Has a keeper ever had a second yellow for timewasting?

Whilst we're having a whinge about today's officiating. (Usual clarification applies - he was equally bad for both sides and even sending off one of their players would probably not have got us a win)

But...

Some of the late second half tackles from PNE players should have received yellow cards. From where I was sat in the SW it appeared to me that he was bottling sending off players for second yellows. I can't be sure if that was true but he certainly let some poor challenges go unpunished.
 
Muttley said:
Whilst we're having a whinge about today's officiating. (Usual clarification applies - he was equally bad for both sides and even sending off one of their players would probably not have got us a win)

But...

Some of the late second half tackles from PNE players should have received yellow cards. From where I was sat in the SW it appeared to me that he was bottling sending off players for second yellows. I can't be sure if that was true but he certainly let some poor challenges go unpunished.
Click to expand...
Preston fans thought the ref was awful too.

Looked very young to me, possibly younger than some of the players. Think he may have been better gaining some more experience
 
TeaCider said:
I don't think it's happened in England though.

It should have in many games.

I do find it funny that people were adamant that the ref had no choice to send off Declan Rice for gently kicking away a ball when referees constantly ignore blatant time-wasting in matches up and down the country.
Click to expand...
Some merit in that comment BUT specifically kicking the ball away to prevent a restart is mentioned expressly as a yellow card offence. So you are a bit of a d*ckhead if you do it. Whereas time wasting is obviously a matter of degree and opinion. It is a farce what referees allow goalkeepers to do, but it’s still always opinion not fact.
 
atypical_boro said:
Well sending keepers off more would soon put a stop to it.

Remember when players kept getting sent off for removing their shirts?
Click to expand...
Again though, that is because removing your shirt is a yellow card offence, and it is a fairly easy thing not to do. It’s not a matter of degree. The rules are clear. If you fully bare your chest, you get a yellow card.

Time wasting is a matter of degree and opinion. The referee was poor today on time wasting in my opinion. But that doesn’t excuse halfwits who remove their shirts.
 
The same happened with Portsmouth. My son was asking me why hasn’t he been sent off and I told him they never send keepers off for repeated time wasting.
 
When a keeper goes does ‘injured’, there should be a rule that the rest of the team aren’t allowed to go over and get into a huddle with the coaching staff.

Was plain as day what happened today, they were under the cosh and the keeper going down gave them a chance to regroup, the coaches to pass on instructions etc.
 
I'll repeat what I said on another thread - this ref was the lino who wrongly ruled out Ayala's goal at Birmingham. The man is incapable of doing his job properly.
 
If a goalkeeper time wastes it shoukd be an immediate indirect freekick to the opposition.
 
h_m_boro said:
It's an easy one.

Keeper gets booked for time wasting. Does it again, ref calls keeper and captain over and tells them next time he's off.

Does it again, bang, second yellow. Where's the issue with this?
Click to expand...
Or, even better, if he does it once, book him. If he does it again, book him.
 
The Card Cheat said:
Or ... indirect free kick from where the keeper was time wasting from. I think that would be more of a deterrent.
Click to expand...
This used to be the law up till 1997. I agree it would be a good thing to re-introduce it.

Before the "great rewrite" of 1997, the law said that a goalkeeper who, "indulges in tactics, which in the opinion of the referee, are designed to hold up the game and thus waste time and so give an unfair advantage to his own team, shall be penalised by the award of an indirect free−kick to be taken by the opposing side from the place where the infringement occurred ..."

There was also a separate clause that said specifically that if a goalkeeper lies on the ball for too long, that was an indirect free kick offence as well (along with a caution).
 
Last edited:
TheYorkshireTerrier said:
When a keeper goes does ‘injured’, there should be a rule that the rest of the team aren’t allowed to go over and get into a huddle with the coaching staff.
Click to expand...
Indeed. This happens at every level these days. Or you change the law so that the 'keeper is treated the same as any other and has to go off the field if they have required attention on it.

And while we are on this, when did the law change back so that substituted players can take the longest route off the field instead of having to to take the shortest, like it was for about ten minutes?
 
Craggsy2 said:
The same happened with Portsmouth. My son was asking me why hasn’t he been sent off and I told him they never send keepers off for repeated time wasting.
Click to expand...
That was the closest I have seen to a keeper being sent off. The ref called his captain over and I imagine told the both of them he was on the edge of the line.

Woodman yesterday with about 30 minutes to go collected the ball unchallenged and went down and the trainer came on it was just almost like a pantomime.

No doubt we will do it when the shoe is on the other foot. It does need to be stopped and ultimately no doubt there will be at sometime a referee directive made that is followed for about 5 games and then ignored.
 
We don
Liamo said:
This used to be the law up till 1997. I agree it would be a good thing to re-introduce it.

Before the "great rewrite" of 1997, the law said that a goalkeeper who, "indulges in tactics, which in the opinion of the referee, are designed to hold up the game and thus waste time and so give an unfair advantage to his own team, shall be penalised by the award of an indirect free−kick to be taken by the opposing side from the place where the infringement occurred ..."

There was also a separate clause that said specifically that if a goalkeeper lies on the ball for too long, that was an indirect free kick offence as well (along with a caution).
Click to expand...

We really don’t need a new ‘law’
It’s usually the same in football - there are enough laws (verbal abuse etc) they just don’t get implemented consistently by the refs.

This is what the rules say - its clear

‘Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should result in two cautions’
 
1finny said:
We really don’t need a new ‘law’
It’s usually the same in football - there are enough laws (verbal abuse etc) they just don’t get implemented consistently by the refs.

This is what the rules say - its clear

‘Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should result in two cautions’
Click to expand...
But it wouldn't be a new law - it would be an old law, reinstated and it would be giving an indirect free kick for the time wasting, not a caution. Which, since it would be a more 'palatable' decision, would mean it would actually stand a chance of being given, whereas a second caution for time wasting by a goalkeeper just never is (as several people have already pointed out).
 
Liamo said:
But it wouldn't be a new law - it would be an old law, reinstated and it would be giving an indirect free kick for the time wasting, not a caution. Which, since it would be a more 'palatable' decision, would mean it would actually stand a chance of being given, whereas a second caution for time wasting by a goalkeeper just never is (as several people have already pointed out).
Click to expand...

Fair enough - just pointing out there are laws in place which, if used, will stamp it out,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top