bulivye

cheers, greg!

keep the commentary coming, please, lads... you're my only hope!

found the below when i did an "obstruction" search... i emboldened the relevant entries: In football, what is in the rules to stop 10 players forming a tight, arm-linked ring around their 11th player who then dribbles the ball inside this ring (thus preventing him from being tackled) all the way to the other end and kicks the ball in the opposition goal? Paul, The Hague, Netherlands Probably only the likelihood that they would find eleven men forming a tight, arm-linked wall between them and the goal. Daniel Owen, London, UK Either some sort of rule against obstruction or the fact that the other team might then just form a line of 10 men and not let the circle pass. Also if it were to be done it would make football even more boring than it already is... Jonas, Don't have the exact rule to hand, but sure there is something about the rule of obstruction that would make this particular move unlawful. Ross N, Clydebank, Scotland Either obstruction or ungentlemanly conduct, and possibly a few others. Philip Harris, East Kilbride, Lanarkshire The Obstruction rule. As soon as you physically impede a player, while not playing the ball yourself, it's a foul. Gareth Graham, Bristol UK Alternatively, the opposition players could simply all enter the 'ringers' half. As soon as the ring of players enters the opposition half, the players advance of the ball would be in an offside position, and, although not touching the ball, would be interfering with play (although that's another debate entirely). Free kick to the opposition. Paul O'Reilly, Helsby, UK A serial, 'The Q Team' in a boy's comic of the '40s was based on this idea. A group of prisoners of war had developed this technique. Alan Myers, Hitchin, UK Law 12 of the Laws of Football states: 'An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee: impedes the progress of an opponent. The indirect free kick is taken from where the offence occurred. By preventing the opponent making a legitimate tackle on the player with the ball, a player would be guilty of obstruction.' Kenny, London, UK Yes, obstruction, a law which modern referees blithely seem to ignore when a defender "protects" the ball when it is destined to go out for a goal-kick ( i.e. by obstructing an opponent from getting to the ball ). John Rutherford, Crieff UK Regarding previous answers, such an action could not possibly constitute obstruction. To be obstructed a player must already be in possession, otherwise it is no offence to shield the ball with your body, as defenders often do when a ball is running into touch. Jeff Lewis, Exmouth, Devon, UK The offside rule. The defending team could advance, and the foremost members of the attacking ring would be rendered offside as the player with ball dribbled goalward. Robert Vagg, Bonn Germany To John Rutherford: In the case you mention, referees do not 'blithely ignore' anything! A defender who has the ball within playing distance is allowed to shield the ball in the way you describe, but does not have to play it. To Jeff Lewis: it is not only the player in possession who can be impeded. Hence we do not have American Football-style 'blocking' in our game. The answer to the original question is therefore that those in the ring are impeding their opponents. Indirect free kick. By the way "obstruction" no longer exists in the Laws (they are not "Rules"); we talk about "Impeding". And neither does "Ungentlemanly conduct" exist; this has been replaced by "Unsporting Behaviour". John Branston, Bath Somerset http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-185787,00.html

hear hear!

see, when it's shielding the ball, i agree with you. it's when defenders ram into the attacker to prevent any chance of him making a play that i don't like. if that sort of thing is done, then the attacker ought to be able to get a lick in as well.

Sticky Vickys heed is gonna pop any second. Smithers, release the funds..

well, it IS a frustrating thing to watch. if defenders can completely block off the attacking player with impunity, then attackers ought to be able to try and dislodge him when it's clear that the defender is blatantly "playing the man" and not the ball. my opinion anyway.

ahh, i see. cheers, dave. i suppose the same "in full control" interp applies when protecting the keeper too?

is it like the "travelling" rule in the NBA? during the course of play during a match, i frequently (VERY frequently) see defenders block the path of an attacker to the ball, either to shepherd the ball out of bounds, or to "protect" the keeper. and sometimes when the attacking player makes a robust attempt to get past the blocking opponent he's whistled for a foul. so, when has this foul actually been committed?

i just read a suggestion of dyer being played at right back. is anyone else intrigued by this? link & excerpt: http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/journalsport/tm_headline=-buy-into-my-vision---boss-urges-star-pair%26method=full%26objectid=19259347%26siteid=50081-name_page.html Allardyce has still talked about his plans for both players at Newcastle next season and admitted there is a chance Dyer could be converted into a right-back. He said: "I've only talked to Kieron about the fact he is such a versatile player. It's a major asset but constantly being moved around doesn't always help maintain his best form. "We talked about how he started as a right-back at Ipswich and Steve (McClaren) has been looking at using him as a right-back for England recently. But until we get to know each other a little better we don't know.

speaking of woodgate, do you think he's having second thoughts--like wishing he'd returned to us?

and today's my birthday! blueyes.gif

or... robbie savage + jason roberts + paul dickov = savage roberts dockov poor robert!

james collins + stern john = collins john been done already?

cheers! 14th. ahh. specifics! ta! blueyes.gif

cheers!

when do the season schedules come out?

agree

no, he's not. but i'd still match him up w/ anyone in the epl in a throwdown. not sayin' he'd win 'em all, but don't think too many would fancy crossing him twice. btw, is it nailed on that he's gone? for sentimental reasons i was hoping he'd get one of those clean slates everyone's been discussing.

or just "don't let the door hit your arse on the way out" heh heh right! but i'm kinda suggesting something in between your quote and the "clean slate" idea. i'm for giving all the players a slate, i just think some should be cleaner than others...

would it be so bad if everyone were NOT given a clean slate? i'm thinking something like SA saying to a waster, "you've got quite a reputation as a slacking prima donna who doesn't know how to be unselfish...care to disprove that?" or "what's all this about you not getting on the team bus? you'd best show me that's all in the past right, my son?"

you kids get off my lawn!

gooch for his long throws!

prefer uefa, but as long as we do the double over the candy-stripers, top 10 is acceptable for me.