None, its just unwritten laws of the game. By textbook intepretation there should be MANY obstruction fouls every game. But it isn't enforced and I don't think there's a big desire to enforce it either.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Refereeing question
- Thread starter Timbo
- Start date
I think you're adding your own interpretation with regard to being legally in possession. The words from the fa website are 'A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.' No mention of the player having to be able to legally play the ball to be able to shield it. That might seem logical but it isn't what is in the laws!
Look at the IFAB website, it clearly states what is shielding in the laws of the game, Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct.
It was the defender who was doing the blocking to stop the attacker getting to it - the defender isn't being obstructed.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 15,655
The ball wasn’t within playing distance, because the striker, the nearest attacking player to the ball, couldn’t touch it.
The OP never said the ball wasn't within playing distance. In fact he said he shielded it until the keeper got there. He might not have been legally able to play the ball but that is different from being within playing distance. If the keeper didn't look like he was going to get there he could have played the ball to concede a free kick rather than allow an attacker a clear run on goal!
"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."
The player shielding the ball has no right to touch it (since he took the free kick) so is he really within a "playing distance" given that he's not allowed to play the ball?
If Solly March (or someone) takes a corner/fk and shoots it 1 centimeter and then turns around to shield the ball from any opponent while not being able to play it himself, I think the ref will call obstruction. Similar in the scenario OP asked about.
There is nothing in the laws that say you have to be legally able to play the ball, just that it has to be within playing distance.
You can make up you're own interpretations all you like. As for the Solly scenario, I'd like to see that happen and we can see what decision is made!
But for a player who aren't allowed to play the ball, the "playing distance" is the same as for the lad in the stands or the coach = infinite, since you're not allowed to play the ball and therefore not within playing distance.
I don't think the laws of the game are as clear as you're implying. There's a lot of subjectiveness in "shielding the ball using the body to block another player" (which is allowed) or "using the body to block another player who wants to go for the ball" (which is seemingly less allowed). Mostly semantic apart from the "playing distance" part, which is vague in itself.
I don't know how many more times it has to be said, the laws don't state that playing distance means you have to be legally allowed to play the ball. If you can find something from IFAB to state otherwise then fine!
