Hello all! I'm in the process of drafting a proposed rule change to IFAB (FIFA's committee on the laws of the game), and I'd like some insight/advice from you experts. I've even started an online petition that's ready for signatures, but I want to fine-tune the verbage before I get it rolling. That's why I'm here. Any help would be greatly appreciated! This has to do with the way defenders hold attackers back to allow a ball to roll over the defender's goal line for a goal kick. We've all seen it. Over the last five years or so the defender has taken more and more liberties and is now at the point where he literally pushes the attacker back, and uses eagle-type outstretched arms to hold the opponent back. As we all know, under Law 12, the defender is only guilty of impedance if the ball is out of playable distance or if he has no intention of playing the ball. In this case, he certainly doesn't want to play the ball, so to avoid the indirect free kick, he must stay within playing distance (generally recognized by FIFA as 1 yard). This is one area that referees miss, because the ball is quite often two or three yards away when the defender begins his shielding process. This could be solved simply by FIFA requiring referees to better enforce the rule. The tricky part comes when the defender initiates the contact, either by pushing the attacker, backing up into him, or using any part of either arm to shield the ball (all common occurrences). This is a violation of Law 12, referred to as Holding, and should result in a direct free kick to the attacking team. The reason this is tricky is because oftentimes this is occurring in the fringes of a defender's own penalty area, and technically the referee should award a penalty kick. As referees, which of you would be comfortable doing so, even if it's clearly defined in the laws of the game as requiring you to? Exactly. So the laws of the game leave the referee in a bit of a quandary in these instances. And to make matters worse, there has been quite a bit of pushing and shoving after the fact when a defender takes it too far in shielding the ball, and I've seen many attackers left flat on their backs, then jumping up into the defender's face once the goal kick has been awarded (and understandably so). I'm sure most of you have seen it too. But what is to be done? How can the law be changed to prevent this? Well, I have an idea (in the form of a rule change), and the verbage of it is what I'd like advice on. Or it's possible that someone might have a completely different solution altogether. I welcome all intelligent (or semi-intelligent) commentary on this, because I plan to put together a professional package to IFAB's members, with video evidence. I already have the names and addresses of all the board members for FIFA, the English FA, the Scottish FA, the Welsh FA, and the Irish FA, and as I said, I have the online petition ready for signatures once I fine-tune this. I think this is a worthwhile idea, and for those of you who help, it may give you some satisfaction to see the game improved if IFAB accepts the amendment at its February 2006 meeting. My current proposal is below (pardon any repetition of information above). There are references to the video evidence as well, but ignore those for this purpose: Proposed change to Law 12 of the game of football as set forth by FIFA, specifically regarding how free kicks are awarded in response to impeding/holding an opponent Problem: A defender makes deliberate and/or unsafe movements (up to and including contacting an attacking player) in an attempt to allow a ball to run over the defender’s goal line for a goal kick. Many instances of dangerous contact and violent reactions could be prevented with a simple rule change. Under current FIFA laws, an indirect free kick will be awarded to a team when a player impedes the progress of an opponent, UNLESS: a) the ball is within the player’s immediate playable reach (generally regarded as being within one yard of the player), -or- b) the player clearly intends to play the ball Because of the “or” status above, a player is not required to intend to play the ball as long as the ball remains within playing distance. In the “problem” in question, the defender clearly does not have the intention of playing the ball, so to be within the current laws of the game, the defender must: a) keep the ball within playable distance (i.e. one yard) b) not contact the attacking player (i.e. by backing into him) c) not use his/her arms to hold the attacker away In almost every instance noted, the defender did one or more of the following three things: a) Made contact with the attacking player (usually by backing up into him) b) Held attacking player back with outstretched or semi-outstretched arms c) Impeded the attacking player’s progress when the ball was not in playing range Note that a) and b) above are considered “Holding” pursuant to the laws of the game, and must be penalized with a direct free kick, and c) above constitutes impedance, which must be penalized with an indirect free kick. In the case in point, a penalty kick would then be awarded for a) and b) in many circumstances (i.e. when the infraction occurred within the defender’s penalty area)! The purpose of this proposed rule change is NOT to interfere with the spirit of the game in any way, and as such, is not intended to result in penalty kicks for “fringe” infractions. We propose, therefore, that possession of the ball should only occur AFTER the ball has been touched by the player. No shielding of the ball should be allowed until after the ball has been touched by that player, thereby eliminating any reason for a player to allow a ball to run over his/her own goal line. This would eliminate any confusion on behalf of the referee regarding which type of free kick to award, and it would solve the penalty kick issue. After the rule change goes into effect, the defender will be forced to either play the ball, feign a clearing attempt to allow the ball to run over the goal line, accept the indirect free kick for impedance, or simply get out of the way. I am not married to this idea or the exact verbage, but I'd like to do something to address this. Anyone please feel free to comment!
