In some cases, a goalkeeper was instinctively running out of the goal area, when under the new rule a goalkeeper-throw had been given instead of a free-throw under the new rule. And on some occasions, a referee might have been too quick in giving a time-out in connection with a 7-meter throw. But that was really all.

To comment more fully on one of these rule changes: When a 7-meter-throw is called, it is no longer automatic/mandatory to give a time-out. Instead, the referees make a quick judgment if it is really meaningful to give the time-out. If it is clearly not needed, then the time-out should be avoided. In all other cases it should be given. Some examples of when it is not needed:

1. if the thrower and the goalkeeper are immediately ready for the throw;
2. if the result in the game is so one-sided (and the remaining playing time is short) so that clearly neither team is unfairly treated if the clock keeps running during a normal delay;
3. if the team that causes an unnecessary delay is the team that is behind in the score and itself could be disadvantaged by the delay they are causing. In all cases of doubt, the recommendation is to give the time-out.

Regarding a situation that is becoming more and more problematic. Many times it seems that a defender and an attacker on the 6-meter line are both just as guilty, holding on to each other or pushing. And it is rarely possible to be sure who started the situation. But one thing that is dangerous is to assume is that the defender normally is likely to be more ‘destructive’ than the attacker, so if you tend to let the situation go on, and if you normally give the decision in favor of the attacker when you do whistle, you may create a lot of problems for yourself as a referee. You must be able to find some situation(s), early in the game, where it seems that the attacking player is the guilty one. If your decisions are just one-sided, you can be sure that the attacker will continue you to test your limits, and the problems will never stop.