Shielding the ball, ban it, it's obstruction

[Bzzzz]

Annoying. 😡😡😡

Surely if a player is not in control of (hasn't touched) the ball then shielding it from an opposition player with no intention of playing it is obstruction? 

 

 

[RDFH64]

1 hour ago, Bzzzz said:

Annoying. 😡😡😡

Surely if a player is not in control of (hasn't touched) the ball then shielding it from an opposition player with no intention of playing it is obstruction? 

 

 

Especially when they're shielding it to let it run out of play, sometimes from 5 or 10 yards from the line. It's obstruction yet the defender always gets the foul if there's any contact, it's also caused lots of trouble between players.

[McTeeko]

It’s not obstruction if the ball is in playing distance of the player shielding the ball (whether he touches it or not). You expect him just to step aside and say “Go on then mate, have it”?

 

Obstruction is when a player has the ball or is favourite to get to it and the opposing player steps in his path or deliberately blocks his movement towards the ball. 

[Och Aye]

5 hours ago, McTeeko said:

Obstruction is when a player has the ball or is favourite to get to it and the opposing player steps in his path or deliberately blocks his movement towards the ball. 

Did you not used to get an indirect free kick if it happened inside the penalty box? You never see it now, assume that rule changed.

[Bzzzz]

10 hours ago, McTeeko said:

It’s not obstruction if the ball is in playing distance of the player shielding the ball (whether he touches it or not). You expect him just to step aside and say “Go on then mate, have it”?

 

Obstruction is when a player has the ball or is favourite to get to it and the opposing player steps in his path or deliberately blocks his movement towards the ball. 

I'd argue that just because you are close to the ball doesn't mean you are in control of it, I would still argue that if you have no intention to play the ball then you are obstructing a player. 

[thplinth]

When I first saw this thread I thought this is crazy talk but I think I am now convinced, ban it, it is rubbish anyway, all the time wasting crap.

[McTeeko]

4 hours ago, Och Aye said:

Did you not used to get an indirect free kick if it happened inside the penalty box? You never see it now, assume that rule changed.

Good point. No sure what the rule is now inside the box. 

[McTeeko]

7 minutes ago, Bzzzz said:

I'd argue that just because you are close to the ball doesn't mean you are in control of it, I would still argue that if you have no intention to play the ball then you are obstructing a player. 

Pretty sure the official wording is ‘playing distance’. If he wants to play it, he can. If he chooses to usher the ball out for a goal kick rather than blooter it out for a shy, he can.

The defending player has no obligation to play it or step aside. He’s in control of the situation (not necessarily the ball) therefore it’s classed as being in his possession. 

[Bzzzz]

4 minutes ago, McTeeko said:

Pretty sure the official wording is ‘playing distance’. If he wants to play it, he can. If he chooses to usher the ball out for a goal kick rather than blooter it out for a shy, he can.

The defending player has no obligation to play it or step aside. He’s in control of the situation (not necessarily the ball) therefore it’s classed as being in his possession. 

Aye, of course there is a reasonable distance but you do see many situations where the defending player is playing the attacker more than the ball, this is when obstruction applies IMO. 

[Andy C]

13 hours ago, McTeeko said:

It’s not obstruction if the ball is in playing distance of the player shielding the ball (whether he touches it or not). You expect him just to step aside and say “Go on then mate, have it”?

 

Obstruction is when a player has the ball or is favourite to get to it and the opposing player steps in his path or deliberately blocks his movement towards the ball. 

This is correct, playing distance is the fundamental point.  You don't have to actually play the ball, as we see when it is shielded out by a defender, but you have to be close enough to be capable of playing it, if you so desired.

2 hours ago, Bzzzz said:

Aye, of course there is a reasonable distance but you do see many situations where the defending player is playing the attacker more than the ball, this is when obstruction applies IMO. 

Also correct, you do indeed see many such situations.  As a former forward this was always a huge bugbear of mine, because under the laws of the game that is obstruction, but referees rarely give it.  You're now even seeing defenders stepping across the paths of forwards trying to close down a goalkeeper, when the ball is 20 yards away.  It's a joke, and it's an area of the laws which needs tidying up.

[Diamond Scot]

I dont mind so much when the ball is rolling out and they are shielding it. Its the times when the ball has stopped and they basically just mirror the attacking players movements to stop them getting to it. In my view thats not even obstruction, its just an outright foul given they are making contact with another player in the opposite direction from the ball.

[aaid]

It's a defensive skill and a legitimate part of the game.

[mccaughey85]

15 hours ago, McTeeko said:

It’s not obstruction if the ball is in playing distance of the player shielding the ball (whether he touches it or not). You expect him just to step aside and say “Go on then mate, have it”?

 

Obstruction is when a player has the ball or is favourite to get to it and the opposing player steps in his path or deliberately blocks his movement towards the ball. 

No but the player should have to play the ball or take a touch and dribble to safety. Just because a ball is running out of play doesn't mean you should be allowed to obstruct anothdr player and not have any intention of taking a touch. 

You can be in playing distance of the ball and still cause obstruction. 

[mccaughey85]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

It's a defensive skill and a legitimate part of the game.

