Offside — U-10 Version

Esther, a U-12 and under fan, asks:

I was watching a U10 game.  R9, a Red forward, had been hanging out offsides. The ball got kicked up the field towards the goal Red was attacking and it passed R9. He ran after it and kicked it. The ref called him offsides. My question is this: was he offsides because he was offsides before the ball passed him or was he onsides because he didn’t touch the ball until after it passed him? Note: the other team’s defenders weren’t involved–they weren’t even on their side of the field!

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

We are sighing (metaphorically) as we face once again a question regarding Law 11 (Offside) which we can’t really answer because crucial information is missing.  Why is this so?  It’s not because someone is deliberately withholding it but, rather, because (we’re guessing here but guessing based on a lot of experience) so many people don’t know what “offsides” is and therefore don’t know what the Referee has to know in order to make the correct call.

Pardon us if we vent just a little bit more.  There is no such thing as “offside” — indeed, there is no way using proper English that the word “offsides” would ever be correct.  Moreover, in the offered scenario above, the word (plus it’s kissing cousin, “onsides”)  was used five times and in each case it is arguable as to which of the two standard meanings was intended.  So, let’s start:

  • Offside Principle #1: There is no such thing as “offside” unless the word is paired with one of two other words — position or violation.
  • Offside Principle #2: An “offside position” is a condition an attacker acquires by being in a certain place at a certain time.
  • Offside Principle #3: An “offside offense” is a violation of the Law and, in most cases, is punished by stopping play and giving the opposing team an indirect free kick.
  • Offside Principle #4: Every offside offense requires being in an offside position but being in an offside position is not by itself an offense.  In logic, this is can be stated as “An offside position is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an offside offense.”

One more thing before we move on to the substance of the question.  Most U-10 recreational soccer teams (boys or girls) use what are called “small-sided” soccer rules rather than the “full blown” Laws of the Game and these “small sided” rules were set up years ago by the US Youth Soccer organization affiliated with US Soccer.  Those rules do not include Law 11.  In brief, therefore, we were confused right at the very start when the scenario implicitly declared they were two U-10 teams which were apparently using “offside” in their game.  Certainly, this is possible because many local organizations have their own special local rules that don’t always follow what the national or state soccer organizations say they should.  Given this is is apparently the case here, it becomes impossible to guess what those rules may be since, technically, they shouldn’t be there at all.

Accordingly, the only thing we can do is to discuss the scenario as though the teams involved were using Law 11 exactly, without any special local rules.

R9 had every right to be where he was (although it must be noted that Law 11 was intended to be a specific deterrent to “hanging out offsides”) — which we are going to translate as “offside position” because that is the only meaning it could have at this point.  This makes the further assumption that the designation of “offside position” was used in the meaning of Law 11 that R9 was past the midfield line, passed the ball, and past the second-to-last defender while one or more of his teammates had possession of the ball.  We assume that, when the ball was kicked “up the field,” it was kicked by a teammate of R9.  When R9 “ran after it and kicked it,” he committed an offside offense (becoming involved in active play by interfering with play — kicking the ball — while in an offside position.  He was, therefore, correctly and appropriately called for this offside offense.

R9’s offside position was created the moment his teammate kicked the ball while he occupied the position we described above.  He kept the offside position through anything and everything that happened between the time his teammate kicked the ball until he committed the offside offense … which is when play was stopped by the referee’s correct decision. No other issues were involved.  A9 could have not run after the ball and, though still in an offside position, would not have committed an offside offense.  A9 could even have started running after the ball and still not have committed an offside offense so long as he did not touch the ball or interfere with an opponent.

KFTM – New Law Changes

Voja, an adult pro referee, asks:

During penalty kicks to determine the outcome of the match KFTM), the kicker feints illegally while taking the kick. The referee sees the infringement and cautions the player. Does the player retake the kick or does it count as a missed shot?

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

As of the most recent Law changes (2017/2018), Law 10’s section on the taking of KFTM was modified in several ways.  One was to declare that a kicker who commits an offense between the Referee’s signal and the ball being put into play is cautioned and (here is the new part) the kick is forfeited (recorded as missed).

