[Archived] West Ham Preview

[dingles staying down 4ever]

If you want to see real obstruction of a keeper, watch what Pompey did to Howard for Crouch's goals against Everton- which stood.

Unfortunately Chris Foy got it into his head that Diouff was obstructing and was going to blow every time just as he got it into his head that every shout of hand ball from the Blackburn End was not going to be given either.

Den is correct- a player can stand where he likes on a football pitch when his side is taking a corner so long as he is not standing on an opponent's toes.

Unforunately the vast majority of the refs will blow up against Diouf as a foul so it is pointless doing it as all it does is hand possession to the oppostion. Chris Foy is the only ref who will blow for it. How many times do you see the refs hold play up at corners for keepers and forwards busstling for position on the goalline. The forward is usually the one warned for blocking. Is every ref wrong?

[AggyBlue]

Is every ref wrong?

Yes.

They've all but ruined the game. Far too much whistle and not enough physical contact.

[thenodrog]

.............. How many times do you see the refs hold play up at corners for keepers and forwards busstling for position on the goalline. The forward is usually the one warned for blocking. Is every ref wrong?

Yep. Apart from a few old fashioned types most goalkeepers nowadays seem to have cultivated a fragile but very 'precious' on field persona. I blame the influence of a mix of far too much over-protection by referees and the Peter Schmeical blame culture.

[den]

Unforunately the vast majority of the refs will blow up against Diouf as a foul so it is pointless doing it as all it does is hand possession to the oppostion. Chris Foy is the only ref who will blow for it. How many times do you see the refs hold play up at corners for keepers and forwards busstling for position on the goalline. The forward is usually the one warned for blocking. Is every ref wrong?

I thought I was stubborn[ then I thought again].

If he stands still in front of the keeper[ which you say is a foul], no ref will blow up. Virtually every team puts a man in front of the keeper at corner kicks. It's when they're trying to stop the keeper getting to the ball that it becomes obstruction.

[ABBEY]

and when the goalie pushes the player with two hands in the back like on sat its a nailed on pen ...or never in our case.

[thenodrog]

I thought I was stubborn[ then I thought again].

If he stands still in front of the keeper[ which you say is a foul], no ref will blow up. Virtually every team puts a man in front of the keeper at corner kicks. It's when they're trying to stop the keeper getting to the ball that it becomes obstruction.

It's been my opinion since he came that Samba should be the man for that job. I cannot think why we don't do it as Samba does not win that many in the air from corners. Placed in front of the keeper and jumping in the air just as the ball is kicked will block the keepers vision until the ball is well in the box. No need for any foul either...... except by the opposition.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Law 12 - taken from Fifa Laws of the Game 08/09

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the

opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

• impedes the progress of an opponent

• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12,

for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

If the player is stood and preventing the goalkeeper from moving towards the ball then surely he is impeding the progress of a player

[den]

Law 12 - taken from Fifa Laws of the Game 08/09

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the

opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

• impedes the progress of an opponent

• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12,

for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

If the player is stood and preventing the goalkeeper from moving towards the ball then surely he is impeding the progress of a player

Standing still isn't impeding anyone DSD. The keeper just needs to go around Diouf All teams put a man in front of the keeper, quite correctly. It's quite straight forward really. Diouf would also be allowed to move off his line if he's not obstructing the keeper, or anyone else, in doing so.

It's the same with a defender marking an attacker at a corner kick - if you think about it. The attacker might stand by the near post and the defender might stand in front of him. The defender doesn't have to move out of his way if the ball falls short, does he?

[thenodrog]

Law 12 - taken from Fifa Laws of the Game 08/09

• impedes the progress of an opponent

How does that equate with the marking at corner kicks? Many times the defenders are cynically looking away from the ball and directly at the atacker simply so that they can impede him when the kick comes over. Like the running the ball out of play malarcky, it want's penalising.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

How does that equate with the marking at corner kicks? Many times the defenders are cynically looking away from the ball and directly at the atacker simply so that they can impede him when the kick comes over. Like the running the ball out of play malarcky, it want's penalising.

Could not agree anymore. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cliche time!