It shouldn't be, if the balls literally a yard from the line and is running out of play and the opposing player has no chance of reaching it then fair enough but if not then the defending player should have to choose to clear it or dribble it to safety. It happens the whole time in football, a player will realise that the ball isn't necessarily going to run out of play before the attacker gets to it so the defender will clear it or try and pass it to safety otherwise he knows he is just going to be obstructing the attacking player and in theory the ref should favour the attacker and blow for obstruction. 

[aaid]

27 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

It shouldn't be, if the balls literally a yard from the line and is running out of play and the opposing player has no chance of reaching it then fair enough but if not then the defending player should have to choose to clear it or dribble it to safety. It happens the whole time in football, a player will realise that the ball isn't necessarily going to run out of play before the attacker gets to it so the defender will clear it or try and pass it to safety otherwise he knows he is just going to be obstructing the attacking player and in theory the ref should favour the attacker and blow for obstruction. 

Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

 

[Orraloon]

Here are the "Laws of the Game". It's covered by Law 12.

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2021-22?l=en

Specifically this bit.

"Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact

 Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent."

If anybody wants to change it you might want to get in touch with IFAB. Ian Maxwell has 12.5% of the voting power.

[Orraloon]

Oops to slow.

[aaid]

Funny how when this comes up, it's always the case of a defender shepherding a ball out of play for a goal kick that annoys people so much, it's never the forward who takes the ball into the corner to run down time and protect a narrow lead.

They're both two sides of the same coin, yet one is apparently anti-football.

[RDFH64]

3 hours ago, aaid said:

Funny how when this comes up, it's always the case of a defender shepherding a ball out of play for a goal kick that annoys people so much, it's never the forward who takes the ball into the corner to run down time and protect a narrow lead.

They're both two sides of the same coin, yet one is apparently anti-football.

I hate both & would love to see a change to make both fouls.

[mccaughey85]

6 hours ago, aaid said:

Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

 

Usually the player uses his body and sometimes arms as well to shield the ball so surely that rule isn't properly applied. That whole rule is ambiguous and not really clear. It's arguably saying you can obstruct or block a player as long as your near the ball, to me that is unfair and shouldn't be allowed. 

Regardless no one has disputed the rules on here anyway, the original point was that the rules should be changed to stop players from just blocking a player from trying to get to the ball. 

It doesn't happen very often but sometimes a ball will be rolling out of play but the attacker can very much still get to it but the defender chooses to block the player rather than play the ball which then results in the ball rolling out of play. Would you say that is fair? 

[mccaughey85]

6 hours ago, aaid said:

Funny how when this comes up, it's always the case of a defender shepherding a ball out of play for a goal kick that annoys people so much, it's never the forward who takes the ball into the corner to run down time and protect a narrow lead.

They're both two sides of the same coin, yet one is apparently anti-football.

I ain't very keen on that either but I would say its a different situation to when the ball is in motion and the defending player just chooses to move into the way of the attacker clearly obstructing him rather than doing what would be fair and clearing it or trying to pass or dribble it to safety. It's basically the easy way out for the defender because they don't have to take the chance that they fuck up the clearance. 

[aaid]

25 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Usually the player uses his body and sometimes arms as well to shield the ball so surely that rule isn't properly applied. That whole rule is ambiguous and not really clear. It's arguably saying you can obstruct or block a player as long as your near the ball, to me that is unfair and shouldn't be allowed. 

Regardless no one has disputed the rules on here anyway, the original point was that the rules should be changed to stop players from just blocking a player from trying to get to the ball. 

It doesn't happen very often but sometimes a ball will be rolling out of play but the attacker can very much still get to it but the defender chooses to block the player rather than play the ball which then results in the ball rolling out of play. Would you say that is fair? 

Yes. 

[Orraloon]

11 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

Regardless no one has disputed the rules on here anyway, the original point was that the rules should be changed to stop players from just blocking a player from trying to get to the ball. 

 

This was the original post.

On 12/22/2021 at 9:49 PM, Bzzzz said:

Annoying. 😡😡😡

Surely if a player is not in control of (hasn't touched) the ball then shielding it from an opposition player with no intention of playing it is obstruction? 

 

 

To me, that sounded like he was looking for a clarification of the rules. 

I wouldn't mind the rule being changed either, but then again, I would prefer to go back to how the rules were interpreted in the 70s when football was still a proper contact sport. 

[McTeeko]

10 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

I ain't very keen on that either but I would say its a different situation to when the ball is in motion and the defending player just chooses to move into the way of the attacker clearly obstructing him rather than doing what would be fair and clearing it or trying to pass or dribble it to safety. It's basically the easy way out for the defender because they don't have to take the chance that they fuck up the clearance. 

‘doing what would be fair and clearing it or trying to pass or dribble to safety’? You’re making it sound like the defender is cheating when he clearly isn’t. All he’s doing is protecting his side’s possession. Why should he risk that by playing a ball he doesn’t have to?
Besides, to even find a situation where this occurs in a game there has either been a wrongly weighted pass forward or miscontrol by the attacker. Blame the attacking side for the shite pass or heavy touch. 

[mccaughey85]

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

This was the original post.

To me, that sounded like he was looking for a clarification of the rules. 

I wouldn't mind the rule being changed either, but then again, I would prefer to go back to how the rules were interpreted in the 70s when football was still a proper contact sport. 

Yeh true, I hate how the game is going, especially slide tackling. Refs are deciding what's dangerous and whats not these days.