Note that this differentiates a KFTM with a “regular” penalty kick.  Under Law 14, an offense by the kicker or any teammate is not punished until the kick is completed and the result noted because that result (with two exceptions) determines the action to take — an indirect free kick if a goal was not scored or a retake of the penalty kick if the ball went into the net.  First, there is only the kicker to consider because, for KFTM purposes, the teammates don’t count.  Second, the result doesn’t matter because the kick is recorded as unsuccessful no matter what the outcome was.  However, for both a regular penalty kick and a KFTM, a kicker’s offense must always be cautioned (for unsporting behavior).

Although this was not part of the scenario prompting this answer, everyone would probably be better off knowing now that new text was also added this year to deal with other, similar offense scenarios.  For example, a goalkeeper who commits an offense and the kick needs to be retaken because the shot was missed or saved is cautioned, but not if the goal was scored.   If both the kicker and the goalkeeper each commit an offense at the same time and the shot was missed or saved, both are cautioned and the kick is retaken.  However, if the goal was scored then only the kicker is cautioned and the goal disallowed (recorded as missed).

Have fun figuring all this out.  We recommend strongly writing these three scenarios down, plus their consequences (card or not, score or not, goal disallowed or not), and reviewing it quickly should the officiating team be facing a KFTM procedure.

Rules of Competition

Mike, a U-12 and under coach, asks:

My son’s U12  team recently won a game 4-3 but scored a goal on a PK which was awarded in error when the opposing GK touched the ball outside the penalty area. It should’ve been a free kick, but the ref awarded my son’s team a PK. The PK was converted and we won 4-3. The next day we received an email from the opposing coach who said he was protesting the game as the ref told him AFTER the game he had awarded the PK in error. The game was over-turned and the game is going to be replayed. Is this correct?

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

Yes, probably, on both counts.  First, the referee clearly “set aside a law of the game” which is the official reason for a protest.  It doesn’t require any admission by the Referee that he or she made a mistake to file a protest, merely a recitation of the facts of the case.

Second, it is entirely up to the rules of competition under which your game was played whether a protest would be considered at all.  Most tournaments don’t but, for regular season games, the local league probably does but usually only for an issue which clearly involves a rule of law.  Usually this means that issues which are based solely on judgment, no matter how wrong they might be, are allowed to be protested.  In this case, for example, deciding if an offense occurred inside or outside the penalty area is a judgment call, but deciding that stopping play for an offense occurring outside the penalty area could be restarted with a PK is governed solely by the Laws of the Game.

Third, once a protest is allowed and decided, again the local rules of competition determine what the person or body of persons who made the decision can do about it.  This could certainly (and often does) include ordering that the game be replayed in its entirety.   The close score could be a factor but often this solution is taken no matter what the score was … on the theory that a wrongfully given PK-which-converted could affect the playing dynamics for the rest of whatever time remained in the match and, literally anything could have happened.  But the decision could also have been to replay the game from the point of the erroneous decision but using the correct restart.

In brief, what you described would not be an unusual decision, but everything depends on the local rules of competition.  This is not something that is determined by some single rule or law that covers the entire country.  We wonder, however, whether either team sought to bring the mistake to the Referee’s attention or whether either of the assistant referees saw the location of the foul and, as would be their duty, sought to prevent the Referee from compounding the error.  Given that a PK is the most ceremonial of all restarts, there certainly would have been time and opportunity to do so.  Just wondering.

Respecting the Distance …

Mike, a U13 – U19 parent, asks:

During a recent match, a foul was committed just outside the penalty box. Our boys were positioned too close to the ball and as the ref was directing the boys away from the ball (was talking to them), the opposing kicker shot the ball and scored. The goal was allowed. What’s the ruling on this?

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

Rather than a “ruling,” we prefer to think of what we do here is provide advice, explore options, and explain opportunities.  If you must have a ruling, it is this: we don’t have enough information.  Sounds a bit like a cop-out but that’s the case here.  The crucial missing information has to do with what, if anything, the Referee said/did just prior to “was directing the boys away from the ball.”

What the Referee should have done is let the kick occur with no intervention unless specifically asked by the apparent kicker for assistance in enforcing the required distance and, then, upon being so asked, the Referee’s next action should have been to clearly state by word and gesture that the kick was not to be taken except by her whistle.  If the Referee had such a request, the rest follows: “directing the boys away from the ball” was entirely appropriate, the “opposing kicker shot the ball” was not (with the resulting goal not counted), and the kick must be retaken but only upon the whistle signal.

