The Obstruction Rule

[Led's Zeppelin]

What’s happened to it? When was the last time a referee gave a free-kick for obstruction? Probably not since London Transport made Blakey redundant, ushering in the “modern era”.

Why do referees allow players to stand between the ball and an opponent with their arms spread wide, making no attempt to get the ball, determined to obstruct the opponent from getting it? They even give free-kicks against the opponent if he tries the move the player out of the way.

Has the rule been changed or erased?

Maybe no one cares but don’t you find it frustrating?

 

[Spurs' Pipe Dreams]

What’s happened to it? When was the last time a referee gave a free-kick for obstruction? Probably not since London Transport made Blakey redundant, ushering in the “modern era”.

Why do referees allow players to stand between the ball and an opponent with their arms spread wide, making no attempt to get the ball, determined to obstruct the opponent from getting it? They even give free-kicks against the opponent if he tries the move the player out of the way.

Has the rule been changed or erased?

Maybe no one cares but don’t you find it frustrating?

I may be wrong but if the player obstructing is in control of the ball (ie could kick it out at any time) then they are not obstructing. I don't think the rule changed just the interpretation of it.

Saying that actual obstruction happens on almost every corner with both defenders and attacking players deliberately blocking runs and acting as shields and these are hardly ever given either as a foul or penalty...

 

[Col_M]

Blimey. Half the readers of this site are wondering if this was in the days when they used to play with pig bladders. The other half are just happy that they can remember.

 

[Mr.D]

Indirect free kick. They* don't have to stand with their arm in the air, lazy fuckers.
*referees

 

[mano-obe]

I've made a thread on this on other forums. I am not a fan of them ushering the ball out of play.

I must admit Kyle Walker was amazing at it for Spurs but the defenders are blatantly blocking them even with their arms out half the time

 

[dontsalebale]

I've made a thread on this on other forums. I am not a fan of them ushering the ball out of play.

I must admit Kyle Walker was amazing at it for Spurs but the defenders are blatantly blocking them even with their arms out half the time

I think this thread illustrates why the obstruction rule is not enforced you are allowed to shield the ball if you are in possession. You are not allowed to use your body to obstruct an opponent if they are in possession. Simples

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

I think this thread illustrates why the obstruction rule is not enforced you are allowed to shield the ball if you are in possession. You are not allowed to use your body to obstruct an opponent if they are in possession. Simples

Yes, but "in possession" in football usually implies touching the ball at least once, which in the case of ushering the ball out for a throw clearly isn't the case.

 

[dontsalebale]

Yes, but "in possession" in football usually implies touching the ball at least once, which in the case of ushering the ball out for a throw clearly isn't the case.

if you get to the ball first you can use your body to shield the ball.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

if you get to the ball first you can use your body to shield the ball.

Yes, clearly, that is how it is now being interpreted. But when you clearly have no intention of playing the ball, even if it is stationary and still in play, you are as a matter of fact obstructing an opponent from playing it, and I believe the rule was initially designed to prevent that type of obstruction. We were taught that if you're not going to play the ball yourself, you can't stop an opponent from doing so.

I understand how it is being interpreted, but I believe that interpretation is a misreading of the intention of the rule itself.

 

[dontsalebale]

Yes, clearly, that is how it is now being interpreted. But when you clearly have no intention of playing the ball, even if it is stationary and still in play, you are as a matter of fact obstructing an opponent from playing it, and I believe the rule was initially designed to prevent that type of obstruction. We were taught that if you're not going to play the ball yourself, you can't stop an opponent from doing so

I understand how it is being interpreted, but I believe that interpretation is a misreading of the intention of the rule itself.

Its all about possession if an opponent runs up behind a player who is shielding the ball he has to go around not through to play the ball. Shielding or using your body to block access to the ball happens in many facets of the game such as dribbling dummies etc

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Its all about possession if an opponent runs up behind a player who is shielding the ball he has to go around not through to play the ball. Shielding or using your body to block access to the ball happens in many facets of the game such as dribbling dummies etc

Agreed.

But context is important, just as it is with other aspects of the game like physical contact; the referee needs to decide when an action is part of the game (it is still a contact sport, just about) and when it goes beyond the spirit of the game. To my mind, shielding the ball when you're trying to control it is a totally different thing from shielding it with no intention of playing it, while it slowly dribbles out of play or even worse while it is at a complete stand- still in the corner.

As with many rules, they need to be interpreted by the referee so that the game can flow, and I think they're making a mockery of this rule by reversing the intention of it. It was intended to keep the game moving but it now allows it to grind to a halt, and it serves no useful purpose, it neither promotes action or protects the players.

 

[dontsalebale]

Agreed.

But context is important, just as it is with other aspects of the game like physical contact; the referee needs to decide when an action is part of the game (it is still a contact sport, just about) and when it goes beyond the spirit of the game. To my mind, shielding the ball when you're trying to control it is a totally different thing from shielding it with no intention of playing it, while it slowly dribbles out of play or even worse while it is at a complete stand- still in the corner.

As with many rules, they need to be interpreted by the referee so that the game can flow, and I think they're making a mockery of this rule by reversing the intention of it. It was intended to keep the game moving but it now allows it to grind to a halt, and it serves no useful purpose, it neither promotes action or protects the players.

Any player who shields the ball whilst stationary is just asking to be overpowered physically and should receive very little sympathy from the officials. An example to highlight is when someone shields the ball at the corner quadrant to waist time at the end of a game. Referees give very little sympathy to the physical contact they receive and rightly so. Their is no advantage to shielding a stationary ball and could lead to a dangerous turnover of possession.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Any player who shields the ball whilst stationary is just asking to be overpowered physically and should receive very little sympathy from the officials. An example to highlight is when someone shields the ball at the corner quadrant to waist time at the end of a game. Referees give very little sympathy to the physical contact they receive and rightly so. Their is no advantage to shielding a stationary ball and could lead to a dangerous turnover of possession.

Yes, you’ve got a good point. So maybe it’s not the refs who are at fault but the rule itself not being clear enough.

If the rule was clearer so I t could be applied in the way I’d like it to be it would cut out all sorts of time wasting and and frustrating non-football shenanigans.

 

[cwy21]

"Obstruction" was removed from the laws of the game in 1997.

It was replaced by impeding the progress of an opponent. However, by definition an indirect free kick offense (which impeding is) can't involve any contact with an opponent. With the massive rewrite of the laws a couple years ago, they added a new direct free kick foul called "impeding with contact" which was previously covered with the "holding" or "charging" fouls.

If the player isn't within playing distance of the ball, then blocking off an opponent should be a foul. If they are within playing distance, the "culture" of professional football has made what constitutes being within playing distance to be rather large.

 

['O Zio]

Blimey I haven't heard anyone talk about "obstruction" since playing at lunchtimes at primary school

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Blimey I haven't heard anyone talk about "obstruction" since playing at lunchtimes at primary school

Well, it looks like I've been watching the game for the last 20 years without realising the rule had been abolished!

(I hope someone's told Mike Dean.)

 

['O Zio]

Well, it looks like I've been watching the game for the last 20 years without realising the rule had been abolished!

(I hope someone's told Mike Dean.)

Sorry, I didn't mean that as a dig at you, I just meant I haven't even heard it mentioned and so haven't really thought about it until just now when it was brought up. I never noticed it being abolished but obviously wasn't paying attention either