Has there been a change in the rules?

[1danewhitehouse]

Apologies if this has been posted.

When I was growing up, obstruction always meant an indirect free kick. So why is it that Dack was allowed to shoot straight at goal?

 

[JohnDenver]

Obstruction doesn't exist anymore. A foul is a foul.

 

[blade too long]

according to the referees site, its technically called impeding now



What is the obstruction rule in soccer?
Soccer Impeding. “Impeding the Progress of an Opponent” is an “Indirect Kick Foul” (see “Fouls, Indirect Kick, Impeding The Progress Of An Opponent“). This used to be called “obstruction”. Generally, a player cannot use his body to impede another player's movements, even if it is not deliberate.

so impeding results in an INdirect free kick

 

[Bladesway]

Been this way for a while hasn't it?

I remember there being obstruction in the penalty area and indirect free kick given in one game I played in during the 90's. Can't remember it ever happening before or after.

 

[blade too long]

same with goal keepers wasting time , when was the last time anyone saw a free kick for that

 

[Champagneblade]

You missed another one:

I thought if you want for the ball on the penalty area, missed it and brought down the man it was a penalty.

Apparently this is the case unless the impeded attacker is an employee of Sheffield United.

However in the opposing case where the referee is able to clarvoyantly judge the intent of the defender when an employee of Sheffield United even if this is not an actual foul, it is deemed a penalty. Oft referred to is the Gerrard rule, this was brought in several years ago.

 

[Bladesince59]

You missed another one:

I thought if you want for the ball on the penalty area, missed it and brought down the man it was a penalty.

Apparently this is the case unless the impeded attacker is an employee of Sheffield United.

However in the opposing case where the referee is able to clarvoyantly judge the intent of the defender when an employee of Sheffield United even if this is not an actual foul, it is deemed a penalty. Oft referred to is the Gerrard rule, this was brought in several years ago.

Yep - bastard scousers.

 

[Kabba Kabba Doo]

You missed another one:

I thought if you want for the ball on the penalty area, missed it and brought down the man it was a penalty.

Apparently this is the case unless the impeded attacker is an employee of Sheffield United.

However in the opposing case where the referee is able to clarvoyantly judge the intent of the defender when an employee of Sheffield United even if this is not an actual foul, it is deemed a penalty. Oft referred to is the Gerrard rule, this was brought in several years ago.

Yep! Genuinely still more aggrieved about this than anything Tevez/West Ham/The FA/Aliens ever did to us that season!
And the Rob Kozluk "offside" goal away at West Ham that was disallowed!

 

[Champagneblade]

The Kozluk goal was disallowed due to a foul. 6' Rob Green climbing all over 5,6" Derek Geary was deemed to be somehow unfair (probably on the fans).

 

[Bladepicker]

according to the referees site, its technically called impeding now



What is the obstruction rule in soccer?
Soccer Impeding. “Impeding the Progress of an Opponent” is an “Indirect Kick Foul” (see “Fouls, Indirect Kick, Impeding The Progress Of An Opponent“). This used to be called “obstruction”. Generally, a player cannot use his body to impede another player's movements, even if it is not deliberate.

so impeding results in an INdirect free kick

The thing you quote is somewhat out of date.

Current law states:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty
area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• spits at an opponent


So a direct free kick was correct.

 

[Revolution]

You missed another one:

I thought if you want for the ball on the penalty area, missed it and brought down the man it was a penalty.

Apparently this is the case unless the impeded attacker is an employee of Sheffield United.

However in the opposing case where the referee is able to clarvoyantly judge the intent of the defender when an employee of Sheffield United even if this is not an actual foul, it is deemed a penalty. Oft referred to is the Gerrard rule, this was brought in several years ago.

There was another little known rule in operation in the return game for one of the 2 pens they were given: If Liverpool are awarded a corner against Sheffield United, they can then be awarded a penalty if a Liverpool player asks the referee very nicely before the corner kick is taken.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Obstruction doesn't exist anymore. A foul is a foul.

Thanks mate. Didn't know that. Do you know when it changed?

 

[blade too long]

The thing you quote is somewhat out of date.

