Question about sitting over the ball

TWEET!!!!!

But sir! I went for the ball.

Which ball? You kicked three.



I didn't see the play, but would have likely called the squatter for d/p from the description if he had not dismounted and attempted to play the ball with an appropriate body part.

 

Yes, the play was as KMJvet described. I, too, thought it was a textbook case of dangerous play, but I suspect the ref let it slide given that it was right around the six-yard box and the keeper was quick to pounce on it.

 

To me, it sounds as if it would be similar to falling upon the ball. As long as the player is trying to get up and then play the ball, I find no foul. If the player continues to lay there, then I see it as a potential injury or an effort to delay play or an effort to inappropriately prevent opponents from getting the ball. IDFK

When all else fails, resort to Law XVIII, Common Sense. If you perceive that the player is trying to cheat, then you need to address it. If not, let play continue if it can be done safely.

 

It is an obstruction. The call is IFK.

 

No...

There is no 'obstruction' in the Laws of the Game. There is 'impedes the progress of an opponent'
http://images.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/2003/LOTG2003_e.pdf
just semantics anyway...

But as the player is sitting on the ball, he's not impeding a moving player, keeping him from reaching the ball, and the opponents CAN kick the ball.

Definitely 'playing in a dangerous manner' and an IFK. Though I don't think it's a foul unless an opponent tried to play the ball. Course if the attempt to play the ball results in the oopponent committing a kicking foul, then DFK to the team of the player sitting on the ball.

 

Re: No...

Seems like a catch 22 if the only way to get the IFK is to go after the ball. If the guy is covering the ball well, as was the case in Dallas, there may be no way to get it without going through him and committing a foul.

 

Re: Re: No...

That's exactly what I was wondering about. If no one else plays the ball, no foul has occurred right? I figure as soon as another player approaches to play the ball, if the guy sitting on the ball makes no effort to stop his dangerous play, blow the whistle and indicate dangerous play. And I'd suggest doing this BEFORE the chance for contact is made, that way the guy playing dangerously is still punished, albeit with a IFK.

 

PIADM not often at the elite level is it?

It is a very valid point. The referee that waits too long to give the correct call of INDFK while a player is trying to figure out how to kick the ball with out kicking the downed player is causing this situation to posibly escalate.

The rub is it is not automatically an INDFK for playing on the ground or even falling and lying on the ball for a moment as the normal course of play is still in progress. In this case it is the unfair use of the body to shield the ball from the opposing player that gives us the infringement, Playing in a Dangerous Manner. The risk of injury to the defender himself by his own actions place a strain on the attackers to NOT kick him as they reach a foot in to try and roll the ball out. Yet by attempting to playi the ball they are not totally affected by the unfair actions so we hesitate.

A good case in point was in my recent youth match where the defender just off the goalline dropped to the knees and squeezing the legs about the ball. So far no problem. But the surrounding attackers were all about so the young fellow leaned over and placed his hands on the ground in front of the ball and tried to pivot his body towards his keeper. This of course dropped the head over top the ball in a crawling position. Now there was the keeper and a defender just inbehind and beside so I gave the INDFK for PLAYING in a dangerous manner and then explained why he was not recieving a red card for DOGSO but others might see it differently. There was some talk of deliberate handling by the surrounding attackers. I was partially screened by the melee but I confirmed with the AR that he saw the incident as did I. We give the INDFK at the edge of the 6 yard goal area. The opposing team scored and the mumblings subsided.

From the description of this thread it sounds like a similar call could have been made in the MSL match. But Playing in a Dangerous Manner at the elite level seems to be reguarded as a wimpy call. Probably because players play through in most situations. In fact can anyone tell me if DOGSO has ever been in conjunction with Playing in a Dangerous Manner at an elite level game. I can not recall the last time I actually saw a PIADM called at the elite level?

 

Denying Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity

 

Nope...

DOGSO is an abbreviation but by no means explains the entirety of the situation. DOGSO applies on a breakaway against the keeper (er.. the absolute last defender or no defenders at all) and a defender commits a penal foul in order to stop the attempt on goal.

In the situation you described, the defender had possession of the ball legally.

You can legally deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

 

You cannot call obstruction against a player who has the ball within playing distance. The correct call would be dangerous play.

 

Re: Re: Denying Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity

Not at all. An "obvious goal scoring opportunity," according to the rules, is more along the lines of "had the player not committed a foul, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that a goal would have resulted."

If the attacker doesn't even have possession of the ball, you cannot claim that there is any goal scoring opportunity, much less an obvious one.

 

Re: Re: Nope...

It's not illegal until it becomes dangerous. He has posession of the ball legally. He does not become a danger to himself until an oppenent attempts to play the ball. You can't call dangerous play in this situation in my opinion until an opponent decides to do something.

Similar to a guy playing the ball while laying on the ground. If no one is attempting to kick the ball away or if no one is even around, you don't call dangerous play.

A high kick in and of itself is not dangerous play.

And as was stated earlier, dangerous play is rarely called at the 'elite' level.

Kind of like arresting a guy because he might commit suicide one day or rob a bank. We, like the police, are there to protect but usually only after the fact. After a foul has been committed we can dispense justice, not before. The only preventive measures we can undertake typically revolve around field, weather, equipment, etc...

 

In my opinion, the attacking player just has to run up to the player sitting on the ball. That would be enough in my opinion to warrant a IFK for playing in a dangerous manner. Or if the attacker's already there, start to play the ball in the hopes the ref gets a clue. The attacker could always get between the sitting player and the keeper to make it difficult for the keeper to retrieve the ball. The attacking player could attempt to play the ball but once again, if he kicks the player instead, uses too much force, etc... the DFK against the attacker.

If a player continues to perform this sitting trick, you can guarantee him multiple yellows.

 

A little bit more

KMJvet,
Actually, any INDFK that occurs closer than 10 yards to an opponent's goal the defenders may stand on the goalline between the posts. The closet any defender could ever stand is 6 yards as ALL INDFKs that occur inside the goal area are taken straight back to this distance.

I asume most of the posters are USA orientated so the USSF ATR (advice to referees) relevant section to PIADM would be a good read if not done all ready.
http://www.ussoccer-data.com/instdoc/advice.pdf


There is some interesting points raised here;
(1)The USB of PIADM!

I would say it could fit the criteria of a technical (indirect free kick) foul designed to interfere with or impede an opposing team's attacking play. I know the impeding portion is not what the infringement is but as stated by KMJvet "One thing I'm pretty sure of, he did it to deny the goal-scoring opportunity." If the intended misconduct was to render the ball unfairly unplayable by the opposing team once we determine PIADM is in fact NOW an infringement. The misconduct was to unfairly deny the opposition attacking play the same as in deliberate handling which would result in a caution for the same misconduct.

(2)Whether DOGSO (denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity) is applicable to PIADM (playing in a dangerous manner)

Lets take this as if it was a referee's perspective of the action "One thing I'm pretty sure of, he did it to deny the goal-scoring opportunity."

12.36 DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY
The sending-off offense that deal with denying an opponent a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity occur in cases where a player: "denies an obvious goalscoring opportunityto an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.”

PIADM results in an INDFK (free kick) even though there may have been no contact between the players involved. In my opinion there could be justification for a red card send off for DOGSO via a PIADM incident.

A defender has a right to keep the ball from entering the goal. Where it becomes an infringement is the continued unfair coverage when an opposing player or players are close at hand to also play the ball.

Once the legs clamp the ball and it is being "played by the defender as he is within playing distance we now look to see what the nearby attackers are doing and how close are they to being able to play the ball. If the defender is attempting to rise up and shield the ball we are likely to give the benifit of doubt to the defender in trying to legally play the ball. I do find however the leg clamp on the ball being maintained until the keeper has to pry it out indicates the unwillingness to proceed in this manner.

Impeding while the ball is still in playing distance not exactly the correct criteria for a foul but it still smacks of unfairness. It still is possible for the attackers to try and place a foot on the ball and roll it out from between the legs, however in my opinion if the defender is leaving his legs completely wrapped around the ball a referee MUST call the INDFK in favour of the attackers. It was legal to play the ball where it changed was when the PIADM infringement was created then it became illegal.

The defender is endangering himself as this position can not be legally challanged by the attackers without a penal foul for kicking present. If it was a bang, bang play the ball clamped and the keeper grabs it, I would concur as normal playing time no infringement is evident. I imagine the referee saw this as in my first case bang bang but it appears from the comments it could be more unfair.

or
(3)Just by an opposing player being close would justify the call of PIADM?
Close is one thing, being in a position to actually play it is another. I look for the attempt by the attacker to do something and then the realization what the hey? Just as in an impeding call we see the actions affected by the ceasing of a run or altering the direction of the run. PIADM must see a similar result on the part of the attackers in that the attackers are unfairly prevented from participating in play.

 

These are just some brief thoughts on the topic from my experience...

For simplicity I'm going to call the two players the possessor and the wanter (if that even is simple heh).

If there is nobody around the possessor it is not dangerous. If there are people around the possessor but he quickly and safely plays the ball away there is no call.

If there is a wanter nearby then it is dangerous play. This does not entitle the wanter to attack the possessor though. I've had wanters run up and kick the possessor as a facade to playing the ball -- send-off for them (depending on how violent, of course. Love taps I just call as a normal foul, possible caution). In other words, the possessor still has the right to at least clear the ball away upon going down if done so very quickly. If a wanter kicks him before he even has this chance to me that is a foul, with DFK for the possessor.

I think it was mentioned earlier -- all the wanter has to do is show his intention that he would like to play the ball. This is expressed very clearly in his body language. As soon as that occurs, the possessor is unfairly preventing the wanter from playing the ball. There is no need to wait for the stabbing at the ball to occur, and in fact if this does occur then the referee has waited too long to stop play.

I can't picture how a player could EVER commit DOGSO through PIADM. If the ball is going towards the goal the defender has the right to play it. If this means he slides and then sits on the ball, so be it. The slide prevents the goal, not the sitting. The sitting just prevents another possible chance for a GSO (if he didn't sit on the ball, another attacker might come and try to score).

 

A very good explanation. I think Advice words it that the "wanter" must hold back from play lest the "possessor" be injured or endangered.

Probably not in the "sitting on the ball" scenario. But consider this: Attacker 1-on-1 with defender, keeper out of position. Ball bounces at thigh height. Defender bends down to head the ball, putting himself in danger. Attacker pulls back from his kick lest he kick the defender. PIADM - and DOGSO?

A note on DOGSO to other posts: USSF in Advice to Referees has 5 criteria that define when an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity exists (and by extension, when this OGSO could be Denied). Last year USSF issued a Position Paper which has been named the "4-D's", consolidating those 5 points into 4, all starting with "D". Here is a link: http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/position_papers/OGSO_Denied.pdf