Penalty or Indirect Free-Kick? (FIFA Rules)

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

Up for debate folks (though I'm sure we've been here before?):


FIFA Laws of the Game classify impeding as one of the 4 technical fouls that can be committed by a player, which results in the sanctioning of an indirect free kick:

“An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• impedes the progress of an opponent” (FIFA LOTG pp. 37)

But what does that mean? How do we recognize impeding and when should we call it?

The LOTG go further to explain impeding in the Interpretations and Guidelines section of the law book:

“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.

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.

Shielding the 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. If the ball is within playing distance, the

player may be fairly charged by an opponent.” (Interpretations and Guidelines, pp. 122)

So - should a penalty have been awarded, or an Indirect Free Kick?

IMHO - indirect free-kick

 

[Damski]

What?

 

[UnitedBlade]

Up for debate folks (though I'm sure we've been here before?):


FIFA Laws of the Game classify impeding as one of the 4 technical fouls that can be committed by a player, which results in the sanctioning of an indirect free kick:

“An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• impedes the progress of an opponent” (FIFA LOTG pp. 37)

But what does that mean? How do we recognize impeding and when should we call it?

The LOTG go further to explain impeding in the Interpretations and Guidelines section of the law book:

“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.

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.

Shielding the 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. If the ball is within playing distance, the

player may be fairly charged by an opponent.” (Interpretations and Guidelines, pp. 122)

So - should a penalty have been awarded, or an Indirect Free Kick?

IMHO - indirect free-kick

Best article I’ve found so far below explaining why we’ll never see indirect free kicks in penalty areas again. In short the wrestling and impeding which currently goes on at corners is difficult to manage, it would become a farce if players thought they may possibly just incur an indirect free kick.

Good point to raise though but I still think Stearman gave away a penalty with the contact he used to prevent the player getting past.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport...-kicks-in-the-box-for-obstruction-325037.html

Would be interesting if they did reinstate indirect free kicks for this wrestling and followed through with 10 awards in each game! Would that stop the wrestling? We’ll all complain but it’s a really hard area for refs to manage.

 

[oaklandrdblade]

Thought it was changed a few years ago so that if it occurs in the box it is a pen. May have dreamt that though