Escorting the ball out of play

**Uncle_Joe** · 06/04/2009, 1:02 PM

This is a pet gripe of mine and wondering what peoples opinions were. Is it really legitimate for a defender to impede/obstruct an attacker going for the ball as its slowly rolling out for a goal kick or is it some kind of fuzzy rule that has crept in, like kicking the ball out of play when a player goes down?

Ive seen it countless times, most recently with Doyle Vs Italy last wednesday. If a player is running onto a pass and the defender steps in his way and blocks him, its obstruction and a free kick to the attacker. Yet a defender can obstruct an attacker if the ball is rolling out for a goal kick, more likely they will get a free kick as they fall into the attacking player in their effort to obstruct them.

It really fecks me off to see a defender obstructing an opposition player for up to 10 seconds without touching the ball as it slowly slowly rolls of play.

After Italia 90, the back-pass rule was brought in to eradicate the boring back-pass. Surely a similar rule change is needed to stop defenders who shepherd the ball out of play.

End of Rant.

**mypost** · 06/04/2009, 1:40 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle_Joe

It really fecks me off to see a defender obstructing an opposition player for up to 10 seconds without touching the ball as it slowly slowly rolls of play.

After Italia 90, the back-pass rule was brought in to eradicate the boring back-pass. Surely a similar rule change is needed to stop defenders who shepherd the ball out of play.

End of Rant.

It was brought in after Sweden 92.

A defender letting the ball run out of play is fine. My pet gripe is the ball getting held up at the corner flag, which is deliberate time wasting, and like other time-wasting, should be punished.

**passinginterest** · 06/04/2009, 1:49 PM

A defender letting the ball run out of play is fine. It's when he's blocking a player trying to keep the ball in play whilst making no attempt to play the ball himself that it's a problem. It's obstruction at the very least, you can't back into a player or hold him off in the same way anywhere else on the pitch so why allow it in this instance?

**Sligo Hornet** · 07/04/2009, 7:54 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

It was brought in after Sweden 92.

A defender letting the ball run out of play is fine. My pet gripe is the ball getting held up at the corner flag, which is deliberate time wasting, and like other time-wasting, should be punished.

I know what you mean, but it is not "time wasting" in respect of a breach of the laws because the ball is still in play

**seand** · 07/04/2009, 8:21 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

It was brought in after Sweden 92.

A defender letting the ball run out of play is fine. My pet gripe is the ball getting held up at the corner flag, which is deliberate time wasting, and like other time-wasting, should be punished.

It's not time wasting any more than playing the ball through midfield is time wasting compared to a goalkeeper hoofing it straight into the box. It's up to the defender to dispossess the attacker holding the ball up in the corner.

Regarding shepherding the ball out of play, the rules suggest it's ok, as long as you're within playing distance of the ball....

"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.
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."

**Junior** · 07/04/2009, 3:03 PM

I agree, whilst shepherding a ball out of play can be done within the laws of the game - regularly it is not, with defenders obstructing the attacking player (moreoften than not because they have misjudged the momentum/speed at which the ball is rolling)- rarely (if ever) have I seen a linesman flag or ref blow to award an attacking freekick. Pi$$es me off no end as well.......

"as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player
does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body"

that is a rarity in itself!!

**HarpoJoyce** · 07/04/2009, 5:52 PM

Following on from the posts above, I agree the defender sticking his bum out and reversing into an attacker who is doing his best to avoid contact and get to the ball, for me is obstruction.

**Stuttgart88** · 07/04/2009, 9:07 PM

Originally Posted by passinginterest

It's obstruction at the very least

Is obstruction still in the rule book? I can't remember the last time I saw it given. Years ago. Commentators have even stopped saying stuff like "Not sure it's a free, maybe indirect?".

A block seems to be either black or white now, full foul or no foul.

**Uncle_Joe** · 07/04/2009, 10:51 PM

I wasnt sure where to look for this originally but seand and junior are right. Its covered in rule 12 - Fouls and Misconduct.

I still believe that its something that needs changing. It adds nothing to the game and merely facilitates those who dont want to play football.
..... and its not called obstructing anymore, its called impeding!!

**crc** · 08/04/2009, 12:01 AM

I hate this too, and think the rule should be changed.

As I understand it, the defender is allowed to shepherd the ball out of play because he is deemed to be in possession of the ball.

My view is that he should only be deemed to be in possession of the ball once he has touched it, and that any "shielding" would be considered obstruction up to that point. The logical effect of this is that the defender wouldn't / couldn't shepherd the ball out because he would concede a corner or a free kick (for obstruction).

Similar to the pack-pass rule, this would force players to keep the ball in active play for longer.

**mypost** · 08/04/2009, 4:01 AM

Originally Posted by Sligo Hornet

I know what you mean, but it is not "time wasting" in respect of a breach of the laws because the ball is still in play

Refs can "tag" on the time spent at the corner flag onto the end of injury time, and disguise it as "stoppage time" in stoppage time.

He doesn't have to play the indicated amount of injury time, he can play longer if he deems it fit.

**seand** · 08/04/2009, 9:47 AM

Interestingly there's nothing in the laws of the game defining time wasting.

**Stuttgart88** · 11/04/2009, 1:43 PM

I agree with CRC in that a player should only be deemed to be in possession once he has touched it. This practice has been a blight on the game for ages and a simple instruction to referees to treat it as foul play should be sufficient. I think it's more an issue of interpretation or enforcement than an actual flaw in the rule.