Bolton were playing away in St. James' Park, the home ground for Newcastle. Bolton were leading 1-0 in the 23rd minute of the first half, when the ball went to their goalkeeper Jussi Jaaskelainen, who held it as Newcastle forward, Alan Shearer, was dodging and weaving about in front of him, presumably trying to make it difficult for the goalkeeper to distribute the ball easily and accurately. Now the law says that the goalkeeper shall be penalized with an indirect free kick if it takes more than six seconds for him to release the ball. The referee silently counted off the seconds, and when he got to "nine" he blew the whistle and gave Newcastle the free kick. Newcastle scored. Big fuss!

Was the referee right? According to the letter of the law, yes. Was he wise, and was the decision in the best interest of the game? No, most emphatically no! Let's analyze why.

The intent of that law is to prevent goalkeepers from delaying the game. When they have the ball in their hands, no other player can play it, and so a goalkeeper could unfairly delay getting rid of it so as to deny his opponents the opportunity to play. Years ago, an Italian goalkeeper, Dino Zoff, became notorious for parading about his penalty-area holding the ball near the end of any game his team were winning. Seen all over the world, his antics resulted in a succession of changes in the laws, culminating in this six-second business. So that's the purpose of the law: to prevent unfair time wasting.

But this incident was in the 23rd minute of the match; not a time when anyone would be time wasting. So how should the referee have dealt with it? He could have shouted at the goalkeeper to get rid of the ball. Or he could have shouted at Shearer to leave the 'keeper alone to distribute the ball. Then at the first opportunity he could have run by the goalkeeper and let him know very loudly (so that the other defenders or the captain could hear) what would happen the next time he paid little heed to the six seconds. Peer-pressure from the other players would undoubtedly have "encouraged" the goalkeeper to adhere strictly to the law from then on. Problem solved without disrupting the game unnecessarily!

In all the games we referee, here are some other examples where we don't need to adhere strictly to the letter of the law:

A free kick to be taken by a defender deep in his own half. Does it matter if the ball is a few yards away from the site of the infringement? No, it doesn't, so don't be fussy about it.

A player is fouled at midfield, and while on the ground puts his hand on the ball to stop it, then swings his leg to take a quick free kick. If the ball was moving slightly as he kicked it, does it matter? No, so don't hold up the action just to insist the ball be absolutely stationary.

A defender takes a throw-in twenty-five yards from his own goal line, and he takes it two yards from where it went out, only to throw it back to another defender. Should the referee insist the throw be taken from the exact spot where it went out? No, because it is a trifling matter.

Just as a ceremonial free-kick is being taken, a defender runs in to try and block it, and when the ball is struck the defender is only five yards from it. The ball goes screaming into the net as the referee blows his whistle for a caution and a retake because of encroachment. The decision may be literally correct, but ruinous for the game!

An Assistant Referee puts his flag up at a goal kick in the final minutes of a tight game. In his haste to get the game going, the defender taking the kick has placed the ball a few inches outside the goal area. Is it important? Absolutely not!

In the 86th minute, the first goal of the game is scored. At the ensuing kick-off, one of the forwards has one foot in his opponents' half, and the referee orders the kick-off retaken. Is it important? Absolutely not!

In all these incidents, the referee may have been correct according to the letter of the law, but he was neglecting what is most important about this game we play. It is deliberate cheating that we must be penalize, not harmless and slight deviations from the letter of the laws.