If the Referee was not asked to enforce the minimum distance, then there was no restriction to prevent the attacking team from taking the kick as and when they wished (presuming no unfair delay) and the goal would count.  The Referee’s “directing the boys away” and “talking to them” was faulty mechanics for which the Referee would properly be criticized if this match were being evaluated by a mentor or an assessor (such interference without a reason is unnecessarily distracting to the defense at minimum).  While we frequently say (incorrectly, it turns out) that the opponents against whom a foul has just been called “have no rights,” being distracted by the referee when the kick could be taken at any moment is unfair.  Indeed, it would not be unreasonable for the Referee’s conversation to be thought an indication that the kick could not yet be taken.   “Surprise!” or “My bad!” is a poor apology.  Let us hope that the misguided Referee did not compound the errors by calling the goal back.

Because your scenario does not explicitly mention that the proper procedure was followed, we must assume there was no request to enforce the minimum distance and therefore no need for the attacking team to do anything other than exactly what they did — take a quick kick while the Referee was drawing the attention of their opponents away.  The resulting goal, though valid, must be chalked up at least in part to the improper intervention by the Referee.  Note that we are assuming the game where this scenario occurred was in fact somewhere in the U13 – U19 age group — slightly different procedures might be followed for younger players.

Update on “Apology”

A follow-up note to askasoccerreferee readers:  If this is the first time you have visited the website, you should find an earlier message I posted (titled “Apology” on July 5) which explains the not-so-little problem the site  and I began having as of April 17 of this year.  In brief, all queries sent via the question form after 4/17/17 and continuing until roughly July 5 disappeared into some sort of internet alternate universe — the only thing I can state with assurance is that they weren’t coming to me and, thus, not getting answered.  Our Awesome Webmaster Chris was able to recover what appear to be all the missing messages and delivered them to me in spreadsheet format.

At first, it seemed that there were some 90 of them (!!!).   A closer inspection determined that some not insignificant percent of them were messages without content and thus unanswerable.  A smaller percent were re-sent messages (i.e., duplicates) from people who wanted to make sure we got the original (which we didn’t … and didn’t get the re-sent copy either).  All this whittled the unique answerable messages down to about 60 — still a large number.  Some I answered privately as that seemed not only quicker but also more in keeping with the subject matter.  As of today (July 16), I have worked my way through and publicly posted more than 30 from the original batch, plus 5 that came in since July 5,  and have roughly 20 to go.

We will get there and thanks for your patience. 

Resources on the Laws of the Game

Rob, an adult amateur referee, asks:

Good day
Where can one obtain a copy of the basic interpretations of the new changes to the Laws of the Game, from a layman point of view as we are have conflicting different opinions with regards to these among some of my colleagues. Whilst we are understanding that the interpretation differs from country to country, the principles all still remain the same.

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

As you can appreciate (particularly after reading the “dos and don’ts” for this website at the “About” tab), we are concerned almost exclusively with the official Laws of the Game as updated annually by (now) the International Football Association Board (IFAB, or simply the Board) and implemented in matches affiliated with and/or sanctioned by US Soccer and its affiliates.  This is quite a plateful as it is without bringing in games and officiating elsewhere in the world (or even competing soccer organizations in the US).  It is not surprising that there are more countries in FIFA than there are in the United Nations.  It also means that, while we maintain associations and contacts with individuals in different parts of the world, we would be overwhelmed if we needed to know about any of them even a fraction of what we have to keep up with for this website.

So, sadly, we cannot assist you in your laudable quest to find reliable sources of information, interpretation, and good advice wherever you happen to be (our guess at the moment is Australia based on the “g’day” thing or at least a British Commonwealth country based on the “whilst” thing).  Without trying to beat our own drum, however, you and your referee mates are always free to submit any question to us here — much as you have already done and it’s so easy — and know that we will do our best to clarify and possibly resolve any differences of opinion based on our own reading of the materials available to us — not officially approved and not necessarily universally accepted (we have heard in our travels in Europe, for example, many very strange interpretations that the reporters thereof absolutely swear are common knowledge in their country).

