the obstruction rule

[Optimistic Nut]

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.

 

I'd imagine Viduka is still slightly quicker than what Shearer was.

[toontownman]

I should hope so! He will be fine, very much looking forward to seeing him playing for us.

[ross magoo]

As a full-back, I find the current conventional interpretation of the rule very useful but it is an unfair rule imo.  I don't think a player should be deemed to be in full control of the ball if he has neither made contact with it nor has any intention of doing so. 

 

In these cases there is only one player trying to play the ball - the attacker.  The defender does not want to play the ball but wants to stop his opponent from doing so which, by definition, constitutes obstruction as far as i'm concerned.

[bulivye]

As a full-back, I find the current conventional interpretation of the rule very useful but it is an unfair rule imo.  I don't think a player should be deemed to be in full control of the ball if he has neither made contact with it nor has any intention of doing so. 

 

In these cases there is only one player trying to play the ball - the attacker.  The defender does not want to play the ball but wants to stop his opponent from doing so which, by definition, constitutes obstruction as far as i'm concerned.

 

hear hear! 

[Cronky]

The term that I was taught was you're not obstructing if you're 'within playing distance of the ball'. You can shield it if you're also in a position to play it.

 

The fact that defenders are able to let the ball run out by blocking attackers when they're about six feet away from the ball just shows how much of referees' interpretation is down to convention, rather than the letter of the law. I can't remember ever seeing a defender getting penalised for that.

 

And I'd agree absolutely, that if an attacker deliberately takes the ball to the corner flag to waste time, it's ungentlemanly conduct and should be a free kick. It wouldn't be a difficult law to enforce, because it's always very obvious when it's happening. It just needs someone with a bit of imagination in the corridors of power to do it.

[Guest Geordiesned]

As a full-back, I find the current conventional interpretation of the rule very useful but it is an unfair rule imo.  I don't think a player should be deemed to be in full control of the ball if he has neither made contact with it nor has any intention of doing so. 

 

In these cases there is only one player trying to play the ball - the attacker.  The defender does not want to play the ball but wants to stop his opponent from doing so which, by definition, constitutes obstruction as far as i'm concerned.

 

Unfortunately these days far too many referees bottle it, chose the easy option and award a goal kick. The player shepherding ther ball out has to be "within playing distance" of the ball but far too many times you see defenders throwing their bodies into attackers whilst paying no attention to the ball and being allowed to get away with it.

 

You also very rarely see indirect free kicks given to the attacking team in the penalty area these days as too many refs wrongly give a direct free kick (penalty) for obstruction inside the penalty area.

[Keefaz]

Can't remember the last indeirect free-kick I saw in the area, tbh. I vaguely recall Shearer scoring from one, but can't remember the original offence.

[Dave]

Can't remember the last indeirect free-kick I saw in the area, tbh. I vaguely recall Shearer scoring from one, but can't remember the original offence.

 

A backpass is pretty much the only thing you can do to cause one isn't it?

[Keefaz]

Can't remember the last indeirect free-kick I saw in the area, tbh. I vaguely recall Shearer scoring from one, but can't remember the original offence.

 

A backpass is pretty much the only thing you can do to cause one isn't it?

 

Not sure, tbh. Suspect it may actually have been the keeper holding the ball too long?

[Dave]

Can't remember the last indeirect free-kick I saw in the area, tbh. I vaguely recall Shearer scoring from one, but can't remember the original offence.

 

A backpass is pretty much the only thing you can do to cause one isn't it?

 

Not sure, tbh. Suspect it may actually have been the keeper holding the ball too long?

 

Even less likely to be given though.

[Keefaz]

Can't remember the last indeirect free-kick I saw in the area, tbh. I vaguely recall Shearer scoring from one, but can't remember the original offence.

 

A backpass is pretty much the only thing you can do to cause one isn't it?

 

Not sure, tbh. Suspect it may actually have been the keeper holding the ball too long?

 

Even less likely to be given though.

 

Aye, I reckon the ref would be less inclined to give it if it was, say, Craig Bellamy appealing for it.

[bulivye]

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