Hello.. Have seen a lot of what I consider to be improper decisions regarding impeding fouls in the last couple of weeks. I went back to the ATR to look at it again, and although it gives the option to the referee to make a decision when contact is made, I'm of the opinion that IF you impede the progress of an opponent AND make contact in the process of doing it, the restart should in the overwhelming majority of the cases (maybe 90%) be a DFK. I think the impeding ceases to be impeding and turns to holding or tripping when contact is made. I would be hard pressed to find the 10% of the time when it shouldn't be direct, instead of looking for the ATR's reasoning. The one requirement for impeding that referees overlook is that the ball CANNOT be within playing distance of the opponent. A little wordy, but how do you handle your impeding fouls? No. 2....striking. Attacker is in possession and defender comes to dispossess. Defender is a bit out of control and rakes forearm and finally elbow into head and mouth of attacker..attacker is knocked to the ground injured and needs attention.ATR seems to tell me it is a cardable offense and even a sending off...How do you judge if that type of play is accidental, reckless, careless...And could the use of a forearm and elbow into the head and mouth ever be considered accidental? I'm thinking there are occasions, ITOOTR, etc. R
I judge impeding vs. holding based on how the contact is initiated. If the opponent is merely swerving to be in the way of the attacker and contact is made, I tend to award the IFK. If the opponent clearly puts himself in the way and causes the contact, I'll award the DFK. Most incidents where contact results from what otherwise would be impeding actions I tend to find are DFK worthy. I like the questions you ask about striking. Part of me says I have a hard time sending a player off for an arm to the face if it really comes across as the player being highly unskilled and flailing. At the same time, part of me says even a highly unskilled player should know better than to go swinging his arms about at head level in a soccer match. Depending heavily on the context, I might try to get away with an extremely stern and public admonishment with no less than a caution if I think the players (and coaches/spectators) will buy it. In any kind of higher skill competitive level I can't imaging not sending the player off for popping somebody in the face, though -- not necessarily because that player intended to do so, but because I'd lose control of the game if I didn't!
1) If a player runs in front of an opponent to shield the ball, slows down, allows the ball to roll farther than playing distance, and causes the opponent to run into their back, I'm giving an IFK. It's not a charge, it's not a trip, and it's not holding, but it IS impeding. I would give a DFK if the "impeding" was in fact a charge, or if by slowing down the player trips over the opponent and falls. Don't call things what they aren't. If it's not a trip don't call it a trip, call it something else, preferably something you can sell if the player asks what the whistle was for. Scenario #2 for impeding: Player receives ball, begins dribbling upfield. Puts a little too heavy touch on the ball and it gets away from him. Opponent comes between player and ball, causing player to slow down or have to run around player (no contact). Teammate of opponent collects ball and boots it upfield. If I think that the original player could have gotten to the ball before opponent's teammate, I'm giving an IFK. The opponent's insertion between player and ball caused player to lose ball unfairly. This scenario can be related to the "attempt to trip", where sticking a foot out makes a player jump over the leg and slow up just enough so that a teammate of the opponent runs up to take possession (although that would be a DFK). As for the elbow thing - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it looks bad, it probably is. Also, taking a quick look at the player's eyes can give you a good indication as to what's going on. If he looks back and then gives the guy the ol' elbow and I see it, there's no way he's getting out of there without some sort of card. The best part of that is when they try to argue and I tell them I saw them look back. They always get this "oh crap, he's onto us" look. If anyone thinks I'm way off on any of this let me know. You could probably convince me to change my views. I'm still learning too.
I would ask, if 90% of what you would call impeding is holding or tripping, then what is the point of having a sanction specifically for impeding? Seems to me the LOTG were designed in recognition that there is this event which does not rise to the level that warrants a DFK for either of these fouls...and that to not recognize it is to disregard the Laws in some way.
