[Archived] West Ham Preview

[Alan75]

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

Given that, why not give a free kick, when player shepherd the ball out for a goal kick.

Are they not impeding the attacker from getting to the ball.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Given that, why not give a free kick, when player shepherd the ball out for a goal kick.

Are they not impeding the attacker from getting to the ball.

Depends on who has control of the ball. In that situation, the defender has control and isn't impeding progress because, well, he is the one "progressing" with the ball.

[LeChuck]

Given that, why not give a free kick, when player shepherd the ball out for a goal kick.

Are they not impeding the attacker from getting to the ball.

Because there is a law somewhere says something along the lines of "if the ball is within playing distance".

[den]

Given that, why not give a free kick, when player shepherd the ball out for a goal kick.

Are they not impeding the attacker from getting to the ball.

You can put your body intentionally between an opponent and the ball, and keep it there, as long as you are within playing distance of the ball. If you do that and you're not within playing distance, it's obstruction.

[Hughesy]

Its simple, from now on, Diouf should stand 1 yard infront of the keeper, but not back into him. Make it clear to the referee early on that he isnt going to back-in and to watch the keepers for barging him instead. Then all he has to do is stand there while Big Samba gets his head on the ball and fires it past the keeper who cant see the ball until late.

[LeChuck]

So...Diouf positions himself to impede the goalkeeper from getting the ball whilst Samba bursts in to head it home?

If it was that simple then every team would be doing it.

[den]

So...Diouf positions himself to impede the goalkeeper from getting the ball whilst Samba bursts in to head it home?

If it was that simple then every team would be doing it.

Blimey you're persistent. Every credit!

OK, so you're the ref Le Chuck. Rovers get a corner. Diouf stands right next to their keeper. Ped takes the corner and you're going to give the opposition a free kick. You're going to tell Diouf that he can't stand there and he's going to ask where he can stand.

What are you going to tell him?

[T4E]

OK, so you're the ref Le Chuck. Rovers get a corner. Diouf stands right next to their keeper. Ped takes the corner and you're going to give the opposition a free kick. You're going to tell Diouf that he can't stand there and he's going to ask where he can stand.

What are you going to tell him?

Ooooh, good one.

Deano?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Blimey you're persistent. Every credit!

OK, so you're the ref Le Chuck. Rovers get a corner. Diouf stands right next to their keeper. Ped takes the corner and you're going to give the opposition a free kick. You're going to tell Diouf that he can't stand there and he's going to ask where he can stand.

What are you going to tell him?

I would tell him the same as every ref has done in every game he plays....Stop standing with the intention of blocking the keeper. Then when the ball becomes active if he is still there blow up for a free kick! If he argues or continually persists then book him. It is a shame he does not get the point.

[thenodrog]

I would tell him the same as every ref has done in every game he plays....Stop standing with the intention of blocking the keeper. Then when the ball becomes active if he is still there blow up for a free kick! If he argues or continually persists then book him. It is a shame he does not get the point.

I think the issue of standing still wherever is not an offence and never can be, it's moving to obstruct the keeper that is the difficult issue. Many times keepers blatantly push attackers aside who are simply standing their ground. That should be a penalty. But as we all know most top referees have never kicked a ball in anger in their born lives. They are usually to be observed watching the kicker and the flight of the ball whilst all hell is breaking loose in the box.

[ABBEY]

I would tell him the same as every ref has done in every game he plays....Stop standing with the intention of blocking the keeper. Then when the ball becomes active if he is still there blow up for a free kick! If he argues or continually persists then book him. It is a shame he does not get the point.

why not go the whole hog and stop defenders and attackers from standing in the box because they stand next to one another or give the goalie some cotton wool to wrap him self in.

[den]

I would tell him the same as every ref has done in every game he plays....Stop standing with the intention of blocking the keeper. Then when the ball becomes active if he is still there blow up for a free kick! If he argues or continually persists then book him. It is a shame he does not get the point.

Good answer to the wrong question.

You don't know what his intentions are. When Diouf asks where he can stand, what do you say?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

I think the issue of standing still wherever is not an offence and never can be, it's moving to obstruct the keeper that is the difficult issue. Many times keepers blatantly push attackers aside who are simply standing their ground. That should be a penalty. But as we all know most top referees have never kicked a ball in anger in their born lives. They are usually to be observed watching the kicker and the flight of the ball whilst all hell is breaking loose in the box.

I agree if the ref allows Diouf to stand virtually on the keepers toes, in so virtually impedeing the keeper from moving to the near post or off his line, and the keeper pushes him then yes its a penalty. Unfortunately the original offence is the obstruction and thus this is the offence get penalised.

Most corners and set pieces around the box means a free for all for fouls by all teams defending and attacking as bad as each other, it is no wonder officials tend to turn a blind eye or take the easy option and give the decision to the defending team. Otherwise the match would never progress any further.

why not go the whole hog and stop defenders and attackers from standing in the box because they stand next to one another or give the goalie some cotton wool to wrap him self in.

no refs to do their job and stop all fouls that go in the box by ALL teams, but as it is often six of one and half a dozen of the other and so many happening it just won't happen

[ABBEY]

refs do their job and stop ALL FOULS BY ALL TEAMS HAHAHA.