We tell our own referees here that you should start with those who instructed you, or who provide your in-service training and refresher courses, or the local, regional, or national organizing body who pay you or who punish you for mistakes, etc.  And if you don’t understand the explanation at one level, bump it upstairs to the bigwigs.  By the way, we hear through the grapevine that the Board does not look kindly these days at national associations which attempt to produce separate publications purporting to explain the Laws of the Game as they apparently feel that their language has become so clear that there should not be any mysteries.  If that were truly the case, would close up tomorrow.

Helpful(?) Dissent

Roy, a U12 – U19 referee, asks:

An attacking player, feeling he was fouled, expressed his frustration with me (the referee of this U19 game) by talking with his fellow players – “he’s not calling anything.”
Does this rise to the level of dissent? This was a player already on a yellow card and someone with whom I had been talking all game long about not complaining to me about calls or non-calls.

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

OK, please don’t take this the wrong way but, you care about this why?  What is it about what was going on that you would feel justified in pulling a yellow card for dissent and then, perforce, showing a red card because the yellow card you just showed was the player’s second one of the game?  We are not asking these questions as an indication that we are about to tell you that you are all wrong about this and you should just “man up” about it.

Dissent is misconduct for a reason.  Publishing (i.e., making public) negative, argumentative, abrasive, disrespectful, derogatory, etc. comments directed at an official (Referee and/or ARs) is an insult to the game and to its long history of “gentlemanly” conduct upon which its Laws are based.  In the match, dissent which continues becomes insidiously pervasive to the detriment of the sort of communal trust which makes the sport enjoyable for its participants (including the members of the officiating team).  We think there should be and probably is widespread agreement regarding this.  And yet … there it is.

Sometimes you can see (and hear) it coming.  It may build slowly and incrementally until it crosses the line and becomes like the roaring sound of an approaching tornado.  Sometimes it just jumps out at you, full-blown, unexpected, and caustic enough to strip skin on first touch.  Are these inevitable end-points?  Only if left untouched or undiverted.  Rarely does dissent cease of its own volition because the very essence of dissent is “try war, not diplomacy.”

Was the player’s comment “he’s not calling anything” dissent?  Who’s the “he”?  You?  Did you automatically assume the “he” is you because of your history during the game of talking to him about his expressed unhappiness regarding your decisions?  Do you think the player expressing this opinion now to his teammates is an escalation of the situation?  Senior referees should already have been exposed to the “3 P” philosophy about dissent — the need to deal with dissent grows according to the degree to which it is or is becoming Personal, Public, and Provocative.

  • Personal – directed at an official by eye contact, by name, by nearness
  • Public — increasingly easily heard or seen by an increasing number of persons
  • Provocative – the specific content of the speech or the common interpretation of the nonverbal communication — e.g., wagging the finger versus “the finger”

How effective is any concrete act of warning about possible dissent watered down by repetition without retribution during the game?  Is running by you and suggesting that “you’re not calling anything” as a quiet aside more “dissentful” (a word we just made up to express the concept of a qualitative amount of dissent) than shouting it out loud in a stadium full of people or than saying it to some of the speaker’s teammates loudly enough that you and perhaps a few others could hear it?

At some point, the dissent virus begins to spread, which is exactly what you don’t want because, if you are at that point, you will either have lost control entirely or, alternately, it will take a huge amount of your professional resources to halt it.  Far better to kick the snowball apart at the top of the mountain than to be crushed by it at the bottom.

Oh, and by the way, get in the habit of listening carefully to what players are saying, even if it is disagreeable, because you might need to hear it even if you don’t like the manner of expression.

Choosing the Offside Violation

Brenden, an adult amateur player, asks:

A5 makes a run with the ball towards goal while his teammate A12 is also moving downfield ahead of A5.  During this phase of play up to the moment when A5 last touches/plays the ball, A12 is onside but mistimes the continuation of his run such that, when his teammate last plays the ball, A12 is in an offside position while another attacker, A18, is onside.  A12’s run draws the attention of D34 who begins to move toward A12 to cover him.  However, A5’s last play of the ball is a pass to A18 who is unmarked as a result of D34’s diversion toward A12.  Can the referee rule an infringement against the attacking side on the basis that they gained an advantage from A12’s offside position?

