Obstruction

[Swissclaret]

One aspect I don’t understand and will be interested in an explanation.

Back in the day, I think the rule was that, if you blocked an opponent and had no intention of playing the ball, it was obstruction.

For years now defenders routinely «*obstruct*» a player, letting the ball go out for a goal kick.

They have no intention of playing the ball. Their sole intent is to block the other player from getting the ball.

Why is that not «*obstruction*» but is lauded as «*good defending*»?

[kritichris]

Current rule (part of Law 12

"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."

When you watch them players often hold their arms out to help shield the ball which should be against the law but doesn't seem to be acted upon

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Tella was subjected to the law's most persistent abuse on Friday night, the Wizard from Oz had no idea what the rule was or how to apply it.

[sinkov]

There was a directive issued to referees about 20 years ago, instructing them to favour the defender in situations where the ball is running out for a goal kick. And so they do, no matter how blatant the obstruction referees will not penalise the defender, although as far as I'm aware the law on obstruction has not been altered, the refs simply don't apply it in these situations.

It's bizarre, I've no idea why this directive was issued in the first place, which instructs referees to ignore a basic law in just one situation, but since I heard about this directive about 20 years ago, I've not seen one defender penalised, despite the most blatant cases of obstruction in every game I've seen since

[Swissclaret]

There was a directive issued to referees about 20 years ago, instructing them to favour the defender in situations where the ball is running out for a goal kick. And so they do, no matter how blatant the obstruction referees will not penalise the defender, although as far as I'm aware the law on obstruction has not been altered, the refs simply don't apply it in these situations.

It's bizarre, I've no idea why this directive was issued in the first place, which instructs referees to ignore a basic law in just one situation, but since I heard about this directive about 20 years ago, I've not seen one defender penalised, despite the most blatant cases of obstruction in every game I've seen since

Bizarre really as the ball could stay in play if the obstruction were not allowed!

[sinkov]

As I recall Swiss it was on a football msgboard, can't remember which one, and there was one poster who was known to be a Football League referee. He was asked this very question and his answer was that they had received the directive mentioned above. That's all I know, I've never seen anything official about it, but the facts bear it out, defenders shielding a ball out can do as they like, and they never get penalised.

I wonder why no TV pundit ever mentions or queries it, it's so bizarre and blatant and happens in every game, perhaps pundits have had a directive not to mention it, who knows ?

[Swissclaret]

As I recall Swiss it was on a football msgboard, can't remember which one, and there was one poster who was known to be a Football League referee. He was asked this very question and his answer was that they had received the directive mentioned above. That's all I know, I've never seen anything official about it, but the facts bear it out, defenders shielding a ball out can do as they like, and they never get penalised.

I wonder why no TV pundit ever mentions or queries it, it's so bizarre and blatant and happens in every game, perhaps pundits have had a directive not to mention it, who knows ?

Certainly, I don’t, sinkov. The Sky commentators described it as «*good defending*».

Just another of the inconsistencies in the game - like a challenge that is «*anywhere else on the pitch - a foul*» but in the penalty area it is not given.