THIS MUST GET A GROOBY 08/09 FOR THE MOST CRAZIEST POST .

if refs gave ALL fouls in the area there would be at least id say between 8-10 pens a game .

[thenodrog]

I agree if the ref allows Diouf to stand virtually on the keepers toes, in so virtually impedeing the keeper from moving to the near post or off his line, and the keeper pushes him then yes its a penalty. Unfortunately the original offence is the obstruction and thus this is the offence get penalised.

How so? There can be no obstruction etc when play is stopped and the ball is dead. If he plonks himself in front of the keeper when the ball is dead it simply cannot be obstruction and a free kick cannot be awarded. If he does not move once it is kicked it is that same. The onus is on the keeper to go around him. If the keeper barges / shoves him out of the way it is a pen.

Why is this difficult?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

How so? There can be no obstruction etc when play is stopped and the ball is dead. If he plonks himself in front of the keeper when the ball is dead it simply cannot be obstruction and a free kick cannot be awarded. If he does not move once it is kicked it is that same. The onus is on the keeper to go around him. If the keeper barges / shoves him out of the way it is a pen.

Why is this difficult?

When the ball comes into play and the keeper makes a move he is being hindered by the attacking palyer thus obstruction. I don't know what the problem is. It is very simple.

[ABBEY]

so is everyone else in the box.

[thenodrog]

When the ball comes into play and the keeper makes a move he is being hindered by the attacking palyer thus obstruction. I don't know what the problem is. It is very simple.

Wrong. Not if the attacker does not move he isn't. To impede a player one must move into his path. To be standing in his path when the ball comes into play is not impeding.

Do you need me to simplify it further?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Wrong. Not if the attacker does not move he isn't. To impede a player one must move into his path. To be standing in his path when the ball comes into play is not impeding.

Do you need me to simplify it further?

So if I'm wrong why do referees give a free kick for it. If you are going to simplify it could you please do it to refs, the FA and FIFA. Rarely have I seen a ref give a penalty for such an occurance.

[riverside returns]

Theno is quite right in his interpretation of the law, it is just that ref's do not do the same. Where Diouf stands still and does not move to block the path then that is perfectly legitimate and and subsequent push by a goalkeeper should be deemed an offence and a penalty should follow.

[thenodrog]

So if I'm wrong why do referees give a free kick for it. If you are going to simplify it could you please do it to refs, the FA and FIFA. Rarely have I seen a ref give a penalty for such an occurance.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederati.../36/lotg_en.pdf

Page 112 and page 113, Law 12 quite categotrically deals with this. If Diouff or anybody else does not intentionally move into the keepers way it is not an offence. Any ref that gives any other decision if a player is simply standing his ground is wrong.

The fact that you rarely see gkeepers punished for pushing does not alter the guidelines.

Study it and you write to the referees if you want dsd4e.

[LeChuck]

Blimey you're persistent. Every credit!

OK, so you're the ref Le Chuck. Rovers get a corner. Diouf stands right next to their keeper. Ped takes the corner and you're going to give the opposition a free kick. You're going to tell Diouf that he can't stand there and he's going to ask where he can stand.

What are you going to tell him?

Totally forgot about this!

It can only be a free kick if Diouf stops the goalkeeper coming to get the ball, I wouldn't give a free kick as soon as the corner is taken. Although...if the goalkeeper kept moving to the side of Diouf and he deliberately kept positioning himself in front of the goalkeeper, then I'd probably give a free kick the second Diouf blocked the goalkeepers path to the incoming corner.

To try and put that a bit more succinctly; if I believed the only reason Diouf was standing in front of the goalkeeper was to block his path to the incoming corner, then I would give a free kick for obstruction, because in my mind it's a deliberate attempt to impede the goalkeepers movement.

[AggyBlue]

To try and put that a bit more succinctly; if I believed the only reason Diouf was standing in front of the goalkeeper was to block his path to the incoming corner, then I would give a free kick for obstruction, because in my mind it's a deliberate attempt to impede the goalkeepers movement.

You don't seen to understand what obstruction is in footballing terms. You cannot commit obstruction if you are standing still.

If one player runs into another stationary player, then they have committed the foul. The offense used to be called 'charging'.

[LeChuck]

There's a difference between simply standing still and deliberately standing right in front of someone and standing still, surely? For me it's all about intent. If the corner comes into the 6 yard box and the goalkeeper is obstructed from catching it because Diouf chose to plonk himself right in front of the goalkeeper, how isn't it obstruction?

I don't think you could ever block a goalkeepers path by simply standing still anyway. The goalkeeper could just take a step to the side and have a clear run.

[thenodrog]

Inconsistency or what? Paul Dowd and Chris Foy obviuously have different interpretations of the rule if Kanu's goal yesterday v Bolton is to be taken into consideration.