Can't find an answer anywhere else but I'm sure someone her will know. I refereed an under 11 game yesterday, a player took a free kick just outside his own penalty area and knocks it sideways to his mate who isn't paying attention and has run forward. The striker moves to the ball but the defender who has taken the free kick shields the ball, stopping the attacker getting it until the keeper comes out and clears it. What's the rule there?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Refereeing question
- Thread starter Timbo
- Start date
ricky marlowe fan club
New member
Possible obstruction, and an indirect free kick?
Washie
Well-known member
Did the player taking the freekick actually touch the ball?
- Oct 17, 2008
- 15,662
Once a free kick has been taken, the kicker is no longer deemed in possession of the ball, since he can’t be the next person to touch it again without being penalised with an indirect free kick. Therefore the question in hand is did the striker intentionally obstruct the defender from collecting the ball. If you felt yes, you should’ve awarded an indirect free kick for the defending side.
Yup.
"Obstruction" is arguably the most subjective thing in football but its a useful tool in a situation like that.
Washie
Well-known member
But if its only shielding, you cannot give obstruction or else the opposition will want obstruction for every shielding of the ball, context be damned. As long as the ball can be fairly won by another player and the free kick taker has not touched the ball, you cannot give anything.
But the player doing the shielding here cannot touch the ball (again) and cannot be deemed to be in possession.
So it is obstruction.
- Thread starter
- #8
No, just prevented the attacker from getting to it.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 15,662
Shielding only applies when in possession of the ball, per HWT
- Thread starter
- #10
That's what I gave. However although it seemed the most likely I wasn't convinced I knew the correct rule and somebody since is convinced I was wrong!
Agree with this. Personally don't like the rule that allows shielding but it is allowed.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 15,662
It’s allowed when in possession of the ball, which the player closest to the ball wasn’t, because he couldn’t touch it without conceding a free-kick
In that case define being in possession of the ball?
- Thread starter
- #14
This is where I think I was right, surely you can't shield the ball if you're not in possession of it.
Here is another one.
A ball is going out of play for a throw in. Before it has full cross the line, a player tried to keep the ball in play. He tried to hook the ball so it stays in play but his studs stick, with his foot fully 'out of play'. The ball hits his foot and goes out of play.
The ball was going out of play, last touched by a player from team A.
The player whose foot touches the ball from an 'out of play' position before the ball goes out of play is from team B.
Who gets the throw in, team A or team B?
I am guessing team A because the team B player touched the ball before the ball went out of play, despite the fact his foot was on the wrong side of the line.
But when this happens on TV it seems a random decision making algorithm is used.
A ball is going out of play for a throw in. Before it has full cross the line, a player tried to keep the ball in play. He tried to hook the ball so it stays in play but his studs stick, with his foot fully 'out of play'. The ball hits his foot and goes out of play.
The ball was going out of play, last touched by a player from team A.
The player whose foot touches the ball from an 'out of play' position before the ball goes out of play is from team B.
Who gets the throw in, team A or team B?
I am guessing team A because the team B player touched the ball before the ball went out of play, despite the fact his foot was on the wrong side of the line.
But when this happens on TV it seems a random decision making algorithm is used.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 15,662
In this context, the player closest to the ball who can legally touch it without penalty, which sounds in this scenario like the defender who went to collect the ball but was obstructed by a player who couldn’t legally touch the ball and thus wasn’t “in possession” of it.
It’s a very strange rule. Blocking seems to be allowed if the each player is running or has momentum. You see this a lot as defenders shepherd out the ball on the touch line for a goal kick. But they always have the option to touch it the ball if they think the attacker will get it.
Blocking is when the player has no intention (they just took the free kick for example) or ability (the ball has gone and they are static and/or facing the wrong way) to touch the ball so the only option is to block the opposing player.
A very tricky one to adjudicate on I’d imagine but it seems that you got it right.
I have always wondered what rule allows defenders to aggressively block off attackers from the ball to win a goal kick? Clearly they also do not have possession as it was last touched by an attacker. How is that different from the OPs example?
Easier to define not being in possession of the ball.
This includes when you are not legally allowed to touch the ball,
(i.e., would be after taking a free kick or penalty).
- Oct 17, 2008
- 15,662
In the same way that 99% of foul throws aren’t given, excessive time is taken over goal kicks and set pieces, some Laws as a referee are generally handled gently as long as it is equal to both sides.
A few years ago referees at grassroots level (the level I reffed at) were being told to think about “The Flow of the Game” at all times. Giving advantages, not pulling up minor infractions (such a foul throws) if no advantage had been gained from the infraction.
Many referees will lose both sets of olayers if they are overly officious - and your example is just one example of something which is probably a free kick but is now so ubiquitous that they’re just accepted by both sides as the standard Law.