Uniteo...I guess what I am asking is the IFK's I have seen given recently for impeding have all involved contact. And what I meant about the 90% was that it truly seems to be next to impossible to cross in front of an attacker without contact when that ball is within playing distance. And an IFK changes to a DFK if the ball is within playing distance...ie the attacker is moving at a good rate towards the area, and the defender steps in front of the attacker in an attempt to win the ball, crash, foul.....the impeding rises to a DFK there...the attacker has done no wrong here except his momentum going into the defender who has stepped into his path. And a DFK from 20 yards is different than an IFK from 20 yards. Yes?
I see no problems calling impeding even when player contact occurs. Most of these situations fit the general meaning of the word 'impeding' and do not fit 'holding' or 'charging' or 'pushing', as falcon pointed out. If a player gets in the way, I'm usually calling impeding. I'm aware of what the ATR says but have never been a fan of calling it a DFK just because there's player contact. I still have that leeway, until and unless they modify the guidance.
Could the argument not be made that the foul occurred before the contact was made? Once we see the act of impeding, and it registers in our mind that it is a foul, the the foul is called. Just because there is continuation into contact (which is typically initiated by the player who is being impeded) does not mean we should necessarily upgrade the foul. That being said, if the player committing the foul is actively moving to hold off a player, or charges a player while not within playing distance of the ball, I am more likely to call a penal foul (because that is what it is). I think in the end, we are smart enough to tell the difference between fouls that are simple impeding IDFK and ones that are actually holding, tripping, etc.
I have also noticed that an IFK is rarely called in the higher levels of the game when contact is made on what we would term impeding. I watch tons of games and I sincerely don't remember that many IFK's given. Not that I'm an advocate of calling it differently in different areas of the pitch, but do you folks call the impeding foul in the AREA the same way? And does the positionof the ball factor in to your decisions?
Sigh. Advice to Referees 12.14, second half: Generally no concact, but sometimes it happens. I suspect far too many refs of calling impeding in the PA to avoid calling a PK.
Thanks for the quoting that part of the ATR; obviously it is very relevant to the discussion. Just wondering if your 'sigh' comment meant anything?? The ATR says the impeding + contact could be DFK for charging 'depending on the circumstances' but it does not mention any of these circumstances or give any game-incident examples. For my money, the last sentence of that ATR paragraph is the crucial point: nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum. THAT accurately describes what happens a lot of times when the defender moves in the way and the attacker ends up running into him. The part in the ATR about charging and a DFK...are they actually suggesting to call the defender for charging? The way I define charging, that part doesn't make any sense for the typical impeding situation I've got in my head.
I brought this up because impeding can only occur if the ball is not in playing distance (according to the ATR) but if the attacker is controlling and has the ball in playing distance and the attacker's progress is STOPPED (not impeded) then it is NOT an IFK but DFK. Finally, I think I can write what I'm talking about!!! (I'm horrible at this).... And I am of the belief that a DFK from 20 yards is way better than an IFK from 20.
Not in playing distance of the defender who is impeding, or not in playing distance of the attacker who is being impeded? I always assumed it was the person doing the impeding, but now I'm not sure. Maybe it means both players.
Just that, sigh, once again, the answer is readily available to anyone who cares to look in one of the official sources.
I did look , that's what got me asking the rest of the questions, because I think the back half of that explanantion in the ATR is what allows referees to change a scoring opportunity from a real good one to a decent one. And I think they are making bad decisions, and I rarely see IFK's called at higher levels on the type of "impeding" talked about here. It's hard to crash into someone and call impeding. I think the ATR states that.
In all seriousness, just because refs at the 'higher levels' rarely call impeding (I have not formed an opinion on this one way or the other, just stating what you have observed) as IFK...don't assume they are making the right calls.
Last I checked neither the Laws nor the Advice really provide explanations and descriptions based on real-world experience.
