Impeding, It Happens All the Time

[PVancouver]

In the Crew-United game on Friday, April 15, Ricardo Salazar made a strange call. At the 25 minute mark, Kyle Martino retrieved his own pass deep in the left corner. Brian Carroll ran out to defend, giving Martino a little bump. Martino turned and nutmegged Carroll. Carroll then turned to play the ball, throwing his left arm out and behind him to deflect Martino. Martino reached out with his hands in an apparent attempt to grab Carroll. Salazar blew the whistle and called... impeding. What might add to the controversy is that the Crew scored the only goal of the game on the resulting free kick, although that fact isn't really relevant.

While I think it was a poor call—Brian Carroll was clearly within playing distance of the ball and did little to impede Martino, the event made it clear to me that the law needs to be changed.

The law concerning obstruction reads simply:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee...

impedes the progress of an opponent.

According to the law, it makes no difference if the impeder is playing or within playing distance of the ball.

This is a significant omission, as shielding any player while maintaining possession of the ball should be considered impeding according to the laws of the game.

I would prefer to see:

deliberately moves to impede the progress of an opponent while not within playing distance of the ball.

A player should not be guilty of impeding by merely standing on the field. There are lots of times I am standing next to an attacker and then decide I would prefer to be on the other side of him. Should I just raise my hand each time and complain to the ref I was obstructed? Likewise if I am running along side a player who is not playing the ball at the time, should I be able to run into him and complain I was obstructed?

USSF's Advice to Referees states that ...
“The offense requires that the ball not be within playing distance or not capable of being played, and physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see also 12.22).

So it’s OK to impede if you “fairly” charge a player off the ball, which fits in neatly with the way the game is called. But where in the law itself does it say that impeding cannot be called if the ball is within playing distance? In fact “playing the ball” or being within “playing distance” of the ball is never mentioned in the laws of the game, and yet the laws are obviously enforced as if such a difference was written into the laws.

If I shield the ball by “holding off” a defender, am I not impeding his progress? How can the law be interpreted any differently?

The ATR has a short but curious description of holding: "Holding an opponent includes the act of stretching the arms out to prevent an opponent from moving past or around." If anything Carroll might have been guilty of this, which doesn't require that the holding be careless, reckless, or use excessive force. Although to me it was certainly incidental.

I would prefer to see this added as a form of pushing in the laws of the game, changing "pushes an opponent" to "pushes an opponent or extends an arm to impede the progress of an opponent". This would be primarily because if you extend your arm without grabbing anything, you are NOT holding. Also, holding is not subjected to the careless, reckless, or using excessive force requirement, and stiff-arming should be subject to that in my mind.

Although it is a minor matter to me, I don’t really understand the semantic difference between “impeding the progress” of an opponent and “obstructing” an opponent. Was it changed because obstructing could refer to visual obstruction? Except for that possibility, it seems to me that the laws should use the words obstruct or obstruction, because that’s what everyone seems to call it anyway.

[NHRef]

People make things harder than they have to be. I didn't see it, but it sounds to me that hte problem was the defender put his arm out. You shield with your body, not your arms.

We often get to caught up in the technical wording and ignore what it is describing.

[IASocFan]

I never understood why they changed obstuction to impeding. It seems like the same function to me, and obstruction is a more common word in my vocabulary.

From your description of the play, it sounds like the sticking the arm out to prevent a player to get to the ball is impeding or obstructing and was called. Penalty is an IFK. Holding is a more severe direct FK.

Within playing distance of the ball, players are allowed some latitude in holding their arms out, but can't go as far as stiff-arming opponents away from the ball. It's the opinion of the referee that's key in these situations.

[Alberto]

I never understood why they changed obstuction to impeding. It seems like the same function to me, and obstruction is a more common word in my vocabulary.

From your description of the play, it sounds like the sticking the arm out to prevent a player to get to the ball is impeding or obstructing and was called. Penalty is an IFK. Holding is a more severe direct FK.

Within playing distance of the ball, players are allowed some latitude in holding their arms out, but can't go as far as stiff-arming opponents away from the ball. It's the opinion of the referee that's key in these situations.

Agreed. By moving his arm out, the defender denied the opportunity for Martino to make a play for the ball.

[blech]

Agreed. By moving his arm out, the defender denied the opportunity for Martino to make a play for the ball.

i didn't see it either, but it sounds like Martino had beat him and was going past him to get the ball. you can't stick your arm out in this situation to stop your opponent.

[Ref Flunkie]

I saw this play as well and thought it was a strange call in that I see this stuff all the time with players in MLS using their arms. It wasn't as if the guy actually held the attacker back with his arm, and it almost seemed like he threw it out there just because that is how he was turning.

