QuoteAre those "rules" FIFA-approved or do they merely act as an interpretational guideline for a local football governing body (or the Long Island Junior Soccer League for under-15 boys, in other words)?Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Ironically enough though, if he had tried to play football first in the clip above the fresh air kick wouldn't have happened. I think he had just enough space to control the ball instead of wildly hoofing it with his weaker foot.
Are those "rules" FIFA-approved or do they merely act as an interpretational guideline for a local football governing body (or the Long Island Junior Soccer League for under-15 boys, in other words)?
I think that is based on FIFA rules, this is what it says on the FIFA site
This is from the FIFA site:-
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf
The key point in it seems to be being within playing distance of the ball and I would say much of his shove on29 Impeding the Progress of an Opponent
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct,
block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent 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
30 Impeding the Progress of an Opponent Shielding the ball is permitted.
A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence
as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or
body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
Coleman was outside playing distance. Hence it is an offence.
Colman should have had an indirect free kick.
The key point Tricky, is that Coleman would have had a better chance if he had tried to control the ball instead of hoofing it. He was punished for it. 'Hoofing bad, control good', is the new mantra.
Brilliant goal though, unlike the mickey mouse one, Germany got after Stokes lost possession.
But, Tricky, the Kazakh didn't move into Coleman's path.
I do not see it as a mistake at all, he was in space and had the time to recover the situation if he missed his clearance.
However because he was fouled in an of the ball incident he could not recover.
The only error is on the part of the ref, he missed the off the ball shove on Coleman.
Yes he did "Impeding is forcing a change of direction by an opponent then the ball is not within playing distance of either player."
Initially both Coleman and the ball are in the dark green stripe of the grass The no 21's initial challenge on Coleman may be
fair, but he continues to drive Coleman away into the light green stripe of grass.
He does not have to move into Coleman's path all he has to do is force a change of direction or obstruct and I think he does that.
You could argue his initial challenge is a legal changing direction as he is in within playing distance.
However I am not even sure that he is within playing distance as he leans into Coleman.
I know it is a very fine point though and it is complicate, for example if he forces a change in Coleman's direction
within legal distance is maintaining that change legal, you could argue if Coleman tries to get back on line
and in the direction of the ball he is fouling the no 21.
Maybe you can argue the no 21 is legally shielding the ball after his initial challenge within distance.
However the two rule seem to contradict one another page 29 and 30.
It seems you can place yourself into the path or a player but you cannot move into the path of the player
is there a difference between move yourself and place yourself?
But that is a bit of an aside as you can argue Colman's path has changed.
I guess the ref took the easy option of awarding the goal rather than try and explain why a foul had been committed!!!
However again both 29 and 30 say within playing distance and IMO the no 21 continues to shield the ball when
not within playing distance.
To me he places himself between Coleman and the ball for tactical reason ie so his colleague Borat the Magnificent
can whack it into the top corner without Coleman challenging and that is a foul as he was not within playing distance at
the time. So I almost changed my mind there, I thought he was allowed to shield as long as he didn't use his arms,
but he can't use his arms either within or without playing distance.
I mean I know when I used to play I would quite often place myself between the opponent and the ball to let
a ball run out of play (in my favour), however I always felt a bit of a cheat because I knew I was doing this deliberately to
obstruct the player getting to the ball, however I always got away with it.
Obviously I made it look like I was not deliberately obstructing although I knew I was, I just pretended I was a bit slow.
Its a bit of a fine point though, it is more about intention.
Perhaps need to be thrashed out in the European court of human rights!!!
dear god
Havin a weekend away is quite frankly,lettin ur team mates down!
That show on Sky Sports, Barclays Premier League World, are doing a piece on Coleman's Irish football background next week. They are also following some dedicated Irish Liverpool fans from Dublin to a match at Anfield, or something along those lines.
Sky Sports 3
Thursday, 24th October @ 18:30
They are indeed following them!
