Or "impeding the progress of an opponent" as the laws quaintly call it.
I actually checked that the offence still existed - it does. But when was the last time you saw a ref give an indirect free kick for obstruction?
It seems it's either a regular foul or ignored. For example, Bessone shielded the ball out over the goal line against Southampton. The ball was never within playing distance and Bessone seemed to be "impeding" but nothing was given.
While on the FA's site I checked that the 6-second max for a goalie to handle the ball existed too. Enforcing that law was a fad that has gone right out of fashion while still being in the laws. Are there any others that have gone AWOL?
0
Comments
I've seen the odd foul for obstruction but the line between a foul and obstruction can sometimes be pretty thin.
i thought that one had been taken away
Just to be clear to, a defender is under no obligation to get out of an opponents way, so all the free kicks Ronaldo got for deliberately running into a defender after knocking the ball around them shouldn't have been given, and the associated yellow cards should be rescinded too.
I try to watch the referee these days to see if he is giving indirect free kicks (high feets is indirect I believe), but I really can't remember the last time I saw a referee (at any level) raise his arm when a kick was awarded.
The one that gets me is foul throws. Either I don't understand the laws, or I see foul throws every game. Harding did a couple the other night where he released the ball with his hands pretty much in front of his face.
The 6 second law has definitely been abolished. I remember when Andy Petterson got penalised for it against Ipswich in the cup when it first came into existence. They scored from an indirect free kick 4 yards out.
Definately NOT been abolished - its still in the FIFA Laws 2010/2011 and keepers are regularly being warned about time wasting. I agree that its is rarely enforced though. its needed or the keeper wouldn't release the ball!
Well that shows what I know
Is it still specified as 6 seconds, or is it at the referee's discretion as to how long 'too long' is?
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his
own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing
it from his possession
Sort of disagree on the keeper thing though. I think they do stick to about 6-8 seconds max which we all accept. It's better than that ridiculous three-steps-only rule they had when i was 10 years old, and massively afraid of taking the fourth step.
Surely the ball has to be within playing distance of the player shielding the ball?
If a player is shielding the ball out then he should also have to touch the ball every 3 feet covered.
Absolutely and it often isn't.
The ball doesn't even have to be touching the line, all it needs is a part of the ball to be vertically above the line. I rarely, if ever, see officials get this one wrong.
Question: should the amount of time Rory Delap takes over throw ins be clamped down on? I'm not suggesting he is time wasting, but it takes him an absolute age to chuck it in the box. Not sure what the law around this actually is.
Mmm....bit tricky to enforce that Kap. Ref's have enough to do. Can imagine it now slow mo. replays on MOTD and those twats saying, "he clearly brushed that with his studs after 2.91 secs since the last touch. It's a ridiculous decision"...
Not if the ball is actually within playing distance of him.
If you are deemed by the referee to be nearer to the ball than your opponent and within actual playing distance of the ball,
he will regard you as being in possession.
However that is totally different when you are 5 yards away, the opponent tries to run round you, you move to block him off. Ref's however have never played the game and dont seem to understand the difference.
And that isn't an extremely harsh, inaccurate and sweeping generalisation?