Well, I'd give the PK myself, but that flies at a club soccer level. Sometimes I'll even tell players in my pregame, "Defensive fouls in the penalty area WILL result in PKs." Obviously at the pro levels, it's highly unlikely a ref will give a PK for the shielding problem you describe. Requiring the player to touch the ball or get an impeding/IFK foul sounds like a very interesting solution. Might work - and has my support for a petition for review.
Let me start out by saying that it is a well-thought out idea and that you probably took a while to think it out and write it out, but I don't like the idea. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think it is clearly a tactic used by players to get the ball back and only for that reason, not to harass or upset another player. Now, I do agree that referees should enforce it a little better by calling the impeding player if he is too far away from the ball or uses anything else explained above to keep off a defender, but as many things in football the flexibilty of laws is seen in a lot of instances. Often, the ball does not make a complete stop before it is put back into play or a player throwing in the ball doesn't usually throw it in one meter from where it when out. I, personally, don't think there should be a change, only a stricter enforcement, which I do put into effect when these things occur. Now, I am sure someone will come in and rip my post to pieces and prove me wrong a million times, but that is my personal opinion.
<<I, personally, don't think there should be a change, only a stricter enforcement, which I do put into effect when these things occur.>> Like I said, any replies will be appreciated! "Stricter enforcement" would mean a PK if a defender put his arms out to hold an opponent back if the ball was rolling out of a defender's penalty area. Is that what you're saying? That's certainly a possible solution. I'm of the "PK-reduction" school, where when a player gets tripped at the edge of the box (or even barely inside), you call a direct free kick at the edge, and save the PK's for eggrigious (spelling?) offenses inside the area. But that's just me. That's why this is a tricky situation to solve. Another solution would be to give referees the latitude (or specific direction) to call indirect free kicks only for any type of impedance in these situations. But I've literally seen punches thrown because the ref, hesitant to call a PK, lets these things go uncalled. I was hoping to find a solution that would eliminate this shielding/holding problem but wouldn't result in PK's. Stricter enforcement outside the box would be a direct free kick to the attacking team, and that's not unreasonably harsh to the defending team. It's not much more dangerous than a corner kick, but enough of those and the defending team would get the hint and stop doing it. I still like my solution because after all, I wrote it , but a combination of what I just wrote would work too, where the ref would call indirect free kicks for impedance inside the box, and have the latitude to call direct free kicks outside the box. I'm still looking for the perfect solution...
The problem is that players are shielding the ball all the time, but you only really notice it when it's running out of bounds. A player who dummys a thru ball could be considered shielding, or if you do a stepover move. There's really no easy way to enforce a rule that says you have to touch the ball if you are close to it. We'd be whistling all the time, or more likely not enforcing the rule most of the time and getting complaints every time a player goes for the ball and misses. Also, you are forcing players to change their style. I often let a player get right next to me on a ball that seems to be going out so that I can do a clean stepover move. Now you're telling me I can't wait to to touch the ball and do that move. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I think stricter calling of the holding foul is what's needed.
I hear ya, and I'm trying to process all your comments in my brain. I definitely don't want more whistles or more confusion. Maybe it should be as simple as giving refs the latitude to call an indirect free kick for impedance instead of a direct kick for holding when a defender prevents an attacker from getting to the ball when it's rolling over the goal line. If a ref can call an IFK every time without having to think about it, then he probably will, and consequently the defender might then look for other options such as: stay within the laws of the game, and only shield if the ball is within playable distance and not initiate contact with the attacking player or use his arms in an obstructive way passing the ball back to the goalkeeper (even though the 'keeper has to play it with his feet) play the ball backheel it off the attacking forward to get the goal kick feigning kicking it out of bounds (or back to the GK) to fool the attacker into letting up, thereby getting the goal kick I ain't giving up, so comments will continue to be appreciated.
You realize that your proposed text is longer than the entirety of the current Law 12? All the Law currently says is that you can't impede and you can't hold. In different sections because they have different restarts. You'd really be looking at getting this in "Additional Instructions", or perhaps making it as an IFAB Decision as they did with the offside involvement. Also, while you mention knowing the IFAB representatives, those reps don't present Law changes. The changes are sponsored by the FA's. IFAB votes on what the FA's present.
He's actually right about the process. Only IFAB members can present proposed amendments or changes. That means the Welsh, English, Scottish and Irish FAs have the unique position of being able to unilaterally present a proposal. All other FAs have to get the blessing of FIFA first. As to the proposed change, I'd respond first by asking if the problem you cite is really that big of a detriment on the game? Is there an epidemic of goal line shielding that we really want to solve by having multiple attacking IFKs close to the goal? I ask half-seriously, because while I know it is a common move for defenders, I also don't think it's something that rises to the level of a plague on the game that requires an extensive law change. Referees already have the tools they need to deal with it and when it reaches the level of a foul (a foul that the players of that age/skill want & expect to be called), then they can already deal with it. Also, specifically regarding your proposal, as chrisrun points out, the vast majority of shielding takes place in other instances, and you'd effectively be changing the way the game is played signficantly if you required that all players must touch the ball before they allowed to "shield".
My point was that even if he had personal contact with one or more of the IFAB representatives of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, that rep would not unilaterally present a proposal - it would have to be sponsored by his FA first. You are correct, the rest-of-world has an additional step - FA to FIFA to IFAB.
I don't find this being a big problem (at least in the games that I do), nor have I noticed it being an point of issue in pro games that I have watched (nor have I seen players complaining about it, at least on the field). Therefore, I don't feel this requires a rule change/amendment.
To Gary V: Yes, I did my homework before posting here on who the proper submittees are, but thank you for the clarification. To Massachusetts ref: Well, you bring up a good point. We all have our gripes about what we'd like changed, and everyone ranks those gripes differently than everyone else, which is why we leave it to IFAB to decide. Personally, I'd like to see dissent, particularly when it involves vehemently cussing at a ref, be an automatic yellow card. Most refs I know will do it everytime, but certain professional league refs notoriously let it go. It's a big one for me, because youg children idolize the top players, and TV closeups of refs getting cussed out really makes me sick to my stomach (update: I wrote this yesterday but never posted it, and an article came out fon this issue from FIFA today!) Moving early on PK's is another big one for me, but what more can I add that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum? Referees should simply place their linesman on either side of the goal, and if the golkeeper moves off his line before the ball is struck, they raise their flag. Flag up, retake it if it's not successful. Simple. Goalkeeper movement while holding the ball was another issue for me, but they addressed it by removing the steps and going by time with the ball. Kind of a wuss way of resolving it, but it was resolved nonetheless (kind of like adding slang/swear words to the dictionary after years of use). Throwing the ball in from the wrong place is not much of an issue for me because violent conduct and/or goals don't usually accompany it. Clutching/grabbing is absolutely out of control, especially in the pros, but the rules exist, and as you said the refs have the proper tools to handle it. They simply choose not to call most of it. This one is different to me because: a) I have seen fights and yellow cards result from the additonal shoving by the defender b) the rule currently in place is ignored due to hesitancy to call PK's c) I don't have video evidence to back it up, but I'm sure injuries have resulted from it d) it's become really bad in the last 3-5 years e) the proper rule change would fix it It may not be "out of control", but I can see a major injury occurring that would prompt immediate re-address of it, and I'd like to prevent that. Plus, it looks really bad when it does happen, as if someone forgot to address that behavior when the rules were written. I forgot my train of thought because I wrote this a day ago and left it up on my computer, so I'm posting it as is.