Lets talk about six baby
There is no contradiction evident in the rules quoted, nor, from them, is there any indication that the ref should have awarded us a free-kick. You've either misread them or don't understand them. The fact you've abbreviated the stated rule, leaving out a vital element of information, and passed your edited statement off as a direct quote lifted from the rule-book, albeit with a spelling error included, by no means helps your case. I don't know if that was intentional or simply a case of you failing to grasp the significance of the sliced information. FIFA don't include unnecessary waffle in their rules; every word serves a purpose and has a meaning.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 18/10/2013 at 5:50 PM.
I was a bit stuck for time posting in work earlier, but "moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent" is an essential aspect of obstructing an opposition player. Therefore, Tricky, I don't know why you saw fit to disregard that element from what is merely your mistaken personal interpretation outlined at the beginning of your post. The Kazakh player didn't move into Coleman's path. At no point was Coleman even facing his opponent when the two bodies came together, primarily as a result of momentum. Besides, the ball was easily within playing distance of Coleman at the moment the players connected.
You have to look at the rules on page 30 it is not my mistaken
interpretation of the rule on page 29 it is the correct reading of the rule
on page 30.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf
The two rules do seem to contradict one another. However he is not within playing distance
and he is between Coleman and the ball for tactical reasons, there is no mention of path
in the rule hence it is a clear cut case of obstruction and a free kick should be awarded.
So reword that slightly and it is "a player commits an offence if he placesShielding the ball is permitted.
A player who places himself between an opponent and
the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence
as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the
player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or
body.
If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be
fairly charged by an opponent.
himself between and opponent and the ball for tactical reasons, unless
he is within playing distance"
Last edited by tricky_colour; 18/10/2013 at 6:26 PM.
Finally one person realsies the goal should never have stood!!!
Clear Tay fluck and stop ruining this thread.yous are worse than oul women arguing
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Clearly the Kazak player used his body to block Colman when the ball was not with in playing distance."Impeding the Progress of an Opponent" is an "Indirect Kick Foul" in soccer (see "Fouls, Indirect Kick, Impeding The Progress Of An Opponent"). This used to be called "obstruction". Generally, a player cannot use his body to impede another player's movements, even if it is not deliberate. This can be called if a player is not within "playing distance" of the ball (i.e., 3 feet) and block's an opponent's movement or screens an opponent from the ball. However, if a player is within playing distance & able to play the ball (meaning not laying on the ground), the player can legally screen an opponent from the ball. (You usually see this when a ball is going out of bounds & the player whose team will get the throw-in screens the opponent so the opponent can't save the ball). The rule also applies to "innocently" impeding the goalkeeper by standing in front of him when he has the ball.
OK it made no distance on this occasion, but people need to aware of the rules of the game, it might cost us qualification.
Seems some of the refs need to read up on the rules as should some of the soccer 'experts', the pundits and journalists,
none of whom seem to have spotted this obvious infringement. I mean you can forgive the odd barstooler for being
ignorant of the laws of the game, but when people are being paid to be experts on the game they should at least know the basics.
Last edited by tricky_colour; 19/10/2013 at 1:33 AM.
Actually, rather than whinging about this, perhaps a better way forward would be to take the positives out
of this unfortunate incident.
Now that we can see that refs, for one reason or another will allow players to get away with obstruction
it seems to me that we should use this to our advantage and obstruct opposition players to keep or
gain possession of the ball whenever possible. I think this may be something StSku was alluding to in his rather
obtuse post, but to be honest, I am not too sure what his point was, if indeed he had one.
Considering our last goal was illegal in that Stokes kicked the ball from out of play i think you can leave this one go....
My point is that I think it is time for us all to put the miscarriage of justice that befell Coleman and the Republic of Ireland team on Tuesday night behind us, irrespective of whether or not your interpretation of a rule is accurate. A strict interpretation of every rule is not to the benefit of the game unless you want a college of umpires throwing flags to stop play for every minor and major infraction in the game like NFL or something. And even then, infractions are missed.
But thank you for isolating my playful post as obtuse and ignoring others including one that accuses you of ruining the thread, acting like a woman and asking you to remove yourself from the thread...
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks