Preface this by saying a few things -- the end result of my question resulted in no points; I assume the ref was accurate in his decision; I'm not complaining... Here was the scenario: My U12 daughter is playing defense. The ball is up in the air and is coming down. I sort of worried that she is going to take a crack at it as it reaches the ground before stopping or settling on it. She does, she whiffs at the ball and it goes past her. The goalie comes out, kicks the ball away....whistle blown, and the opposition is awarded a free kick just outside of the penalty area. We couldn't hear what was discussed. Most of the parents weren't sure and the only assumption that most had was maybe the GK did something wrong. She didn't handle the ball and nothing seemed off, so it didn't seem like it was on the GK. The game is over and we ask about the play (or she may have initiated). She said the whistle was blown on her for getting in the way of the forward (not sure if they call it obstruction or what). We didn't see this, but I was admittedly ball watching after she missed it. She disagreed with it of course. What could have happened is that she missed the ball, and in the scramble the forward had reached her and they collided as the GK kicked it away? Obviously you are getting a fairly poor description, but how is a rule like that interpreted? She was playing the ball and missed, and I think any contact would have been incidental. Thanks as always!
Replying to my own thread....today I saw what may have been similar situation,but further away from the goal on our U9s game. I could definitely see the player being impeded, even if not intentional. That may be preicsely have been what happened, I just didn't see it in the other game as my eyes had gone to the ball.
Hard for me to say, but if you're really curious perhaps the Referee Forum might get you some informed responses. Not saying you're wrong for posting this question here--not at all. I'm not going to close this thread. But the Ref forum is fairly active and while it's mostly 'shop talk' between fellow refs I think they'd be willing to consider your query from their point of view. It might be helpful, along with any feedback you get here in the Youth soccer forum. As an aside--when I was a youth soccer parent, I tried to think of the refereeing as akin to the weather--whatever sort of referee/weather we were going to get was out of our control and just something the players and coaches would have to adjust to. Thinking of that way allows you to stop worrying about it. Or worry less, anyway! Some refs are good, some are bad, most are doing the best they can most if not all of the time. My son had his share of incompetent refs, and one sole, solitary ref in one single game who was clearly biased (that was a middle school game, so you don't exactly get the cream of the crop anyway). Some bad calls will go against your kid from time to time, just like sometimes they have to play on a crappy field or in bad weather. It happens.
Thanks! I think I get the gist of the call now, I just didn't see it happen. Good advice though. I am usually it pretty even tempered about calls and teenage refs.
I'm sure you are, it's clear from your posts that you would be. I'm just saying that for me, it helped to detach from the outcome. I do wish I'd written down everything that middle school ref I mentioned above did. It was maddening at the time, but also comically ridiculous and completely over the top. The dude wasn't even being subtle about it. I always kept that incident in mind going forward, because it helped me keep perspective--I could always say to myself "at least they don't have THAT guy."
As a referee, from your description of the incident, it sounds like your daughter was called for impeding the progress of the forward. There is nothing in the Laws of the Game that says attempting to play the ball negates impeding although it is unusually.
Thanks for your reply! I wonder if it was just the potential goal scoring opportunity: deep kick, my daughter misplayed, and forward coming up fast. It never did reach the penalty box.
Both impeding and obstruction indicate that you are not attempting to play or control the ball, but rather intentionally blocking the other player. Thereofore, if you are attempting to play the ball or are within playing distance, you generally can't be called for impeding or obstruction. To the OP, it sounds like this is a case of a referee who is still working on their own understanding of the laws of the game, which is common at the younger age groups and lower divisions. Like players, referees are a mix of skill level, experience and understanding of the game.
Obviously, no one here saw the play/foul in question, including the OP…but I think it’s wrong to assume the ref got it wrong or doesn’t understand the rules…. As I am reading it, the defender was moving forward to meet an incoming, downward ball, with an opposing forward in hot pursuit. The defender attempted to play the ball but miss, allowing the ball to go pass her…at that point, the defender is no longer “playing the ball” nor “within playing distance,” therefore any subsequent follow through contact with that on-coming forward could easily and correctly be viewed as Impeding….whether that contact was “incidental” or not deliberate doesn’t matter one lick…even the OP says didn’t see the contact because he was watching the ball, which, in my mind, means there was a delay between the “wiff” and the contact (in other words it wasn’t simultaneous)….sounds like a good call to me…
Teenage ref doing a u12 game, the referee is still learning foul identification and foul selection. Obstruction and impeding are two calls that you frequently see beginning / inexperienced referees make just as you frequently see younger players whiff. As they get more experience, they learn how to discern what it truly impeding or obstruction and what is just a natural part of the game and the number of calls drop off significantly. Any follow through "contact"? Well if she whiffed and kicked the other player, then one might call her for a foul, but that wouldn't be obstruction or impeding. If the contact was "incidental" then it isn't really a foul, is it? And by the way, player intent has everything to do with obstruction and impeding.