My son's U16 team had a shielding call by an AR called on them in the second half of a crucial game in State Cup competition just this last season. The IFK resulted in a goal that knocked his team out. The ball was further than a yard beyond the defender. I don't recall any arms blocking the attacking player, but the ball was clearly on it's way out and was not going to be touched by either the defender or the attacker. I can't remember if the ball went out the goal line or the side line. But the IFK was awarded. This was the first time I had ever seen this called. My son's coach pretty much blew a gasket over the call. Probably should have been asked to leave, but wasn't and even continued his discussion after the game. Not that it makes any difference, but he is also a Division 1 college coach. Is this a call that is done in NCAA competition? I like the spirit of your suggested change. But as some have already pointed out, there are other instances where shielding is not called when, by some definition, it should be. I've always wondered about this rule. Isn't one of the objectives of the defense to keep the attacking team away from the ball?
Sure, but they have to be within playing distance of the ball to do so legally, and also must do it with the body not with the arms. It's also one of the objectives of the defense to deny goals, but handling the ball in the PA to do so will be a red card and PK...
<<This was the first time I had ever seen this called. My son's coach pretty much blew a gasket over the call.>> Thanks for the post. In a way, that's the point of my proposal - the fact that this isn't usually called, and my (humble) opinion is that the referees sometimes aren't sure if it should be a direct or indirect kick, and when they are sure, are hesitant to award a direct free kick for something so seemingly minor. To re-address a previous post - it's not so much that it's a horrible problem with the game, it's that it's confusing to fans, players, coaches, even some referees. Sure, clarification would help, in the form of a "directive" from FIFA, but I'd like to make it as simple as possible so no one is confused. I firmly believe that one season of adjustment would be all it would take. A bunch of IFK's that weren't there before would change defender's actions by the following year. So to the person who asked if I wanted there to be more IFK's near the defender's goal line, the answer is no, but if there are in the first year, I say it's a worthy sacrifice. <<I don't find this being a big problem (at least in the games that I do), nor have I noticed it being an point of issue in pro games that I have watched (nor have I seen players complaining about it, at least on the field). Therefore, I don't feel this requires a rule change/amendment.>> You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate your input. Just out of curiosity, if you saw it happen in the penalty area (where a defender used outsretched arms to shield the ball going over the goal line), would you call a PK?
This is the only valid point/objection you have in my opinion, and I agree it might be a problem since a PK seems a severe punishment for a slight holding foul on a ball going out. If this were changed to an obstruction call then it becomes an IFK. If the wording is to be changed, how about something like rather than having the ball in playable position, it the defender must actually be playing the ball, so occassionally touching it, not just following it out. Not sure how to word that nicely, but it resolves the "have to touch it" part folks didn't seem to like, while allowing Massref's point of lots of shielding in mid field. Maybe they have xx seconds to play the ball during the shield. The rule is there to prevent it, but you may be right that many refs won't call a PK on it.
