I figure this is the place to ask this question, where it will be seen by working refs rather than rules historians or members of the Hugh Dallas Fan Club. What is the current rule(s) on the number of steps a keeper can take or the number of seconds he can take while handling the ball? From the play of some younger keepers I see on tv games, it looks as if there's no rule in place at all anymore. OR, is this just no longer called, much like obstruction is no longer called when defenders impede the progress forwards trying to keep the ball from going over the end line? There's a case in which I don't know that the rule has ever been changed, but it's simply been universally accepted that defenders can now obstruct without playing the ball. THANKS for any insight!
2006/07 Laws of the Game, Law 12: ...takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his hands before releasing it from his possession However, the Advice to Referees (a USSF document put out which helps with the practical application of the Laws) says that if the goalkeeper is making an honest attempt to put the ball back in play, then there should not be a penalization. It is not like basketball where you count off and then immediately blow, it's more of a general guideline to set some limit on how long a goalkeeper can dilly-dally. Also, the time that a goalkeeper is in possession but on the ground protecting himself from onrushing attackers is not counted either. The law about taking (3?) steps with the ball was dropped some years ago because they realized that goalkeepers could just hold the ball forever as long as they didn't take more than 3 steps. And as to the obstruction case - as long as they are within playing distance of the it's not obstruction, it's good defending.
jimmy - what you have described is called shielding, not obstruction/impeding (as falcon has stated). it is most often seen near a goal line, sometimes near the touch line, and occasionally in the central fop. the requirements to not be penalized are: ball is within playing distance, player uses body to prevent access by opponent, player does not use arms or legs extended from body to prevent opponent movement around him/her, player does not use excessive force to slow up opponent movement. you probably also noted that on these plays there is sometimes contact that you think might warrant a foul (unfair charge), but you seldom see it penalized. that is because, when a player is shielding the ball legally, that player opens himself/herself to challenges that would not be allowed when possessing the ball - you can charge the back, but not the spinal area, and, you can use foce that would be "careless" on a tackle, but not "reckless" or "excessive".
Page 61 of the USSF version of the FIFA law book 2008: Screening the ball It is not an offense if a player, with the ball under control within playing distance, screens the ball from an opponent without using his arms. MY Interpretation: As referees we generally give 1-2 yards as proximity to "playing the ball" the moment the player stops his movement WITH the ball and thus his proximity to the ball decreases to more than a couple of yards (because it is rolling away from him out of bounds or to another player for example) he is now not playing the ball and in violation of the law. BUT if he runs with the ball as it rolls into touch or to another player, he is still within 2 yards of the ball and thus "playing the ball" and NOT violating the law.
Thanks -- So the keeper rule is still at 6 seconds for posession, and no limit on steps, correct? I think that one is easy enough to interpret, whether a keeper is horsing around or not. With regard to shielding, however, this is more often than not judged poorly, in my opinion. Too many defenders are given the assumption that they are within "playing distance" of a ball rolling to the end line when their only intent is to impede the attacker with no effort to play the ball.
The question you are really asking is... Is it possible to "play the ball" without "touching" the ball? The answer is obviously yes as long as he is within playing distance (which is determined by the referee) and is not extending any arms or legs in an unusual manner. Now, is it unfair that the field just happens to end when that ball rolls in to touch...it sure is, but until the whole of that ball crosses that line, he is still playing the ball. Once the whole of the ball rolls into touch, Law 9 states that play shall stop and now no one (not even the attacker) is playing the ball until it is brought into play. What if the ball stopped right on the touch line and the defender is within a yard and is obviously shielding it without the use of his arms, etc. Do you stop play for a foul? No, because there is no foul. The point is strategy wise the touch line is very important. For referees that is meaningless, we know what the strategy is, however we cant judge that something is "unfair" and penalize it if it has not violated the laws of the game. I may think that it was unfair for a player to be in an offside position when a goal was scored, yet if he doesn't meet the criteria for being offside I can not penalize for it because he has not violated the law.
They don't need to make an effort to play the ball...they simply need to be within playing distance of said ball. As long as they are within a yard or so, they are good as long as they don't start grabbing with their arms. You are correct on your first interpretation as well. We do not count them off a la basketball, we simply have the timer going in our head and can use the clause if they start to push the 6 second release time.
There really is no judgement required when it comes to intent. The laws/ATR tell us that if the player is within playing distance of the ball, even if he is making no effort to actually play the ball, then shielding is legal. "Playing distance" would generally be about two steps. IF a ball is rolling to the goal line and a player shields the ball while being significantly further from the ball than that, and IF it matters (i.e. his opponent could have played the ball if not for the shielding), then a whistle may be warranted.
Let me throw a twist to this. Player while taking a free kick slips and gets a bad touch on the ball and the ball only travels a couple of yards. He sees an opponent coming toward the ball. Knowing that he cannot touch the ball again, the player shields the ball form the oncomming opponent. Is this legal?
for additional info on shielding issue, see lotg, additional instructions section, page 115 on the fifa website. also, ussf website, laws link, atr section 12.14.
Bollix! That is not a problem, he could be shielding it for his teammate. The law doesn't require that the player be allowed to touch the ball or not to be legally shielding, he just has to be within playing distance of the ball in order to use his body as a barrier to it. I think you're stretching the law where it doesn't need to be stretched.
12.5 of 2006 advice guide says "The referee's judgement of "playing distance" should be based on the players ability to play the ball, not upon an arbitrary standard" This discussion came up at a recent clinic and was decided (though unofficially so possibly wrong) that if you can't legally play the ball then you can't possibly be within playing distance per the above. I just looked at Jim Allen's site and didn't find anything conlusive, but did find this quote: "Shielding becomes impeding when the player who is shielding the ball does not have possession and cannot establish it. " I do see you point and do stress to refs to "keep things simple" this may be a case of that. I'd be interested in other folks opinion on this, or even better, a definitive statement from somewhere.
May actually be a valid argument... I think perhaps a question to Jim Allen might be in order. But I guess I see "playing distance" and "Playing elegability" as 2 different things... Interesting topic to look into. Let me do some digging and I'll post what I find.
Bored at work so I dug some more found the following on Jim Allens web site (wish he had a search feature): The link to the entire page is here: http://www.drix.net/jim/past062.html 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.
nh, you didn't go back far enough on ja's site. 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)espite 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.
I suppose I was going off what I understood to be the interpertation that USED to be correct. Good job for finding this. Well done.
Billy, the Laws of the game don’t describe how to play soccer. They are more like a skeleton that holds up the body of the game. Therefore you can’t read in the Laws how to make a fair tackle, a fair charge, or a great many other things about how the game is played. In the US, we have the USSF ATR which expands on how to interpret the Laws. But it still doesn’t tell you how the game is played. Long way of saying that tradition on how the game is played dictates much of what we consider fair. A player shielding the ball can be fairly charged. Because the player uses their body to “shield” the ball, a fair charge will often be from behind. The opponent charges the player to attempt to get around the player, while that player uses their body/back to block the charge. What does this look like? An opponent charging the back of the shielding player. As long as the charge isn’t with excessive force, careless, reckless or into the spine area, it can be performed fairly.
I agree with everything you say - I was just wondering if that was actually covered in the LotG. I see fewer and fewer refs that allow it.
To the extent that the USSF ATR applies to you... 12.5. Charging... The Law does require that the charge be directed toward the area of the shoulder and not toward the center of the opponent's back (spinal area)...