Sorry to drill down here, but who is "they?" It's one thing to say it's going to be strict. I want to see examples of it actually being called at 8.1 seconds to prove the actual application is strict, though. To me, the impact is simply in the the idea that the call could be made. We are now 9 games into the CWC and it hasn't been called once. Are we arguing that a goalkeeper hasn't held the ball for 9 or 10 seconds once across the first 1000+ minutes of play? Even in the USSF module, which I mock for the mechanical instruction, it explicitly teaches a cooling off or transition period where the count doesn't start on difficult saves. So in the one formal domestic instruction we have, the message is clear that you don't rigidly call the 8 seconds no matter what. And I think USSF counts as "they."
The referees who have used it and the instructors who instructed them. Naturally you have to decide when the goalkeeper has control, but once you start counting, your 3 seconds shouldn't take 5 seconds. You shouldn't count down the last 5 seconds and then take 3 additional seconds to blow your whistle. Unless I've misunderstand and your whole argument is "We can't pinpoint the exact moment the goalkeeper has possession so this rule is terrible". I think as people who are around the referee world, we can understand there's gray area. 8 seconds after a goalkeeper bobbled the ball is still 8 seconds of possession. 8 seconds after a goalkeeper easily catches a soft beachball lofted to him is still 8 seconds of possesion. I'm assuming this whole argument doesn't hinge on one situation taking 2 seconds to gain possession versus possession being almost instantaneous.
But eventually 8.1 will become 10 which will become 12, which will become 15, etc. Already today I hit the “+10 seconds” button on DAZN when the goalkeeper had the ball, and, surprise, the goalkeeper still had the ball after the cut. I agree that the referees should be trying to make it as close to 8.1 as possible to avoid this slippery slope.
My point is thus: You mentioned getting from 25 seconds to 14 seconds is a win. It is not. We (as a group of officials) have a chance to reel something in which all agree is out of hand. Heck, we even instruct referees to not bother enforcing 6 seconds. IFAB have brought this flagrant mockery of the laws to the attention of the masses. To be clear, I am not advocating calling 8.1 seconds. I am not advocating making it precise, but I am advocating not going down the path of 14 seconds is OK, because it's better than 25. Get to 5, if the keeper still has the ball, blow the whistle and deal with it. You may be right at predicting what will actually happen with the professional game, and your prediction of 11-14 secs may be accurate, but that doesn't change the philosophy of what we are discussing and sharing what I want, vs what you think will happen.
For your first match with this rule, you thinking of going with the upraised arm (like in the USSF material) or more of a basketball style horizontal motion?
But it is, in my opinion. I think unequivocally so. After player safety and combatting/preventing cheating, I'd say one of the next priorities for the guardians of the game is to ensure an enjoyable spectacle and competition for fans and participants. If this rule change is cutting goalkeeper timewasting in half (let's use 25 as the extreme waste and 12.5 as the extreme of "8 seconds") for the moment... how is that not a win? Just because it's not actually down to 8 every time? I don't get it. Eight is just a new arbitrary number that was picked. A week ago it was still six seconds. Is it a "loss" because the statuatory cap has been raised from six to eight? The point of the Laws isn't to have standards for referees to enforce for the fun of it. Who is served if we start having a bunch of corner kick restarts for marginal "timewasting" offences? How does that make the game better? Take an upcoming real world example. Next week during one of the 100F 12pm kickoffs that is 3-0 in the second half, do we really need to be rigidly enforcing the 8 seconds just because it's written in the Laws if no one is timewasting tactically and players seem to want the break? Is it a travesty if 8 suddenly becomes 10 or 11? Look, if a goalkeeper has clear possession on an easy save and the ability to distribute, yes, start the count. Eight is eight at that point. I don't think anyone will quibble and, again, I don't think you are going to see many violations ever after this fall. But if it's a difficult save, a hot day, a lopsided game, etc., making sure everyone is settled before the count begins is just common sense to me. Yes, sometimes that means 8 seconds is going to be a little longer. I really don't think that's going to be a scandal. The new rule will severely cut down on goalkeeper possession and timewasting. I don't know how that isn't a win.
Casually bringing the whistle to your mouth instead if having it right there ready to blow isn't going to make the count go from 8 to 14. Neither is holding off from blowing the whistle if the goalkeeper clearly is in the process of throwing the ball. I don't see that being all that slippery, and gets the job done with respect to keeping the game moving.