Yes, but it doesn’t mean he got it wrong… Yes, follow through contact or movement into the path the on coming forward…with the ball already pass her…could correctly be seen as impeding…I don’t believe the OP said/remembers if it was a direct or indirect free kick, so we don’t know if contact was made or not…admittedly, I have been assuming contact, but that was wrong of me… Perhaps, if whiffed and kicked at the same time, but that is NOT what was described…. It depends…incidental or not, matters little in many cases…it is certainly not the “get out of jail free” card you seem to be suggesting…. It does not…show me in the rules that intent has any bearing the decision…NOT within “playing distance of the ball” by either player, is the only criteria for determination, and as described, I don’t see how either player could have been within playing distance once the ball was “wiffed” and moved pass the defender….as described, the wiff and the contact were not simultaneous… Now, perhaps, it could have been a trifling or no call, IF the ref believed the forward had no chance of running on to or changeling for the ball either way….however, that wouldn’t negate the foul, per say, just a decision not to bother with it…but that might be a lot to ask of teenage ref...
and nor does it mean that he got it right. I have not said whether he got the call right or wrong. I have simply pointed out 1) that the understanding of "impeding" is incorrect, and that 2) the referee is young and inexperienced, and with that you see things called that are normally not called because as referees get more experience, develop better foul identification/selection capability, and understand the game better, they don't call things that they may have once thought was a foul or that the average parent or coach thinks is a foul. First you are the one who brought contact into the discussion. Contact is generally not a characteristic of impeding and FIFA has been making this more clear. Follow through contact is not impeding. It is a natural part of the game - especially at the younger levels where players routinely whiff. If the contact is careless or reckless then it is a direct kick foul and is not impeding. 99.9% of contact in a soccer game is incidental and a natural part of the soccer game. By virtue of being "incidental" it means that the contact is generally immaterial and generally that a foul has not occurred. "show me in the rules..." Which law book do you want me to start with? I have them all going back to 1986, but let's just start with the current LOTG: Law 12: Indirect Free Kick: "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made" Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent. So the defender attempts to play the ball, whiffs and misses, which means that she at the time was within playing distance. The ball goes past her - and even taking your assumption that the ball is no longer in playing distance, she still has a right to be in that position on the field, even if she is now in the way of the opponent who was running onto the ball. As for intent, intent has everything to do with every decision referees make on the field. Referees balance intent with fairness and safety. What did the player intend to do? Did they do it in a fair manor? Were their actions safe, careless, reckless or worse? These are all relevant to whether to call impeding. - What did this player "intend" to do? She intended to kick the ball. This is the exact question I would be asking this referee if I were there mentoring or observing him. I would ask - about that "obstruction" call, what did you see and then I would proceed to break down the thought process to make sure the referee learns how to ask these questions based on both the dynamic aspect of the game as well as that picture frame of where a foul or infraction may have occurred. Most teenage referees working U12 games are still working on this, as are most referees for that matter.
The on-rushing forward has a right to their position and movement toward the ball as well…by whiffing on the ball, the defender places herself in the position of simple being in the way (out of position, back toward ball, with no reasonable semblance of “playing the ball”…by (whiffing) not make contact with the ball and therefore changing the path/direction of the ball, the forward has every right and expectation to continue on her current path toward said ball unimpeded….the defender essentially did nothing other than move into her way…. yes, it’s harsh; yes, its bad luck; yes, she didn’t mean it…but them’s the breaks… I really don’t care about some nameless teenage ref…what I do kinda care about is young biding defender (or parent of) being told incorrectly that’s it ok or acceptable to run into on-coming forwards(or into the path of), whether they meant to or not…that’s nothing but a recipe for frustration and a lot of cards coming her way… I agree this is unlucky, harsh call, but by failing to clear the ball as intended, the defender placed herself in a position to foul the on-rushing forward…seems pretty clear cut to me…far more of a lesson to be learned then an excuse to blame some teenage ref…
Yet you seem perfectly content to instinctively blame a player...smh Again, I am not blaming a teenage referee. I am explaining that teenage and other inexperienced referees make calls that are not always the right call. Just as the defender needs to learn how to control a ball better, so referees need to learn how to become better referees, and parents and coaches need to learn that no one on the field is perfect. But if you are going to argue about calls, it would be best if you actually knew the letter and the spirit of the laws, which you apparently don't. Contrary to the belief of many an inexperienced referee or coach or parent, being in the way is not a foul or infraction of the laws of the game.
Yet, per rule, moving into the path is a foul…you want to spit hairs over an incident to neither of us witnessed, you go ahead… I fully cop to assuming the defender was not simple standing in place, but was moving toward the incoming ball and opposing player, failed to play the ball, at which time her momentum (which she is at all times responsible for) carried her into the path of the on-rushing forward, with the ball was already well passed her… whether she made contact or merely caused the forward to alter her path doesn’t matter; it’s still a foul… You say blame, I say valuable lesson…the difference between a good play and a foul is often a failure to do something you intended, especially at that age…had she cleared the ball as intended, there would be no issue, but she didn’t and it landed her in trouble…no big deal; lesson learned (hopefully)…
Moving into the path of another player is NOT a foul if you are doing so to attempt to play the ball, which she was. It doe not matter whether she played the ball or misplayed the ball and whiffed, the fact that she was moving to the ball and made an attempt to play it by definition means that she shouldn't be called for impeding. Her movement was to play the ball. If she moved/ran, missed and then collided with the attacker, then you have a question of a possible foul, but then you would have to ask which player ran into whom and who was careless or reckless and we don't have that information.
This all about timing….I agree if the defender moved into the path the on-coming forward WHILE attempting to play the ball, even if she whiffed at it, I would agree, fair play, no call…. However, that is not my understand of what happened…the contact or movement into the path of the opposing player appears to occur sometime AFTER her attempt to play the ball (Yes, briefly after, but still after)….I say this because the OP says he was watching the ball, not his player, and didn’t actually see the incident in question….had the attempt to play the ball and the contact/movement occurred at the same time, the OP should have seen it…but he didn’t. This delay between attempt to play the ball and contact/movement into the path does open the door for an impeding call….to me, what happened, whatever happened occurred behind the ball, which means ball could NOT have been within playing distance of either player… If my centerback son, ran up to clear a non-50/50 ball, whiffed and then proceeded to run into the on-rushing attacking forward, I would fully expected him to be called for a foul, if not carded…I wouldn’t be looking to blame the ref or asking BS questions of who run into whom…I’d first be a little disappointed my son whiffed (but hey, it happens) and then, as long as he didn’t see red, I might praise him for throwing a “smart” foul….vmmv….
Again, you are reading far more into this than you need to and getting far astray from the point of the original post, which was a parent wondering what could have been called. Kit pointed out that it was likely Impeding, but incorrectly stated that there is nothing in the laws that states that playing the ball negates impeding. I corrected Kit's assertion and commented that at the U12 level, referees are often still learning how to identify and apply the laws of the game. Sure, if the player whiffed and kept running and started twirling around and got in a players way, that would be impeding, but you have been trying to make the case that simple, natural play can and should be called impeding, which is far from the intent of the Laws of the Game and far from how referees are taught and encouraged to call it. Again, you are the one who keeps referring to "blaming the ref." I have repeatedly pointed out that at the U12 level, the referees are still learning and mastering the basics. As for your comment about BS questions, I have explained that part of learning is to break down what happened by asking simple questions. I have tried to help the OP and others understand how that process works. It all starts with asking what did you see when you called this? It is a learning process where mentors can help a younger/inexperienced referee break down what they saw and learn how to properly identify if a foul occurred and which foul it was. It can also be a useful took for explaining to people how the laws are applied. As to your centerback son, if he whiffed and ran into an attacking player, then it would more likely to be a simple direct kick foul and it would not be impeding. Judging by your understanding of the game though, I doubt it would be a "smart" foul. Have a good one.
No, Kit is correct…there is nothing in the rules about playing the ball (which is an action), merely that the ball is within playing distance of either player, which is a spatial relationship between ball and players…but that’s, admittedly, a bit technical and splitting hairs…so, once again, if any contact or movement into that on-going forward occurred after the ball had, in the eyes of the ref, left the playing distance of either player, then an impeding call is easily a possibility…. Impending WITH contact is a direct kick…Impending without contact is indirect….what’s a simple direct kick foul? You want to insult my understanding of the game…that’s fine, but I am just soccer parent…just trying to help out a fellow parent without unnecessarily and overly confusing the issue…