Standing still isn't impeding anyone DSD. The keeper just needs to go around Diouf All teams put a man in front of the keeper, quite correctly. It's quite straight forward really. Diouf would also be allowed to move off his line if he's not obstructing the keeper, or anyone else, in doing so.

It's the same with a defender marking an attacker at a corner kick - if you think about it. The attacker might stand by the near post and the defender might stand in front of him. The defender doesn't have to move out of his way if the ball falls short, does he?

Why does Diouf have to stand so close to the keeper? If it is not to impede the keeper then all he is doing is giving the defending team one less player to mark as the keeper is marking him.

[Eddie]

Putting a player in front of the keeper like that is pretty pointless. Any advantage gained will be counteracted by soft decisions going against you and I've seen very few goals scored where a goalkeepers mistake or inability to get to the ball can be directly attributed to a player standing on his toes. I can understand putting people around the keeper to help create a mass of bodies and also to challenge for balls that come right across the face of goal, but you can do that without it being so obvious that the ref knows he can give a soft freekick at any time if he so wishes. Most officials will err on the side of caution and our current tactics make that very easy for them.

[den]

Why does Diouf have to stand so close to the keeper? If it is not to impede the keeper then all he is doing is giving the defending team one less player to mark as the keeper is marking him.

Is it not obvious why teams do this? C'Mon DSD4E, he's doing nothing wrong by standing on the goal line, in front of the keeper. Fact.

[CAPT KAYOS]

Is it not obvious why teams do this? C'Mon DSD4E, he's doing nothing wrong by standing on the goal line, in front of the keeper. Fact.

Indeed Den but all defenders have to do and they do is leave him there in an offside position.

Whatever reason we do it for has no benefit whatsoever as we hardly win any headers from corners freekicks etc so effectively we are just a man down everytime, and more often than not in an offside position.

[bob fleming]

Indeed Den but all defenders have to do and they do is leave him there in an offside position.

Never easy from a corner kick. However it woouldn't surprise me if Morton manages this before the end of the season.

[Hughesy]

Indeed Den but all defenders have to do and they do is leave him there in an offside position.

Whatever reason we do it for has no benefit whatsoever as we hardly win any headers from corners freekicks etc so effectively we are just a man down everytime, and more often than not in an offside position.

He isnt offside on a corner and you cant be offside from a throw - so when is he offside? Only if he gets a touch, after someone else has touched it. He is making it difficult for the keeper to see the ball and collect any easy balls. Nothing wrong with it - the tactic is a good idea.

[LeChuck]

Standing still isn't impeding anyone DSD. The keeper just needs to go around Diouf

Sorry Den, but by that argument there would never be any fouls given for impeding, ever, because the attacking player could simply just 'go around' the opposition player.

Standing in front of a goalkeeper is a deliberate attempt to block his path to the ball. It's a foul. Fair enough if you happen to find yourself in the way and can't move, you could let that go, but deliberately positioning yourself to impede their movement is a foul as clearly stated in the rules.

[T4E]

He is making it difficult for the keeper to see the ball and collect any easy balls. Nothing wrong with it - the tactic is a good idea.

There's the rub though Hughesy - forget what the rulebook says - we all know goalkeepers are ridiculously over protected in the box. Therefore, we know a foul will be given if we stand in front of him to impede him. Rightly or wrongly, thats what happens, hence it's a bad tactic.

[den]

Sorry Den, but by that argument there would never be any fouls given for impeding, ever, because the attacking player could simply just 'go around' the opposition player.

Standing in front of a goalkeeper is a deliberate attempt to block his path to the ball. It's a foul. Fair enough if you happen to find yourself in the way and can't move, you could let that go, but deliberately positioning yourself to impede their movement is a foul as clearly stated in the rules.

and by that argument, defenders wouldn't be able to stand goal side of the attacker. They are trying to block off space as well.

Standing still in front of a keeper isn't a foul. Don't know how else to put it really. Where is the rule forbidding players standing where they like?

[DE.]

