Well done ref

[CornwallBlade]

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

"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."

So many people seem to get wound up by the shielding the ball out so here's the rule most relevant.

This is also why when you see players shielding the ball in the corner to run the clock down you'll see the ref give a free kick against them seemingly arbitrarily.

On the Sharp goal, the more I watch it the more I think the ref sees that the defender is moving across and Billy has no obligation to move out the way for him. Still think it's borderline and you'll see it given as often as not.

You’re right and the key phrase is “and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body”. So why they don’t give the same decision when a defender shields the ball with arms legs and anything else, until it runs out of play? If Billy shoulder barged a defender blocking him from getting at the ball in that situation he get a foul given against him every time.

 

[PokerBlade]

You’re right and the key phrase is “and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body”. So why they don’t give the same decision when a defender shields the ball with arms legs and anything else, until it runs out of play? If Billy shoulder barged a defender blocking him from getting at the ball in that situation he get a foul given against him every time.

The difference is between "shielding" (meaning standing between the opposition player and the ball) and "holding off" (which would be holding a hand out to keep them away, or leaning back with you body to push them away). Admittedly there's some slop in the language here leading to some grey areas but I think it's fairly clear why shielding the ball out of play is allowed under these rules.

 

[tomtheblade]

The difference is between "shielding" (meaning standing between the opposition player and the ball) and "holding off" (which would be holding a hand out to keep them away, or leaning back with you body to push them away). Admittedly there's some slop in the language here leading to some grey areas but I think it's fairly clear why shielding the ball out of play is allowed under these rules.

Yeah, it's the difference between actually holding/grabbing the opposition player and spreading your body out to shield the ball which is under your feet. It's a bit of a grey area I agree, and the type of shenanigans when the ball is slowly rolling into touch are the limit of this. Generally I'm in favour of more physicality being allowed rather than less (within reason) so on that note I don't have too much of a problem with the touchline antics. It's just part of the physical battle that football should include as part of its makeup anyway.

Some people don't understand this rule though. I was playing indoor 5-a-side recently and whilst one opponent had the ball, his teammate (not in possession but next to him) actually spread his arms out and shuffled back and forth to shield me from even reaching the player in possession in an attempt to tackle. Pissed me right off, it's not American Football mate.

For those saying football is no longer a contact sport, I disagree. See Lundstrams tackle on Grealish for example, and many others down the years at the Lane. It's much less than it used to be, but it's not gone yet.