Thoughts on Time-Wasting
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
I think there is a need to include Time-Wasting into the rulebook.
Time-wasting occurs when a team deliberately delays the game, especially when narrowly leading towards the end of a match. Typical examples include:
– excessive delay in taking a free shot,
– slowly returning to the own half after scoring a goal,
– deliberately slow restart after conceding a goal.
To assess potential time-wasting, referees may compare the pace of play to earlier phases of the game. As long as the ball remains in play and is generally playable, no time-wasting shall be called.
Referees may issue a warning or a time penalty in case of time-wasting. Since time-wasting often occurs in the final minutes of a match, referees are encouraged to intervene early—e.g., by stopping the game clock when clear delaying tactics are observed.
If a time penalty is issued, it may be:
– applied to a clearly identifiable individual or
– issued to the team as a whole. In that case, the team must choose which four players will continue play during the penalty period.
Comment
I generally agree with everything you wrote.
In the current rulebook, we already have a few rules that address "delay of the game" (see further down). Do you feel we need to specify what should be considered a delay of the game or what is your point?
14B.8.1 General Considerations:
Intentional delay of the game is not permitted and may result in a penalty and the stoppage of time.
14B.9.1 Free Shot:
In the instance that a delay of game penalty is given, the penalty will be taken from the center mark.
14B.9.5 Penalty Box:
listed under "2 minutes": intentional delay of game
Comment
All examples are correct and "we already have a few rules that address "delay of the game".
- " excessive delay in taking a free shot" > easy to identify the individual, the player at or next to the ball
- "deliberately slow restart after conceding a goal" > easy to identify the individual, the player at or next to the ball
- "slowly returning to the own half after scoring a goal" > not so easy to identify a individual, as referree I would punish the player most away from center line.
"Penalty to the team as a whole." This would start a new kind of penalties, probably for small groups up to full teams (would also punish players not involved)
"In that case, the team must choose which four players will continue play during the penalty period." This will not delay the effectiv play time but of course the time to play the game. What should be the time given the team has to decid which 4 players will continue and what is the tactic for the next 2 min?
Referees may issue an early warning if time-wasting will happen and if no quick reaction by the team referree should stop game asap. But this is an issue of good referring not of ruling.
Comment
I agree with many of the points raised by Nicolai and Herbie – especially regarding the rules that already address delays in the game. I also view it critically to issue team penalties where the team has to select a player arbitrarily. In my opinion, a penalty should be as targeted as possible and directly affect the player who is actually responsible for the delay.
Of course, it’s understandable that a team with a narrow lead may try to slow down the pace of the game towards the end, while the team that is behind tends to speed things up. That’s why I find it challenging to objectively assess when something becomes “intentional time-wasting.” This requires a lot of judgment and sensitivity from the referees.
In practice, I also observe that referees sometimes delay the restart after a goal, especially when a team is slow to return to its half or does not immediately appear ready to play. While this is understandable, it can lead to uncertainty for the team in possession of the ball, which might feel forced to hold back or even cancel an attacking move because they are used to a certain rhythm between a goal and the restart. This sometimes results in even more time being lost, for example when teams have to be called back to their own half before the game can resume.
In my view, it is important that the time between a goal and the restart is not unnecessarily long, while also avoiding overly strict expectations toward the teams.
Comment
14B.8.12 Intentional Delay Of Game
A delay of game foul shall be called when a team intentionally delays the restart of play. Examples include deliberately hitting the ball out of bounds, taking excessive time to execute a free shot, slowly returning to their own half after scoring a goal, or deliberately delaying the restart after conceding a goal.
Comment
Sounds good to me.
Comment
If people support removing the line about intentional delay of game and stoppag of time from general considerations and adding it instead to the intentional delay of game then I will submit a proposal
New
14B.8 Fouls
14B.8.1 General Considerations
All players must take care not to endanger others...Intentional delay of the game is not permitted and may result in a penalty and the stoppage of time. …
14B.8.12 Intentional Delay Of Game
Intentional delay of the game shall result in a penalty and may also lead to a stoppage of time. A delay of game foul shall be called when a team intentionally delays the restart of play. Examples include deliberately hitting the ball out of bounds, taking excessive time to execute a free shot, slowly returning to their own half after scoring a goal, or deliberately delaying the restart after conceding a goal.
Comment
Sounds good to me but how will you execute this penalties? As a free shot at the center point or at the point where the delaying player is...?
Comment
We had this wording also
New
14B.9.1 Free Shot
The free shot is the standard penalty for all violations of the rules. It is applied in all
cases except for those explicitly mentioned in sections 14B.9.2-14B.9.4. The free shot is
executed from the point where the violation was done. Exceptions: If a team receives a
free shot within the opponents' goal area, the free shot is executed at the closest corner
mark (corner shot). If a team receives a free shot within their own goal area, the free
shot is taken at a distance of 2 m in front of the goal line (goalkeeper's ball).
If a delay of game penalty is awarded, the continuation of the game depends on the previous situation.
– If the delay of game occurs during the execution of a free shot, the opposing team will receive a free shot.
– If the delay of game is caused by the scoring team, play will resume as normal with a restart after the goal.
- If the delay of game is caused by the non-scoring team, play will continue with a free shot from the centre mark.
...
The only issue I have is with the wording of
– If the delay of game is caused by the scoring team, play will resume as normal with a restart after the goal.
I think it is better for the team who was scored against to be able to play a normal restart rather than have to take a free shot from the centremark. But not sure if the wording makes it confusing that a penalty was not actually given. Technically you want the penalty to still be awarded as multiple penalties can lead to send offs.
Comment
I generally think the direction this discussion has taken is very good. However, I’m not sure whether deliberately hitting the ball out of bounds should really be considered time-wasting and thus warrant a 2-minute penalty.
At the B-Championship 2024 in Germany, we had a situation where a time penalty was given for deliberately shooting the ball out of bounds. In hindsight, this decision was heavily debated within the league. Both the referee involved in that situation and the committee of referee examiners have since spoken out against such an action being worthy of a time penalty.
A good referee has a replacement ball ready, puts it down quickly, and the opposing team gets possession. With good referees, there shouldn’t be a significant time-wasting effect in such cases. I agree with this position and am therefore considering voting against the proposal for exactly this reason – even though I generally support it (beside this aspect).
Comment
Malte: A good referee has a replacement ball ready, puts it down quickly, and the opposing team gets possession.
The ball must be placed where it went out. So a referee having a ball handy is only helpful if the ball goes out near the referees. A team could purposely hit it as far from the referees as possible repeatedly. On a 50x25m court the referee could be 25 meters away from where the ball goes out. The referees are on opposite sides of the field but that does not mean they are covering the entire field.
The team who hit the ball out then has a 4 on 3 player advantage to try and regain the ball from the free shot. They could recover the ball and do it again.
A team could make it their tactic to protect a lead by repeatedly hitting the ball out as far away from the referee as possible. I can't see how a referee having a ball handy means the referee can repeatedly cover 25 meters of court to place balls.
UNICON in Bermidji was about 53 m x 25 m, Spain was probably >60m x 25m
Comment
@Malte: If you‘re still not convinced: How should we proceed? Would rephrasing to
repeatedly and deliberately hitting the ball out of bounds, …
work with you? Or would you still vote against that? If so, we could split the current proposal into a general clarification and definition of delay of game and another smaller one about hitting the ball out of bounds. I think it would be a pity if the clarification fails because some people don‘t like a small aspect of it.