mid-winter hypothetical scenario

[uniteo]

to warm your brains while enduring off-seasons;

Player 9 from team A takes a penalty kick, follows up on his kick which hits the post and rebounds toward him. The GK did not touch the ball. Defender crashes the box as the ball rebounds away from goal. #9 is well within position to play the ball, but obviously cannot play it until another player touches the ball. Player #9 shields defender as ball rolls to second player from team A, who shoots and scores.

Goal or obstruction with IFK to team B? Normally if a player is in position to play the ball and chooses not to play the ball that is a valid choice and so obstruction is not called, but can player #9 legally shield the ball if he s unable to play it?

Someone is going to throw out a position paper aren't they?

[DWickham]

There is an official USSF answer on this, but it isn't a position paper.

[refmedic]

I think this is ok. THe way I understand a players ability to play the ball on the shielding/impeding line is that the player is within playing distance of the ball; the player can reach the ball with his foot. I've never understood this to mean that the player had to be legally allowed to touch the ball. This player is able to play the ball, as any player would be. The only problem is that his touch will create an infringement of the laws. If he is only shielding and not impeding, he is not infringing the law, IMO. THe infringement would be the second touch, and as long as he doesn't do that, I don't see a problem with it. I haven't seen the official USSF answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was different than mine.

[AlsoRan]

oops

[AlsoRan]

Here is Jim Allen's answer. Impeding.

SHIELDING/SCREENING THE BALL–REVISED ANSWER
The Laws of the Game and the way they are officially interpreted are constantly changing. Back in 2002 and 2005 we answered a question about shielding the ball according to the interpretation of the time. Now, with the latest input, we have revised and refined our answer. This is to make everyone aware of the change in interpretation.
Original question
IMPEDING?
Question:A free kick has been given. The kicking player (A) kicks the ball only a couple of feet by mistake. He then goes to the ball and, while facing the ball, he shields an incoming opponent (B) from gaining possession. If the ball is at the feet of this player A, can he use his body to shield/impede his opponent from getting the ball? Player A cannot play the ball a 2nd time till it is touched by someone else. So can he really claim ³possession² with the ball at his feet when he isn¹t able to touch it? Or does the rule only require that the ball merely has to be within playing distance of player A while he is shielding ** even though he cannot play it?
Answer (February 16, 2005):Despite the fact that A cannot play the ball legally without playing it a second time before someone else has somehow played the ball, as long as A is within playing distance of the ball (i. e., meaning capable of playing the ball according to the Law), then A cannot be impeding. Playing distance is exactly that, a distance, which is determined in practice only by the playability of the ball.
The fact that in this particular case A could not LEGALLY play the ball without infringing the Law does not change the fact that, distance-wise, the ball is still within a physically playable distance. The ball is legally playable‹in every way open to any field player‹by anyone other than the player who kicked the ball. If A’s movement includes holding the arms out and making contact with the opponent as a means of keeping the opponent away, then the player is guilty of holding.
[Note: This answer repeats information given in November 2002.]


SITUATION REVISITED/REVISED ANSWER (March 23, 2006)
Questions have been raised concerning a narrow and rare situation in which the player performing a restart (for example, a free kick or throw-in) moves to shield the ball despite the fact that this player could not make contact with the ball directly without violating the Law (the “two touch” rule). In the past, the answer has been that the player may legally shield the ball as long as it remains within playing distance. This situation is now interpreted differently. Being within “playing distance” should not be considered sufficient to allow the kicker to shield the ball–the ball in fact must also be playable by that player. In other words, the concept of “playing distance” must include being able to play the ball legally.
If the player can legally play the ball and the ball is within playing distance, the player may shield as a tactic to prevent an opponent from getting to the ball (provided, of course, that the shielding does not involve holding). If the player cannot legally play the ball or if the ball is not within playing distance, such shielding becomes “impeding the progress of an opponent” and should be penalized by an indirect free kick.

[uniteo]

personally, I find it more satisfying when there is 5 pages of posters disagreeing with one another than when USSF disagrees with itself. Kind of anticlimactic that way...

[OldAndNew]

No - #9 is NOT permitted to 'shield' the ball in this instance.

Although he may be 'within playing distance' of the ball and otherwise acts in a 'legal' manner, one condition attached to the 'impeding' (formerly 'obstruction') ruling is that the ball must also be playable. As he is not permitted to touch the ball again before another player touches it, the ball is 'unplayable' to him. His 'shielding' action is grounds for an IFK to the defending team.

It's probably written somewhere in ATR. I'll look later.

Edited:

OK - I dug out my 2003 ATR which said:

12.14 Impeding an opponent

The offense requires that the ball not be within playing distance or not capable of being played . . .I have a penciled note there saying 'supposedly, Jim Allen (in 2005) said 'no impeding in this case' I have no note as to the source of the JA comment, but the current (2007) ATR seems to support that, because the underlined portion above no longer exists - apparently making my answer above, to be outdated. So, I guess (unless there has been another flip-flop), #9 MAY legally shield the ball.

[OldAndNew]

So, I guess (unless there has been another flip-flop), #9 MAY legally shield the ball.

OMG!!!! :eek:

I just saw the post by AlsoRan in which he quotes JA (March 23 2006) as saying (as I initially did) that #9 may NOT shield the ball - because it is not playable. JA says: If the player cannot legally play the ball or if the ball is not within playing distance, such shielding becomes “impeding the progress of an opponent” and should be penalized by an indirect free kick.