Whether it is or is not a foul according to the rulebook is irrelevant, fact is practically every time a goalkeeper is impeded by an attacking player in front of him a foul gets given. Seems to make the tactic useless, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

[LeChuck]

Standing still in front of a keeper isn't a foul. Don't know how else to put it really. Where is the rule forbidding players standing where they like?

There isn't one - as long as they're not impeding another player!

Law 12 - taken from Fifa Laws of the Game 08/09

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

impede

/impeed/

• verb delay or block the progress or action of.

I struggle to see how someone can argue that deliberately putting yourself right in front of the goalkeeper is not a foul when you read those two things. That's how the referees will see it anyway because they are told to follow what's written in the rule book.

[CrazyIvan]

Whether it is or is not a foul according to the rulebook is irrelevant, fact is practically every time a goalkeeper is impeded by an attacking player in front of him a foul gets given. Seems to make the tactic useless, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

This probably doesn't sound right coming from a football fan but I can understand, to a point, the referee's difficulty in calling fouls in the box for the benefit of attacking players when they get 'blocked' by the opposition and then trying to balance that by allowing challenges on the keeper without calling foul. I would say keepers generally get too much protection but the lack of consistency with which fouls are given or not is somewhat understandable. This season, Jason Brown was virtually assaulted when Man U scored against us but in another game a foul was given when the keeper wasn't touched (not us though...). For a ref to see absolutely everything that happens in the box from a set piece is literally impossible and that, in itself, is going to bring about inconsistency. Put the general 'big team' bias that most refs seem to have into the mix and it's a recipe for disaster.

Blocks in the box happen, some teams use them to stop defenders defending. Chelsea are masters at it. Two players stand together, one blocks the marker of the other player by running in front of him and the other goes to the ball to head it towards goal. Is that a foul? It's very, very rarely given and it's good tactical play whether you agree with it or not. Can a ref spot that in the 2 or 3 seconds when the ball is heading towards the box?

The question then remains about what you do about blocks and is there a rule change to make it more simple? I very much doubt it and it'll continue to be a talking point at the very least.

[den]

Whether it is or is not a foul according to the rulebook is irrelevant, fact is practically every time a goalkeeper is impeded by an attacking player in front of him a foul gets given. Seems to make the tactic useless, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Standing still isn't impeding anyone. It's occupying space and making it harder for the keeper to get a free run to the ball.

Neither do ref's blow up when a player stands in front of a keeper.

I struggle to see how someone can argue that deliberately putting yourself right in front of the goalkeeper is not a foul when you read those two things. That's how the referees will see it anyway because they are told to follow what's written in the rule book.

Well standing on the goal line isn't impeding anyone. All the teams do it Le Chuck. The ref hardly ever blows up because a player is standing on the goal line, next to the keeper.

Time for me to leave this one, I think.

[LeChuck]

Well standing on the goal line isn't impeding anyone.

It's occupying space and making it harder for the keeper to get a free run to the ball.

Bit contradictory there!

If we put the ball into the box and we scored because Samba stopped the goalkeeper getting to the ball we'd be very, very fortunate to get a goal. So much so that I really don't think it's worth trying.

[den]

Bit contradictory there!

Not at all. Teams pull 11 men back at corners to occupy space and make less room for the attackers. That's not illegal.

[CAPT KAYOS]

He isnt offside on a corner and you cant be offside from a throw - so when is he offside? Only if he gets a touch, after someone else has touched it. He is making it difficult for the keeper to see the ball and collect any easy balls. Nothing wrong with it - the tactic is a good idea.

Indeed this is true Hughesy , however as I say for us its useless due to not having many players with decent heading ability -apart from McCarthy - Pedersen is normally the deliverer and SANTA is not playing anyway. - add this to the fact that at the moment we are nothing short of useless at corners which either don't get anywhere past the front post or go way to far over the heads of everybody.

If Samba was put there it might make a difference - but Diouff ffs

bob fleming

QUOTE (CAPT KAYOS @ Mar 27 2009, 11:55 )

Indeed Den but all defenders have to do and they do is leave him there in an offside position.

Never easy from a corner kick. However it woouldn't surprise me if Morton manages this before the end of the season.

When was the last time he managed bobski ?

Even me and the would be able to do it at least once given the chance before the end of the season.