I'll defer to Gary and refjoe and all the others who have taken the time to parse this one....but what I meant by higher levels are the better referees. The ATR gives us an out to call impeding with contact an IFK, but I'm telling you as refjoe points out real life and the ATR are two different things. I truly think in stop action that over 90 percent of the impeding calls that involve contact are DFK's and that last sentence allows referees to skate on a call that justifiably should be a BETTER scoring opportunity for the attackers than an IFK. Sorry, but I have seen the call made three times in the last week and each time the attacker was levelled. R
Maybe we are thinking of different types of situations. The example I've got in my mind is the attacker dribbling the ball, maybe it gets a little too far away or maybe he takes a long touch on purpose so he can sprint without having to carry the ball for a few strides. The defender purposely moves into the attacker's path, not trying to play the ball just trying to get in the way, and the attacker runs into the defender. In this sort of situation, which I see happening a lot, the attacker does not get levelled since he has more momentum. He simply runs into the defender. Would you be likely to call this as a DFK? If so, what type of infringement would you judge the defender to have committed? I really view this as impeding and not any of the DFK offenses.
Blue...Your scenario is NOT what I have seen called in the last few games I have been at. That heavy touch by the attacker which pushes the ball way forward and the defnder blocks the path to the ball by stepping in IS impeding AND an IFK. I'm talking about ball in playing distance and being "controlled" so to speak by the attacker and the defender moves in to impede (usually a step in from the side as opposed to a step up). The games I have seen recently all involved impeding calls where contact was made (usually heavily) and the attacker was prevented from going any further. Impeding was called and the hand was raised. I asked one of the refs after the game (because I knew him) and he said he always called an IFK for impeding. That's when I thought to go back to the ATR and find out what I was MISSING. And as someone else said it is a bit cloudy with the last sentence. Then there was a question about impeding on Ask the Ref and the two referees who answered had a somewhat firmer opinion. But, I'm not sure if they are 100 per cent correct in their opinion because of the cloudiness of the wording. I think the easiest thing to remember on impeding is that if the ball is within playing distance and a foul of impeding occurs it rises to the level of a DFK. R
player a dribbles ball never letting it get more than 2 strides away. player b steps inbetween the ball and player causing a collision between the two. player b does not touch the ball. foul by player b - tackles an opponent touching the player before touching the ball. dfk. same as above, but player b touches the ball before player a collides with him. no foul by player b; maybe a foul by player a; maybe just continue playing, depending on severity of contact between a and b. player a dribbles ball but kicks it over two strides away. player b moves between a and the ball. player b moves where a must run around b to get to ball. b never moves towards ball. no contact between a and b. probable call - impeding. if a easily getting to ball - advantage. player a dribbles ball but kicks it over two strides away. player b moves between ball and a, but so close to a to cause a collision. holding (using the body to prevent movement of opponent). dfk. same as above but b runs into a. charging (illegally). dfk.
But that's not impeding. Impeding requires that the ball not be within playing distance. Call it pushing, holding, tripping, tackling the opponent before touching the ball, charging, whatever. A DFK foul.
Ok rufus, I can envision something along the lines of what you are describing. Generally, if the defender moves in from the side to knock the attacker out of the way while the ball is within playing distance for both players...either I am calling nothing if I deem it a fair charge or I am calling DFK for charging/pushing. This is not impeding -- I agree with Gary V.
I think I am not reading or visualizing something right here. If an attacker with possession plays the ball ahead of himself a bit, still within playing distance (a stride or two), and an opportunistic defender then inserts himself between the attacker and the ball to gain posession, there is no foul. If the two players are chasing an unpossessed ball and one deliberately moves in the way of the other to prevent him from gaining posession, no contact being made, this is impeding -- IFK. If the two players are chasing an unpossessed ball and one deliberately moves in the way of the other and creates contact to prevent him from gaining possession, this is holding -- DFK. If the two players are chasing an unpossessed ball and one fairly charges the other off his path, this is a charge off the ball -- IFK.
That sounds true IF the ball is not within playing distance. If the ball is within playing distance, it is likely that no foul has occurred.