What happened to the obstruction rule?
Discussion
Just watching the Wigan v Arsenal game and cazorla knocked the ball past a player who just blocked cazorla while making absolutely no attempt to play the ball at all. I see this becoming more and more common with players shepherding the ball out of play while making no attempt to play it. When I was young and fit enough to have a kick about (it's been 20 years lol) that was called obstruction, so was there a rule change I didn't notice or do ref's enforce the rules they like and ignore the ones they don't.
I actually think if defenders were forced to play the ball the game would be far better.
I actually think if defenders were forced to play the ball the game would be far better.
This is something I hate with a passion. If you have not touched the ball, you are not in control of the ball, therefore you have no right to shield the ball and obstruct a player making a genuine attempt to play the ball.
I hate when defenders shepherd the ball out of play while often half circling around it to move an attacker out of the way.
Also, while I think it is brilliant to watch a play let the ball run across their body and 'roll' an opposing player, I think it is a foul when they block the oppositions path by stepping into them. I'm all for players using their bodies, but considering you aren't even allowed to use your shoulder in a battle of strength these days, I am amazed this is missed by officials so often.
I hate when defenders shepherd the ball out of play while often half circling around it to move an attacker out of the way.
Also, while I think it is brilliant to watch a play let the ball run across their body and 'roll' an opposing player, I think it is a foul when they block the oppositions path by stepping into them. I'm all for players using their bodies, but considering you aren't even allowed to use your shoulder in a battle of strength these days, I am amazed this is missed by officials so often.
Ferg said:
I believe the rule is still that provided the ball is within your playing distance you don't need to touch it.
I would really like to know the actual rule as like I said I though that if you made no attempt at playing yet prevented somebody else then that was obstruction. Would love to know though.NoNeed said:
I would really like to know the actual rule as like I said I though that if you made no attempt at playing yet prevented somebody else then that was obstruction. Would love to know though.
Well the rules of football don't say that you have to be playing the ball at all times. When I refereed you certainly had to be in playing distance of the ball if you shielded it. I don't think that rule has changed.Ferg said:
NoNeed said:
I would really like to know the actual rule as like I said I though that if you made no attempt at playing yet prevented somebody else then that was obstruction. Would love to know though.
Well the rules of football don't say that you have to be playing the ball at all times. When I refereed you certainly had to be in playing distance of the ball if you shielded it. I don't think that rule has changed.
I have scoured the FA website for an obstruction rule that I am starting to think has never existed. Yet when I played in my youth I was cautioned for that many times.You're not imagining it, there is an obstruction rule but it's just being ignored out of existence. 'Shepherding' a ball out of play makes me fume as deliberately NOT playing the ball runs counter to the whole idea of football IMO. The rules are a mess.
Law 12: (Fouls and Misconduct), provides that the referee should award an indirect free-kick against a player who "impedes the progress of an opponent". Apparently, impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
But then we have this:
'Shielding a ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.'
Law 12: (Fouls and Misconduct), provides that the referee should award an indirect free-kick against a player who "impedes the progress of an opponent". Apparently, impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
But then we have this:
'Shielding a ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.'
'Shielding' is not what you do to a football. It's not there to be 'shielded'. It's there to be kicked, headed, chested or kneed.
If we take this 'rule' to its logical conclusion, what's to stop five players gathering round a sixth one who has the ball, 'shielding' it (and him) from the opposition until he's close enough to smash it in the net? The rugby equivalent (truck and trailer) was rightly outlawed.
If we take this 'rule' to its logical conclusion, what's to stop five players gathering round a sixth one who has the ball, 'shielding' it (and him) from the opposition until he's close enough to smash it in the net? The rugby equivalent (truck and trailer) was rightly outlawed.
mko9 said:
This one drives me up the wall, as well. If you have not touched the ball, you are not in possession. You are playing the man not the ball, which is a foul.
So in sheperding a ball into touch, you have to move out of the way of a player from the other team?That doesn't work at all. Shielding the ball when close enough to play it (but not playing it) is perfectly legitimate.
If as you're suggesting you have to touch the ball to be allowed close to it and to be allowed to use your body to shield it, that would change the game radically.
SpeckledJim said:
So in sheperding a ball into touch, you have to move out of the way of a player from the other team?
That doesn't work at all. Shielding the ball when close enough to play it (but not playing it) is perfectly legitimate.
If as you're suggesting you have to touch the ball to be allowed close to it and to be allowed to use your body to shield it, that would change the game radically.
I disagree. As said before, if you have not touched the ball and it is not under your control, you do not have possession. If you block an opponent when not in possession it is a foul. You cannot shepherd, the ball is not a sheep.That doesn't work at all. Shielding the ball when close enough to play it (but not playing it) is perfectly legitimate.
If as you're suggesting you have to touch the ball to be allowed close to it and to be allowed to use your body to shield it, that would change the game radically.