I really don't have a problem with the law as it is written, however I do agree with IASocFan, that why they changed the name of the foul to impeding is beyond me (of course no one knew what the heck obstruction meant either).

[Footer Phooter]

i didn't see it either, but it sounds like Martino had beat him and was going past him to get the ball. you can't stick your arm out in this situation to stop your opponent.


I did see it, I don't think that's accurate.

[fuschia]

...This is a significant omission, as shielding any player while maintaining possession of the ball should be considered impeding according to the laws of the game.

If I shield the ball by “holding off” a defender, am I not impeding his progress? How can the law be interpreted any differently?



:D Go over the scenario. "Progress" requires that the defender inserts himself between the attacker and the ball. It is impossible for this to occur when shielding. However, if the attacker sticks his arm out, that's a foul. A lot of cultural assumptions exist in the LOTG: soccer people "know" what it means.

[MassachusettsRef]

I saw it and I have to agree with Ref Flunkie, it looked like a very marginal call. Carroll, after being nutmegged, immediately turned around to play the ball and if his arm went up at all, it seemed to be a natural part of his pivoting. Salazar saw it differently, though.

The bigger problem that was evident in this match, from my perspective, is Adu's increasing proclivity for diving. He's getting protection from referees, as star players and playmakers should. And he is fouled more often than most other players. But I feel that he knows referees are inclined to whistle whenever he is touched and and that he is beginning to take serious advantage of it by going to ground far too easily.

If calls continue to go his way when he dives, it could create two problems that I can foresee. The first is an increase in occurrences similar to the dustup between him and Hejduk, which is just bad for MLS. The second is that he'll be much more liable to dive, and far less likely to get calls, when he reaches the full USMNT.

Overall, the obvious tendency to cheat by such a talented prodigy has to be worrisome for any fan of the game.

[nowaksarmy]

I think we all need to take a long hard look at impeding and how it is affecting the game. Yes, impeding happens on a very regular basis. I think the more relevant question is why has it crept back into the game. In my opinion the increased amount of impeding in the game is a result of the current law changes in the game. The law changes that have improved the game over the last ten years existed to promote attacking soccer and protect players. Unfortunately, necessity is the mother of invention and players instead of violently fouling their opponents and being sent off have resorted to the shirt pulling and the impeding that we now see. As the game evolves so should the referees and the referees have the responsibility to protect the game and the players who participate in it. When referees consistently (we all know that consistency is a dream) address the shirt pulling, encroaching, simulation, and impeding the game will benefit. Whether you agree if the call from the Columbus-DC is right or wrong it is a call that we need to see more frequently. We should not forget the ire in Frankie Hejduk's eye when he felt that Freddie Adu took a dive on him. The players know what they are doing and will constantly work to test the limits.

[Gary V]

The way I heard it, the change from obstruction to impeding was made in order to better translate the concept in other languages. In English they are near exact synonyms, but not so in at least one other official FIFA language.

As far as changing the Laws to incorporate concepts in Advice to Referees, that's the reverse way of looking at it. USSF publishes Advice in order to expand, amplify and yes, explain the Laws. Part of the problem is that the US does not have a rich soccer heritage, so things that "everyone knows" elsewhere are not necessarily known here.

The Laws were rewritten, and significantly shortened, in 1999. At that time, all the lawyerly language of the 1938 version was taken out, and they Laws are much easier to read. However, at the same time concepts that still apply were removed, since "everyone knew" what the shortened Laws meant, even if it wasn't spelled out.

The Laws cannot always be taken literally without interpretation. Sometimes a concept is not stated: There's nowhere in the Laws that says a player who is sent off cannot be replaced. Other times the words which are there don't mean what they seem to say: A literal interpretation of what is written in the Laws would require that once a team commits a foul, they are no longer able to score.

Every national association has an interpretive document or compilation of memos/decisions/papers that explain the Laws. (Or they use the document of another country - e.g. I'll bet American Samoa uses Advice.) These documents are often reviewed by FIFA before publication - Advice was.

[blech]

I did see it, I don't think that's accurate.

then i will defer to you :)

[PVancouver]

The way I heard it, the change from obstruction to impeding was made in order to better translate the concept in other languages. In English they are near exact synonyms, but not so in at least one other official FIFA language.Many English words have multiple meanings. If obstruction and impeding are near synonyms in English, why not simply translate obstruction into the commonly used foreign word for impeding? If it makes no sense at all to translate the foreign word back to obstruction, then perhaps someone is using the wrong foreign word. If this was the rational for changing to impeding, it doesn't seem to make much sense.


