Except you're comparing a situation where a referee can just add time vs a clock counting down in a playoff game.
Time can be added for time lost. Time when the GK is holding the ball is not time lost--the ball is in play.
While you are normally on point your legal interpretation of this is just wrong in my opinion. I'm not sure what's confusing about "any other cause" to you, but I can add time for anything I damn well please, including a GK holding a ball longer than 6 seconds.
You're the ref. You can justify adding time for damn near anything. However, does it make sense to add time for the GK holding the ball for 20 seconds when there is an actual offense in the LOTG for such thing? That question is mostly rhetorical of course since it's become an accepted part of the game for the keeper to hold the ball for 12 to 15 seconds each time they gain possession of the ball.
You can, of course, do anything you want, as you are the referee and there is no way to challenge what the referee decides on this. But Law 7 does't say the referee can add time for "any other cause." It says that "Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all time lost in that half through: . . . any other cause, including any significant delay to a restart (e.g. goal celebrations)." Time is lost when the ball is not in play, not while the ball is in play. When the goalkeeper is holding the ball, the goalkeeper is using time. If the GK holds the ball too long while it is in play, the Laws provide a remedy. But I continue to believe that the R has no more authority to add time for a GK hold the ball too long than if the GK leaves the ball at his feet before picking it up, an attacker dribbles to the corner flag to try to use up time, or a defender passes the ball way back to the GK in the waning minutes just to use time.
Michael Oliver absolutely nailed the Hazard penalty call on all fronts. DOGSO yellow since there was a legitimate play on the ball in the area. He is so good.
The Young handling appeal shows that English referees just haven’t had the same sort of training with VR as everyone else. That’s a penalty in the VAR age. That would be given in all competitions that have used VARs for the past year. The fact that it wasn’t here shows, yet again, the likely inconsistencies we have ahead of ourselves for Russia. Also, not giving that is going to make Oliver’s life miserable if he has to give a penalty at the other end now.
Barring any major howlers, I have to think the stars are aligning for Geiger and crew to have a very meaningful World Cup knockout game. Kuipers as well. VAR is going to be a circus except for the crews that have used it extensively.
You’re serious? My God. Just take a look at Jones’ reaction. He knows he’s committed the foul. This conclusion is insane.
Jones got nothing but legs, only reason he didn’t get a red was because he was attempting to play the ball. Absolutely spot on from Oliver.
I may have a concussion. I banged my head on the desk after seeing how many fans couldn't understand why it was not red card to Jones.
Tough not to give them a pass. I had a Grandfather come up to me at the end of the match today and asked me about something that had to have been changed 30 years ago,
As I read this I just had a thought. If mark or björn are officiating are they going to mix and match officials as VAR. so potentially they have the whistle and other VARs are sending them info. Or are you implying that Geiger and Kuipers could have very high VAR assignments?
This has to either be a troll job or a dyed in the wool United fan. That was an easy penalty. No ball at all, all legs. I cannot believe anyone would even attempt to dispute that call.
I’m saying Kuipers and Geiger each get one of the last three matches if they stay clean. As MassRef said, VAR is going to be roulette. They will want people who know how VAR really works in the last three matches. I’m assuming Germany makes a semi, so I think it’s totally reasonable to see Geiger get a semi and Kuipers the final.
I can agree with that.. I see geiger going far in the VAR role, and same with Makellie too. I have a friend doing VAR in MLS and he is telling me the Erevidese is way ahead of MLS when it comes to VAR.
Mark Clattenburg gives an interview before joining the ITV panel for this year's World Cup --- Clattenburg told one story that night which he repeated to Sportsmail. It hints at one of the reasons why this country’s top official was ready to walk away: his personality clash with referees’ chief Mike Riley and his governing body, the PGMOL. ‘We were away in a hotel and I was Mike’s fourth official,’ says Clattenburg. ‘We came back after lunch and his speakers were missing from his bag. He came banging on my door: “Where’s my speakers?”. I told him: “I haven’t got them.” ‘We went to the game and I was off checking the team colours. When I came back my bag was all over the place in the dressing room, and he’d thrown everything out looking for those bloody speakers. ‘I wasn’t happy. I said: “If you don’t put my clothes back in my bag I’ll f****** clip you”. That’s perhaps why he doesn’t like me!’ --- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ions-challenging-Lallana-dealing-Bellamy.html
I'd guess 5 to 8%. I think Geiger and Irmatov (*insert MassRef rolling eyes here*) are the two non-UEFA/CONMEBOL refs who have a legitimate chance at the final. I don't know the South American referees very well but there's always two or three that FIFA like enough to give the final too. Europe has the typical five or more who could get the final. I think Geiger is going to need three or four fantastic matches to have a chance of the final. However, he could be the favorite (or close to the favorite) to get the VAR spot in the final. Also, don't forget we have the World Cup Referee forum now. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forums/world-cup-2018-refereeing.1665/