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

The easy answer here is, No, because “gaining an advantage” is not technically a basis for an offside violation.  It is used only under special circumstances which involves a ball which has either”rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent” or “been deliberately saved by an opponent” (see Law 11.2, 2016/2017 Laws of the Game).  The sole purpose of this section of Law 11 is to make clear the offside position of an attacker is not changed by (1) any contact between the ball and things considered “part of the field” (inanimate such as a goalpost or animate such as the referee) or (2) the ball  rebounding/deflecting from an opponent or (3) contact by the ball with an opponent which is deemed to be a “deliberate save”).  Since there was no such intervening contact by the ball with anything inanimate or with a defender (either accidental or deliberate), the “gaining an advantage” element in Law 11 is completely irrelevant.

That leaves just three possibilities for the only attacker carrying an offside position: (1) A12 committed no offside violation at all, (2) A12 committed an offside violation by interfering with play, or (3) A12 committed an offside violation by interfering with an opponent.  Note that, once A18 makes contact with the ball from A5’s pass, all offside position decisions have to be re-evaluated, following which A5 might not be in an offside position at all.

Prior to A18’s contact with the ball, did A12 interfere with play?  No, because A12 made no contact with the ball.  Indeed, while we do not know where A12 was relative to A18, we presume they were far enough away from each other that a ball passed to A18 could not reasonably be considered even within the vicinity of A18.  No contact, no offside violation based on “interfering with play.”

Prior to A18’s contact with the ball, did A12 interfere with an opponent while in an offside position?  There are four alternative actions which could be considered “interfering with an opponent” but only the fourth one is potentially relevant: “making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.”  Remember, an action of this sort is entirely legal if performed while in an onside position.  So, did D34 begin his run before or after A2 was in an offside position … which translates into whether D34 began his move toward A12 before or after A5 passed the ball to A18?

We think there would be no reasonable dispute that A12 did not commit an offside violation if D34 began running to cover A12 before A5 passed the ball because an offside violation cannot be committed if the player in question was not even in an offside position  at the time.  Nor could there be any reasonable dispute that A12 did not commit an offside violation at the moment he came into an offside position if, at that moment, he stopped running, even if D34 continued in his effort to reach A12 to “cover him.”

If A12 continues or initiates a run downfield after A5 passes the ball to A18, we are now into a grey area of angles and distances.  The offside violation dispute would virtually disappear if A12 turned and began running back towards his end of the field or began running toward the touchline to his right (away from the direction of play), even if D34 followed him.  It would be difficult to argue under these circumstances that D34’s “ability … to play the ball” was being impacted since he was running away from the ball (indeed, to make matters more apparent, he would be pursuing an attacker, A12, who didn’t need “covering” while running away from A18 who did need covering!).  In many referee circles, if A12 began running as described, this would be interpreted as a clear body language statement that A12 did not wish to be involved in active play.

Where light grey starts becoming dark grey is if, at the moment A12 acquired an offside position, he continued or initiated his run downfield but not toward where the ball was being passed from A5 to A18 and this behavior arguably “drew” D34 away from moving to cover A18 by enticing him to begin running toward A12.  We believe this situation was of D34’s own making.  It was not an action by A12 which impacted on D34’s ability to play the ball — that was created by D34 running away from the ball (indeed, away from the entire area of active play) to pursue the chimera of A12 possibly receiving the ball and having a referee unable to decide correctly that, if that happened, it would be an offside violation.

To finish off what is already a lengthy but we hope stimulating discussion, there are the changes to Law 11 made this year (in the 2017/2018 edition of the Laws of the Game) which we believe both clarified and solidified the conclusion we have reached that A12 has not committed an offside violation.  The International Board added a proviso that, if an attacker in an offside position were fouled “before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball,” the foul itself would be penalized “as it has occurred before the offside offense” {we’ve Americanized the Board’s spelling).  This seems to us to be a very compelling reason to argue that an offside offense has not yet occurred while running to the ball or the ball is running to the attacker or the attacker is not challenging for the ball,


Goalkeeper Possession

Mike, a U-12 and under coach, asks:

A goalie going for the ball on the ground  holds on to an opponent’s leg with one hand while also gaining control of the ball with the other hand.  Is the goalie considered to maintain possession when the opponent attempts to disengage his foot from the goalie’s hand and, as a result, the ball pops free?  With the ball and his leg now free, the opponent kicked the ball into the net. This was a U12 game.

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

The events you described, even in a U-12 game, happen rather quickly.  In a perfect (and therefore unrealistic) world, the referee’s recommended course of action is easy to describe but difficult to implement.