Then (as I noted above), ATR 2007 does indeed make a flip-flop of his previous flop-flips (:D) - and note that JA is listed in ATR 2007 as one of its 'principal authors' and 'doubled as editor'!

"You pays yer money and you takes yer choice!"

Can't wait to see ATR 2008 :rolleyes:

[rippingood]

The combination of the 2007 ATR and the info from the askasoccerreferee website

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?m=200606

probably means this is NOT ok (in USSF-sanctioned yada yada ...).

The logic is that the most current information should be used. The removal of a phrase in the ATR from 2003 (compared to '07) doesn't necessarily mean the opposite is now "true", rather that the combination of the latest LOTG, advice, and USSF-sanctioned info leads to the conclusion that one cannot shield in 2008 if one cannot legally play the ball. The ATR doesn't have to change to reintroduce a phrase along the lines of "or not capable of being played" since that is covered elsewhere (although it would be a more effective form of advice if such a thing were to be included).

[boylanj64]

What I find interesting is that JA essentially writes ATR, and as far as I know there have been no FIFA rulings on this, so I am unclear of the reason for his change. "With the latest input" is rather ambiguous; I think he just got it wrong the first time.

[Nesto]

What I find interesting is that JA essentially writes ATR, and as far as I know there have been no FIFA rulings on this, so I am unclear of the reason for his change. "With the latest input" is rather ambiguous; I think he just got it wrong the first time.

Possible. Also possible that JA and the others involved in USSF just changed their minds. I've heard from those who know about and help with the editing process that sometimes a case comes up that leads to discussion (arguments?) and eventually a consensus opinion. I suppose that at least some of those times the one who's mind is changed has to include JA.

[Alberto]

It would seem to me that under the scenario presented by uniteo that the penalty taker could not legally play the ball without commiting a foul and by his actions gained an unfair advantage by shielding the defender off the ball. Player #9, therefore, hindered the ability of the defender to play the ball fairly and the referee should whistle the play dead and restart with an IFK for the defending team.

[DWickham]

The ATR always trails what FIFA does. The change to the last (2007) version of the ATR mirrored the change in the 2006 FIFA Q&A and the Additional Instructions and Guidance in the 2007 LOTG. USSF was working on a Additional Instructions and Guidance memorandum when FIFA announced more changes, those resulting in the Interpretations and Guidance added to the 2008 LOTG. For those changes, you need the USSF's latest Supplemental Memorandum. (Fortunately, there were no changes re impeding in the 2007/2008 FIFA versions.)

Note, however, that while shielding is the defense, impeding is the foul. FIFA's interpretation about impeding states that the foul can occur when the ball is "not within playing distance of EITHER player." (Emphasis added.) That suggests that as long as the ball is within playing distance of the attacker, the defender may impede or fairly charge without committing a foul.

These changes occurred after the latest (2006) USSF answer. So, it is possible that we will go back to the future.

[refontherun]

It would seem to me that under the scenario presented by uniteo that the penalty taker could not legally play the ball without commiting a foul and by his actions gained an unfair advantage by shielding the defender off the ball. Player #9, therefore, hindered the ability of the defender to play the ball fairly and the referee should whistle the play dead and restart with an IFK for the defending team.

Agreed. If the judgement of shielding vs impeding is being with playing distance and having the ability to play the ball, in this scenario the "ability to play the ball" portion is not present because the kicker cannot legally touch tha ball. Especially if the alleged impeding was soley to allow his teammate to gain possession. I'd have to stop and give it to the defense.

[gosellit]

Have an interesting story about this topic.

A couple of years ago at an in service clinic, a referee brought up this scenario as it had happened to him in a match. Well, you can imagine the discussion about "playing distance" and "ability to play the ball" that ensued. I guess the room was about 50-50 on the subject. One of the folks there (state instructor, assessor) decided she needed to get clarification. Turns out that she has a certain member of the national instructor board on speed dial so the call went out. In a few minutes we were told the correct action was IDFK for the defending team. Based on the fact that attacking player could not be within playing distance because that player could not legally play the ball.

[Gary V]

2007 Advice to Referees:
12.15 PLAYING DISTANCE
The referee’s judgment of “playing distance” should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard. (emphasis mine)

While the words are different than the earlier versions quoted, they still mean the same thing. If the player is not able to play the ball, she is not within playing distance of it, no matter how close she is.

Off topic edit: If this is mid-winter, does that mean spring will start shortly after New Years Day? I wish.

[refmedic]

2007 Advice to Referees:
(emphasis mine)

While the words are different than the earlier versions quoted, they still mean the same thing. If the player is not able to play the ball, she is not within playing distance of it, no matter how close she is.

Off topic edit: If this is mid-winter, does that mean spring will start shortly after New Years Day? I wish.

I know this is a parsing of words, but I need to ask this of the law scholars out there, as it pertains to my original post. IMO, this player does have the ability to play the ball. If he can reach out his foot and touch it, he is within playing distance of the ball. In addition, there is nothing to stop this player from touching the ball. If he does, it is an infringement, but we can't consider it an infringement until it happens. I would be somewhat impressed that this player is knowledgable enough of the laws to know that it is an infringement to take a second touch at this ball, and so he only shields the opponent. There is nothing to protect this player, though, from his own ignorance of the law if he, in fact, does reach out and touch it, and earns an IFK for the defending team. JMO, but if we are considering this players' ability to play the ball, there is nothing wrong. If we are considering whether that touch is legal or not, that's an entirely different issue.