Current law states:
• impedes an opponent with contact
.

with contact , very vague instruction
obstruction, impeding tomato tomatoe means the defender blocks a route , no contact , intentional holding is used

on the FA site is law 12
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made (my definition of obstruction )
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
• commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...fouls-and-misconduct.aspx#3Bilxe1xE4tX35bQ.99

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

with contact , very vague instruction
obstruction, impeding tomato tomatoe means the defender blocks a route , no contact , intentional holding is used

You are Roberto and I claim my £5

 

[Jehovah]

The Kozluk goal was disallowed due to a foul. 6' Rob Green climbing all over 5,6" Derek Geary was deemed to be somehow unfair (probably on the fans).

Didn't nob green when asked about that say "its Sheffield united, they always moan"

 

[GreasyChipBeattie]

You are Roberto and I claim my £5

Wasn't that some kind of newspaper promo from years ago BOSS?
I seem to remember some young girl throwing her arms round my dad and saying some kind of similar phrase.
He gave her a couple of quid anyway because he felt sorry for her!!

 

[1danewhitehouse]

So.............

I still feel non the wiser. Of course in a situation like lafferty's there was contact BUT the contact was of the Gills player into him after he had obstructed the path of the Gills player. So, indirect or direct?

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Wasn't that some kind of newspaper promo from years ago BOSS?
I seem to remember some young girl throwing her arms round my dad and saying some kind of similar phrase.
He gave her a couple of quid anyway because he felt sorry for her!!

Yes. Daily Mirror I think. Always seemed to be going on in Brid or Scarborough in the late 50s, early 60s

 

[him behind you]

The thing you quote is somewhat out of date.

Current law states:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty
area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• spits at an opponent


So a direct free kick was correct.

I actually thought it was hard and a booking a little unfair on the basis that the guy was almost on the floor before he hit lafferty. I was only watching it on a little tv in a smokey bar in Antalya but it looked to me as if he was stumbling before any contact.

 

[metalblade]

It's all a load of bollocks anyway if the rules were enforced the ref would be blowing for a free kick every time a defender shields the ball out for a goal kick. If we are changing rules they should be enforced at all times not just when the ref feels like it.

 

[BushBlade]

Wasn't that some kind of newspaper promo from years ago BOSS?
I seem to remember some young girl throwing her arms round my dad and saying some kind of similar phrase.
He gave her a couple of quid anyway because he felt sorry for her!!

The charades dads play to stop their kids finding out about prostitutes, always inventive and always plausible.

 

[BushBlade]

So.............

I still feel non the wiser. Of course in a situation like lafferty's there was contact BUT the contact was of the Gills player into him after he had obstructed the path of the Gills player. So, indirect or direct?

Direct. Using the literal interpretation. There was contact. It's says 'where there is contact' it makes no reference to who has to initiate the contact.

Edit It doesn't precisely say that but I'm too lazy to re-type.

 

[Bartyblade]

It's all a load of bollocks anyway if the rules were enforced the ref would be blowing for a free kick every time a defender shields the ball out for a goal kick. If we are changing rules they should be enforced at all times not just when the ref feels like it.

That part of the rules is unchanged: "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".

 

[jt64]

Moore got a touch anyway so it's moot

 

[Bladepicker]

with contact , very vague instruction
obstruction, impeding tomato tomatoe means the defender blocks a route , no contact , intentional holding is used

on the FA site is law 12
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made (my definition of obstruction )
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
• commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...fouls-and-misconduct.aspx#3Bilxe1xE4tX35bQ.99

Its not a very vague instruction at all, it's quite clear.

If there is contact then it's a direct free kick.

If no contact but you impede the opponont then it's an indirect free kick.

It is hardly confusing. The law you quoted was out of date.

 

[Kop Cat]

Its an indirect free kick if the referee holds his arm straight up, if not its direct, can`t recall if he did this or not.

 

[metalblade]

That part of the rules is unchanged: "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".

Have you ever seen a player shield a ball out of play without holding his arms out, and usually the ball is yards away so not in playing distance. It is a shit law, players should be encouraged to play the ball where possible, just another form of time wasting to me.

 

[Leonardo Green]

Indirect free kicks are only for if the attacker was going away from goal.

 

[Slug]

The Kozluk goal was disallowed due to a foul. 6' Rob Green climbing all over 5,6" Derek Geary was deemed to be somehow unfair (probably on the fans).

Then a few weeks later didn't West Ham also get given a "goal" that never crossed the line, against Blackburn I think it might have been?

 

[Snowman]

Moore got a touch anyway so it's moot

Does that mean that if he takes it "direct", in the sense of no touch by a player of his own side before he hits it, any touch by an opposition player converts it to indirect?