Has there been a change in the rules?

[blade too long]

The law you quoted was out of date.

the first of my quotes was from the referees association site

the second from the FA site rules

the term contact then when does it apply in your view

is it a defender intentionally blocking , but not holding or reaching out
when does contact occur

to me it has to be hands on , then its holding

any trailing leg is a trip

just getting a block in is ,,,

 

[blade too long]

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

being several yards outside a crowded box , is no where near the goal

 

[Bladepicker]

the term contact then when does it apply in your view

Errr. I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here but I'm going with....

When there's contact?

 

[blade too long]

Errr.

When there's contact?

in this incident you think it falls into contact
our defender used means to stop him other than blocking

 

[Bladepicker]

in this incident you think it falls into contact

Yes because there was contact between the players.

 

[blade too long]

Yes because there was contact between the players.

the attacker ran into him

tell me if the ref could construe that as contact
how come he didnt give us a penalty , direct free kick in the box when contact was made with a leg

 

[Bladepicker]

the attacker ran into him

Doesn't matter. If you impede an opponent and there is contact then it is a direct free kick. That is the law, there is no sub section of what types of contact are none exempt. Previously even if there was contact obstruction was an indirect free kick. That has now changed.

 

[Leonardo Green]

being several yards outside a crowded box , is no where near the goal

What has position and player density got to do with the direction the guy is moving in?

 

[blade too long]

Doesn't matter. If you impede an opponent and there is contact then it is a direct free kick. That is the law, there is no sub section of what types of contact are none exempt. Previously even if there was contact obstruction was an indirect free kick. That has now changed.

its still in rule 12 that impeding without contact is an indirect free kick

in what circumstances is that possible then

in the aid section is this
IFAB Laws of the Game 2016-17


An indirect free kick is awarded if a player

• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

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.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

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.
Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...fouls-and-misconduct.aspx#y7af4PvaYj8uadf0.99

so theres an indirect kick for no contact
then they say if a balls being shielded its ok to shoulder charge
contact is actually encouraged

 

[blade too long]

What has position and player density got to do with the direction the guy is moving in?

stopping a goal scoring opportunity

he was still 5 yards outside the box , moving towards goal becomes very general
could say someone in the centre circle is moving towards goal
in fact once you get the ball the idea is to move towards goal

from 25 to 30 yrads out unless theres a clear run to goal ie no defenders your still in open play

 

[Bladepicker]

its still in rule 12 that impeding without contact is an indirect free kick

in what circumstances is that possible then

in the aid section is this
IFAB Laws of the Game 2016-17


An indirect free kick is awarded if a player

• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

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.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

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.
Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...fouls-and-misconduct.aspx#y7af4PvaYj8uadf0.99

so theres an indirect kick for no contact
then they say if a balls being shielded its ok to shoulder charge
contact is actually encouraged

Yes but there was contact. If the ref deems that the defender deliberatly blocked the attacker by standing there and there is contact between the 2 it is a direct free kick. It really isn't as hard as you are making it.

 

[blade too long]

Yes but there was contact. If the ref deems that the defender deliberatly blocked the attacker by standing there it is a direct free kick. It really isn't as hard as you are making it.

because he made contact by blocking him

and the law strates a defender can stand his ground it only becomes direct if he deliberately moves in and makes initial contact


its how I was always instructed in my 12 years refereeing up to football league level
obstruction , impeding only became direct if arms and legs were used

 

[Bladepicker]

the law strates a defender can stand his ground it only becomes direct if he deliberately moves in and makes initial contact

No it doesn't.

Just to clarify - this is from th FA website.

"FAQ's Q1: If an offence involves contact can it be an indirect free kick?
NO – if an offence (including dangerous play) involves contact with the opponent it must be penalised with a direct free kick."

So if the ref deems that there has been an offence and there is contact then it is a DFK.

You may have been instructed differently but that is because, as per the OP and what everyone has been saying (and the laws) it has changed.

Arrrrrgggghhhhhh

 

[GrayBlade]

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.

Some Refs make it up,as they go along.

I remember Rob Styles deciding that there was an 'intension to foul' rule that was worth a giving a penalty for even after he'd waved play on, but a decade on I can't remember seeing a pen given again for just intension.

Maybe it's because Styles was given the push.