If a defender closes you down and you don't think it will roll out of play, play the ball and clear it. Whether it be for a throw or up field.
You would not be allowed to just stand near the ball and block people in the middle of the pitch so why does that change within 5 yards of the perimeter?
I can appreciate the views of those who see it as negative. I don't really - if the opposition don't like shepherding, then don't play the ball in so loose a fashion as to see it roll out of play before you can get to it.
For those who would see it finished, how would you legislate for it?
There's nothing in the game that requires a player to touch a ball just because it's within reach, nor is there anything that requires you to move out of the way of an opposition player.
If two of us are tracking a ball (which is within my reach), and I'm hoping to see it run out of play, and the ball is in front of me, and my opponent is behind me, are you saying I should have to give up my positional advantage and either touch the ball or let him have it?
That's a pretty radical suggestion, and one that will make referees' jobs harder.
For those who would see it finished, how would you legislate for it?
There's nothing in the game that requires a player to touch a ball just because it's within reach, nor is there anything that requires you to move out of the way of an opposition player.
If two of us are tracking a ball (which is within my reach), and I'm hoping to see it run out of play, and the ball is in front of me, and my opponent is behind me, are you saying I should have to give up my positional advantage and either touch the ball or let him have it?
That's a pretty radical suggestion, and one that will make referees' jobs harder.
Donatello said:
SpeckledJim said:
So in sheperding a ball into touch, you have to move out of the way of a player from the other team?
That doesn't work at all. Shielding the ball when close enough to play it (but not playing it) is perfectly legitimate.
If as you're suggesting you have to touch the ball to be allowed close to it and to be allowed to use your body to shield it, that would change the game radically.
I disagree. As said before, if you have not touched the ball and it is not under your control, you do not have possession. If you block an opponent when not in possession it is a foul. You cannot shepherd, the ball is not a sheep.That doesn't work at all. Shielding the ball when close enough to play it (but not playing it) is perfectly legitimate.
If as you're suggesting you have to touch the ball to be allowed close to it and to be allowed to use your body to shield it, that would change the game radically.
If a defender closes you down and you don't think it will roll out of play, play the ball and clear it. Whether it be for a throw or up field.
You would not be allowed to just stand near the ball and block people in the middle of the pitch so why does that change within 5 yards of the perimeter?
Watch any midfielder and the best ones are the ones that can hold off the opposition while they have possession.
You also don't need to have touched the ball to be in possession of it. I think it is more about who is in control of the situation than anything else.
As other posters have said, if I have my body between you and the ball, I can decide whether I want to let it roll out, or turn around and pass to someone.
London424 said:
Of course you are allowed to block the opposition when you have the ball, you ensure that you have your body between the opposition and the ball, ensuring they either can't get the ball or have to foul you.
Watch any midfielder and the best ones are the ones that can hold off the opposition while they have possession.
You also don't need to have touched the ball to be in possession of it. I think it is more about who is in control of the situation than anything else.
As other posters have said, if I have my body between you and the ball, I can decide whether I want to let it roll out, or turn around and pass to someone.
Again I disagree. I will change it slightly though. If your team have not touched the ball, you are not in control or possession.Watch any midfielder and the best ones are the ones that can hold off the opposition while they have possession.
You also don't need to have touched the ball to be in possession of it. I think it is more about who is in control of the situation than anything else.
As other posters have said, if I have my body between you and the ball, I can decide whether I want to let it roll out, or turn around and pass to someone.
I'm all for more of a physical game and I believe your body should be used more in most situations and it should go unpunished, but you see defenders constantly rotating around the ball to block an attacker, sometimes so much so that they are well out of reach of the ball.
If you are allowed to use your body as a shield to protect the ball, why don't the team just circle the ball and stroll up field blocking everyone on the way?
Donatello said:
London424 said:
Of course you are allowed to block the opposition when you have the ball, you ensure that you have your body between the opposition and the ball, ensuring they either can't get the ball or have to foul you.
Watch any midfielder and the best ones are the ones that can hold off the opposition while they have possession.
You also don't need to have touched the ball to be in possession of it. I think it is more about who is in control of the situation than anything else.
As other posters have said, if I have my body between you and the ball, I can decide whether I want to let it roll out, or turn around and pass to someone.
Again I disagree. I will change it slightly though. If your team have not touched the ball, you are not in control or possession.Watch any midfielder and the best ones are the ones that can hold off the opposition while they have possession.
You also don't need to have touched the ball to be in possession of it. I think it is more about who is in control of the situation than anything else.
As other posters have said, if I have my body between you and the ball, I can decide whether I want to let it roll out, or turn around and pass to someone.
I'm all for more of a physical game and I believe your body should be used more in most situations and it should go unpunished, but you see defenders constantly rotating around the ball to block an attacker, sometimes so much so that they are well out of reach of the ball.
If you are allowed to use your body as a shield to protect the ball, why don't the team just circle the ball and stroll up field blocking everyone on the way?
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff