pickford one. Sometimes referees restart the time allowed when the opponents interfere with the goalkeeper and rather than award an IDFK just allow advantage with a restart of the timing.