the obstruction rule

[bulivye]

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?

[Dave]

If the defender makes a definitive move into the attacker it's sometimes given to the attacker. The defender has to be deemed in full control of the ball when shepherding it out to get away with it.

[Shak]

It's something to do with having position and being entitled to shield the ball to an extent, though can't say I can tell the difference sometimes.

 

I think they should start giving free-kicks more often when defenders are blatantly over-doing it shielding the ball out for a goal kick, that does take the piss a bit.

[bulivye]

If the defender makes a definitive move into the attacker it's sometimes given to the attacker. The defender has to be deemed in full control of the ball when shepherding it out to get away with it.

 

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

[toontownman]

Dodgy ground, I dont like the rule, whilst its good when your doing it, its bloody frustrating on the flip side and just adds more uncertainty to an already increasingly confusing set of rules for referee's to try and keep.

 

Same as keeping the ball by the corner flag and wasting time, amoung other little ploys that our now common tactics of the game.

[Dave]

Yeah, the officials have to believe that the defender is in control of the ball (even if he isn't touching it, as in if it's rolling out or to the keeper) to get away with blocking the attacker off. As Shak says, it's then deemed the right to shield the ball.

 

That's always how i've understood it anyway.

[Guest]

Just a theory, but would it be within the laws of the game for say, a side expecting a pummelling to hit the ball back to the keeper, for the other 8 outfield players who didn't kick off to rush to him before the opposition get to them, and just form a circle so the opposition can't get through them without fouling, and just passing the ball in a circle for the full half?

[Shak]

Same as keeping the ball by the corner flag and wasting time, amoung other little ploys that our now common tactics of the game.

 

Make small areas around the corner flags that players can't be in for more than 5 seconds at a time, like the center area in basketball.

 

It'd be a shit rule, now that I think about it, but the quarter-circle areas would look pretty cool.

[Dave]

Just a theory, but would it be within the laws of the game for say, a side expecting a pummelling to hit the ball back to the keeper, for the other 8 outfield players who didn't kick off to rush to him before the opposition get to them, and just form a circle so the opposition can't get through them without fouling, and just passing the ball in a circle for the full half?

 

In theory I can't see why not, but could the ref stop it for ungentlemanly conduct or somthing?

[Shak]

Just a theory, but would it be within the laws of the game for say, a side expecting a pummelling to hit the ball back to the keeper, for the other 8 outfield players who didn't kick off to rush to him before the opposition get to them, and just form a circle so the opposition can't get through them without fouling, and just passing the ball in a circle for the full half?

 

You can imagine the lads gathered around awaiting the charging opposition, huddled in the corner.

 

"Give them nothing... but take from them... EVERYTHING!!"

[Keefaz]

Yeah, the officials have to believe that the defender is in control of the ball (even if he isn't touching it, as in if it's rolling out or to the keeper) to get away with blocking the attacker off. As Shak says, it's then deemed the right to shield the ball.

 

That's always how i've understood it anyway.

 

This is the grey area. But you often see refs waves away appeals even in the most blatant examples where a player has knocked the ball a yard or two in front of him and a defender steps in with no attempt to play the ball.

[Dave]

Just a theory, but would it be within the laws of the game for say, a side expecting a pummelling to hit the ball back to the keeper, for the other 8 outfield players who didn't kick off to rush to him before the opposition get to them, and just form a circle so the opposition can't get through them without fouling, and just passing the ball in a circle for the full half?

 

You can imagine the lads gathered around awaiting the charging opposition, huddled in the corner.

 

"Give them nothing... but take from them... EVERYTHING!!"

 

It would be pretty funny.

 

Could be something like this though:

 

'Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play in order to circumvent the Law, the player is guilty of unsporting behaviour. He is cautioned, shown the yellow card and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred.'

 

?

[Keefaz]

A trick? Presumably that's an attempt to get around the backpass by twatting it off your mate's face or something and saying it was accidental.

[Dave]

A trick? Presumably that's an attempt to get around the backpass by twatting it off your mate's face or something and saying it was accidental.

 

[Guest]

Would make great television.

[toontownman]

Just a theory, but would it be within the laws of the game for say, a side expecting a pummelling to hit the ball back to the keeper, for the other 8 outfield players who didn't kick off to rush to him before the opposition get to them, and just form a circle so the opposition can't get through them without fouling, and just passing the ball in a circle for the full half?

 

You can imagine the lads gathered around awaiting the charging opposition, huddled in the corner.

 

"Give them nothing... but take from them... EVERYTHING!!"

 

It would be pretty funny.

 

Could be something like this though:

 

'Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play in order to circumvent the Law, the player is guilty of unsporting behaviour. He is cautioned, shown the yellow card and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred.'

 

?

 

murky area. In what way is holding the ball in the corner of the pitch and time wasting sporting? Hard to differentiate unsporting behaviour and tactics.. or are they just the same alot of the time?

[Dave]

The grey area is all part of the fun.

[Dr Spectrum]

That rule sounds more like when you lie down and head it...like what flashy gits do in park games when the goalie has gone walkies...

[toontownman]

The grey area is all part of the fun.

 

True, but so was elbowing the keeper in the head to knock the ball out of his hands so you can tap it in!

[DJ_NUFC]

They stopped using this a while ago anyways, unofficially. It's never used as frequently as it once was when it was first coined.

 

 

[bulivye]

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. 

[Keefaz]

I dunno. I don't mind the defender shielding the ball out of play, but refs blow up too easily when the forward is simply trying to get the ball back.

[macbeth]

i like the 'only in the corner flag for 5 seconds rule', particualrly now Shearer has gone

[toontownman]

i like the 'only in the corner flag for 5 seconds rule', particualrly now Shearer has gone

 

...And Viduka isnt capable of waddling over to the corner fast enough for it to be effective.

[bulivye]

I dunno. I don't mind the defender shielding the ball out of play, but refs blow up too easily when the forward is simply trying to get the ball back.

 

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.