Here is what should happen.  The referee sees the play developing through the point of the goalkeeper grabbing onto the attacker’s leg.  This is a holding offense and even goalkeepers are not allowed to do this.  The referee should wait no longer than the next play to see what then happens — this is a “silent” form of applying advantage without the usual verbal “Play on!” and swinging upward arm movements.   What happens next confirms the wisdom of this choice — the attacker manages to gain control of the ball and scores a goal despite the goalkeeper’s illegal behavior.

The referee should count the goal and either admonish the goalkeeper or show the yellow card to the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior.  Under the Laws of the Game, a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (OGSO) is not justified because … well, simply, because the goal-scoring wasn’t denied!

Note that the course of action described above is based on the facts of this case and particularly the fact that, while his leg was being held by the goalkeeper, the opponent did not kick the ball out of the goalkeeper’s possession because this would have been an offense by the attacker immediately following the offense by the goalkeeper.  It makes no sense to apply advantage and then have the opponent take advantage of the opportunity by committing a foul himself.  However, in this case, play is stopped for the goalkeeper’s offense (because the advantage did not develop, which was the attacker’s fault!) so the restart is a penalty kick and the referee could admonish or caution the attacker for unsporting behavior.  This year’s Law changes appear to specify that the goalkeeper be cautioned because a penalty kick has been awarded and the goalkeeper was, in addition to committing a foul, also playing the ball.

And then there is the potential factor of the age of the players.  Anytime, with young players, there is a situation involving one or more attackers and defenders (one being the goalkeeper) in close proximity, with one or more fouls being committed under dangerous circumstances, it is often better to get play stopped as quickly as possible to keep everyone safe.  The U12 – U14 age group is right on the edge where on the one hand safety is emphasized but, on the other hand, if the players are experienced despite their age, applying advantage may be justified.

More Goalkeeper Deviltry?

Bing Jong, a U-12 and under player, asks:

I was in a tournament game when a ball was kicked out of bounds for a goal kick restart.  We were playing on a hill so the ball rolled a decent way down it. The goalie was wasting time by taking his sweet little time to get to the ball.  Was that punishable and, if it is, how?

Answer (see also “Apology” posted on July 5)

Let’s see.  We’re going to take a guess that it was your team that played the ball last before it went across the goal line (not between the goal posts), for a goal kick restart.  I’m also guessing that it was your opponent’s dastardly goalkeeper who took “his sweet little time” getting the ball (yes, we caught the sarcasm).  Further, you have already decided that the dastardly goalkeeper was “wasting time” (which is, in fact, a decision of the referee).  My final guess is that, because you didn’t say otherwise, the referee did not punish the dastardly goalkeeper at all or at least not appropriately.

Just so we understand each other here, the goalkeeper might have been moving slower than you expected or desired because he was at the top ofa hill and might not have wanted to trip, fall, and roll “a decent way down it” as the ball did.  On the other hand, if he was laughing, smirking, and picking daisies on the way down, you’ve got a pretty good argument.

If the former is what happened (in the opinion of the referee), there was no time being wasted.  After all, U-12 games rarely in our experience, have ball retrievers ready at an instant to get the ball back to the goal kick restart.   Or, given that the ball was played on a hill, the team playing at the downhill end at each half could have had an extra ball available for just this sort of problem.  If the latter were not the case or if, despite the presence of a pre-approved backup ball at the net, the goalkeeper deliberately ignored it and went traipsing “a decent way” downhill unnecessarily, then (again in the opinion of the referee) this could have been deemed time wasting, the penalty for which is a caution for “delaying the restart of play.”  You might note, however, that, in the absence of any prior warning about delaying a restart, most referees early on would warn the wandering-down-the-hill goalkeeper to “get a move on!” and only show the yellow card if it seemed that the goalkeeper was deliberately ignoring the referee’s observation.  Note also that the referee might base his or her opinion about the probability of time being wasted at least in part on the score at the time.  After all, “wasting time” might be considered a trifling offense if it was being done by a goalkeeper whose team was behind in the score.  Note finally that giving a caution will have the ironic result of further delaying the restart.

If there was misconduct here and if the referee decided a caution was appropriate, the restart would still be the original goal kick.  Misconduct during a stoppage of play does not change the original restart decision.