One thing to note, this is what the instructor told us when we were instructed how to use the 8-Second rule. They ran a trial in Malta, they tracked 796 occasions of the ball being held by a goalkeeper and not a single time did they exceed the “8-seconds”. 0/796. This was across 179 matches. If that’s not an effective deterrent… i mean I’m not sure what is. The English trial 160 matches, and 80 matches in Italy. One game had 2 instances. 3 other matches had one incident. 5/240. The instructor said that one game with 2 instances was supposedly the referee being overzealous. The Italian trial they had 61% of the time goalkeeper releasing within 4 seconds. i highlight that we are talking about something at the professional game that happened less than 2% of the time in the England + Italy trials. And 0% in Malta. So 1% if combine this. 5/419 matches. There’s a reason IFAB cut the trial short (normally 2 year trials) because of the overwhelming success.
I’m surprised we aren’t speaking more about the captain only rule being allowed to be picked up by competitions.
I'm planning on just holding my arm up and keeping it there while using my fingers, probably with a verbal countdown (which I think is going to be more helpful anyway, especially at younger age groups).
Based on some of the reactions that this is the worst rule ever, it creates more problems, and it's going to turn into the 20 second rule, you'd think it was never trialed at all.
Are any of this reactions actually in this thread? All three points seem like hyperbole. I see complaints about the USSF instructed mechanic (which is different than what IFAB wants) and a discussion about how it's going to actually be more than 8 seconds in practice (the highest number I personally floated was 14, though I think 10-12 is more likely). And the first example of a called violation at the CWC was >12 seconds, for what that's worth. I don't see anyone saying worst rule ever. No one saying it creates problems (aside from the mechanic discussion). And 20 seconds has never been floated. I personally said from the jump that it's a very smart rule change.
FWIW I'm like 80% of MassRefs side and 20% on SCV-Ref. I think it's a fantastic change but if we're going to be seeing 11...12...13 seconds then how long until we start to slide further. It should be like delay of game in the NFL. Ref counts down and when he hit's zero we look at the keeper. Has he started the process of releasing the ball? If so then great. If not then give the corner.
Seems to me that six seconds without visible counting is by definition more definite(!), that is less squishy, than 8 seconds with the final 5 being ticked off visibly. This is all on paper of course. If in practice we are going to allow more than 8 seconds as long as it's not egregious (whatever that means), I'm not sure (on paper) how we go about doing that. Is it slow-count to 8, is it get to 8 and then say "c'mon 'keep"? Mass Ref mentioned some cases above where 8 seconds passed, by a little, and it was no big deal. I'm a million percent there, a little "extra" possession is trivial. If how this was handled mechanically was mentioned, sorry I missed it. 6 seconds is current Law, and 6 seconds is practically a guideline. Which gets crapped all over. 8 seconds with a count is future law, with 8 being "firm" and with a count. Nobody wants it crapped all over, and the intent is to reduce the Martinez effect. All in favor. Curious how it'll go in practice is all.
Well I believe that makes it 100%. Maybe you just said it better than me, which is also 100% probable.
The real concern is when are broadcasts going to show their replays? Maybe we need more water breaks. (yes, joking).
I think it's possible some people here are not reading the CWC thread. It's worth it just to follow this exact point. So far there's been one affirmative call, which occurred somewhere after 12 seconds of possession. I've also noted one instance of 11 seconds of possession that did not get called. I don't think there have been any other close calls observed, which would seem to suggest the rule is having its intended effect. Oh, and one referee (Nyberg) used the mechanic on goal kicks. Which is technically wrong, of course. But nonetheless perhaps effective toward justifying a yellow card, if necessary?
Maybe. It’s more complicated though because at what point should a count start… probably once the ball is placed and ready for restart, correct? So then goalkeepers could just do their time wasting by not getting the ball. The new rule will work because—aside from fudging the beginning on when a goalkeeper is ready to distribute—you have a pretty clear starting point. That’s not the case on a goal kick. Also formalizing goal kicks would raise the question of why other restarts aren’t subject to a strict count. And now you’re really changing the game.
Completely agree, especially for youth games. The GK will most likely NOT be looking at you (certainly not until they get used to the rules), so the call out is just as much a reminder to them to get the game going again. Very good point.
Maybe that is what the game is going to move towards though. Maybe they will do this with goal kicks. And then corner kicks. Then free kicks. Then throw ins. And maybe the ultimate result will be moving to a 30 minute descending time half where the clock stops for every ball out of play instead of a 45 minute running clock half. With how every sport has been completely obliterated by stoppages and advertisements, I’m sure FIFA is eventually going to want that from soccer with game stoppages
Maybe. Because if they do all that without reducing the time from 90 to 60 minutes, players will revolt. I tend to think this is not what fans and players want, though. For all the talk in various places about the scourge of timewasting, ultimately the game is popular due in large part to the way it flows generally. And I don't think anyone wants a sport where referees could be making possession-changing calls for time violations on like 50+ restarts per game (including referees). Don't fix what really isn't broken and all that. I'm all for getting average effective playing time up to a good spot. But recent history has shown that current tools and simple law changes or competition instructions can do that. You don't need to completely remake the sport.