As far as changing the Laws to incorporate concepts in Advice to Referees, that's the reverse way of looking at it. USSF publishes Advice in order to expand, amplify and yes, explain the Laws. Part of the problem is that the US does not have a rich soccer heritage, so things that "everyone knows" elsewhere are not necessarily known here. The Laws were rewritten, and significantly shortened, in 1999. At that time, all the lawyerly language of the 1938 version was taken out, and they Laws are much easier to read. However, at the same time concepts that still apply were removed, since "everyone knew" what the shortened Laws meant, even if it wasn't spelled out.I don't advocate lawyerly language. But I don't advocate significant omissions, either. Looking at the Advice to Referees or any other interpretation of the laws seems a good way to me of discovering and describing where the holes are in the Laws.


The Laws cannot always be taken literally without interpretation. Sometimes a concept is not stated: There's nowhere in the Laws that says a player who is sent off cannot be replaced. Other times the words which are there don't mean what they seem to say: A literal interpretation of what is written in the Laws would require that once a team commits a foul, they are no longer able to score.True, the laws say "Only a player or substitute or substituted player may be shown the red or yellow card," but they never indicate their is any change of state in a sent-off player. However, a substitution must replace a player, and it is not unreasonable to assume that a sent-off player is not a player, although spelling this out would make a great deal of sense. I'm not sure what motivated the "team unable to score after a foul comment", but there are probably a number of time limits that are never expressed, for example in the case of offside. Because the offside limit is so important to the game, I think it should be clearly stated in the actual laws.


Also, I agree with MassRef. MLS referees need to issue more cautions for diving in MLS, and Adu is MLS' worst offender. Although I don't think the fact that he is a child prodigy is a important factor. I don't like to see Ruiz' dives either.

[Gary V]

I'm not sure what motivated the "team unable to score after a foul comment", but there are probably a number of time limits that are never expressed, for example in the case of offside. Because the offside limit is so important to the game, I think it should be clearly stated in the actual laws.
Law 10: "A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal."

As you say, no time limit is expressed. We all know it's implied.

[PVancouver]

Law 10: "A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal."Ah, yes, I recall that absurdity now. Why not say "provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed by the team immediately prior to scoring the goal"? With the addition of three words and the removal of one this absurdity in the laws would be eliminated.

[Chubbywubby]

I prefer the absurdity of the high school rule on the subject: "10-1-1: A goal is scored ... provided it [the ball] has not been deliberately thrown, carried or propelled by the hand or arm of a play of the attacking team ..." Can't call it back for offside. Can't call it back if the attacker clocks the keeper on his way in. Can call it back for too many attackers on the field, but that interpretation is buried under a different rule.

[MassachusettsRef]

Also, I agree with MassRef. MLS referees need to issue more cautions for diving in MLS, and Adu is MLS' worst offender. Although I don't think the fact that he is a child prodigy is a important factor. I don't like to see Ruiz' dives either.I only argue it's particularly important from the viewpoint of a USMNT fan. One would hope he'd be rid of the habit once he reaches the senior team (or, if you're more cynical, one would hope he was much better at it).

Anyway, Brian Hall justifiably booked him for an atrocious attempt to win an penalty during added time of this weekend's match. Let's hope more MLS refs follow this example. The attitude that some possess of "there's no time left, it's not worth the booking" can't prevail, because these are blatant attempts to cheat the opposing team (and, also importantly, screw the ref over in his assessment). The more players see yellow for this type of behavior, the less likely it is to be attempted.

[lmorin]

I only argue it's particularly important from the viewpoint of a USMNT fan. One would hope he'd be rid of the habit once he reaches the senior team (or, if you're more cynical, one would hope he was much better at it).

Anyway, Brian Hall justifiably booked him for an atrocious attempt to win an penalty during added time of this weekend's match. Let's hope more MLS refs follow this example. The attitude that some possess of "there's no time left, it's not worth the booking" can't prevail, because these are blatant attempts to cheat the opposing team (and, also importantly, screw the ref over in his assessment). The more players see yellow for this type of behavior, the less likely it is to be attempted.
Interesting. My take on the same play was a) Freddy is becoming a much better actor or b) he was tripped by a very mild mixup of two players' feet or c) he stumbled and fell. Any of these was, IMHO, not "an atrocious attempt to win a penalty..." [Not that I disagree with the premise that he dives too much, but in this case, I saw it differently than you did].

[bluedevils]

All this talk about impeding got me off track a bit. Maybe I'm a little law-rusty and perhaps I missed somebody else already mentioning it... but when a player holds out his arms to prevent an opponent from playing the ball or to prevent the opponent from moving in a desired direction, that is considered HOLDING, not impeding.