Yeah, well, FIFA just "clarified" Law 11 and stated that for an offside infraction "playing = touching", and look what kind of a mess that has gotten us into. To be honest, F&U, as you've indicated we have bigger fish to fry, even it this is your personal pet peeve. Actually carding dissent and encroachment, delaying restarts, clutching and grabbing, diving, etc. are larger problems, but not because of the Laws. They are problems due to lack of enforcement. The NHL had similar issues with clutching, grabbing and other illegal contact. Mario Lemieux retired in part because he was sick of it. So for a few seasons, the league announced they were going to "crack down". For the preseason and first few weeks of play there was a veritable parade to the penalty box. The powers that be decided that a power-play contest was not what they wanted, never gave players a chance to adjust, and not too long after the start of the season things were right back to where they were. The NHL didn't have the guts to actually enforce their existing rules. BTW, F&A, what do you think about the experiment in the WYC U20 tourney with cautioning a player for touching the ball after the other team is awarded a restart? I see far more tussles and ill will over balls kicked or carried away to delay a restart than I do for the occasional ball shielded over the line.
I think it's a problem that will do nothing but get worse at younger ages as time goes by. Particularly here in the USA, as more kids and more youth coaches watch more pro games and see this behavior, both the backing into the attacker and the shielding with the arms will happen more often in games. And I don't really care if the solution results in more PK's - after all, it's a very dangerous attacking situation that the defender is preventing. If he falls on his butt and the attacker gets the ball, the attacker is now coming at the goal from short range. BTW, as a coach I ask you to PLEASE call dissent aggressively in youth soccer.
You are wrong that a player is guilty of impeding "if he has no intention of playing the ball" - also, one yard is not necessarily considered by FIFA to be within playing distance - it is a guideline we referees are given, but the Law states that there is not set distance, only that the referee must determine what he feels playing distance is for the age and skill level of the individual player. How do you determine a player has not intention of playing the ball, if he is in playing distance of it?
<<also, one yard is not necessarily considered by FIFA to be within playing distance - it is a guideline we referees are given, but the Law states that there is not set distance, only that the referee must determine what he feels playing distance is for the age and skill level of the individual player>> This is a valid point. I think my original post said that one yard was "generally" considered to be within playing distance. <<How do you determine a player has not intention of playing the ball, if he is in playing distance of it?>> It's a judgment call, and one I wouldn't bother to try to get in the books in writing. HOWEVER, this thread is about the clear-cut instances when a defender prevents an attacking player from getting to the ball as it rolls over the goal line. The defender is clearly trying to get the goal kick, and playing the ball would make that impossible.
Playing the ball or playing the game. To be within playing distance but not touching the ball is a valid activity. Shielding the ball is a legal activity. The majority of the time when the defender arrives within playing distance first and is in the act of leagaly shielding the ball, it is the offensive player, who "makes contact with the opponent before contacting the ball". Make this call on the offensive player once or twice and you will not have defenders going out of their way to create the contact, as they will be confident that they can "just" shield the ball and will be protected from the illegal contact from their opponent.
This proposed change is unnecessary. As long as the defender does not stick the arms to keep the attacker from getting the ball, it's fine. The ball is certainly within playing distance because the defender could play it if he wanted. And the playing distance is certainly larger than 1 yard. The defender should not penalized just because he decided that's it's a better advantage to get a goal kick. The reason why it's easier to make an obstruction or holding call when both are further up the field than the ball is simply that the attacker has more room to run around the defender. The closer you get to the goal line, it looks more like shielding. Also, how about the case of defenders protecting their goalkeepers by doing the same manoeuver until the GK collects the ball??? It protects the GK from potential injury by an over eager forward. Safety is the first duty of the referee. How will you distinguish the case where the defender is protecting the goal keeper but the goal keeper decides a goal kick is better than a punt? There is no need for this change. Attackers just need to make more accurate passes.
First of all, let me thank everyone for their invaluable input. I played competitive football/soccer for many years and this wasn't much of an issue when I played, although I never had to wear shinguards either, so obviously times change. I think I noticed this problem most in the EPL over the last two seasons. I have to respectfully disagree with ref2coach, however, regarding the initation of the contact. Of all the instances where I've seen contact made, I haven't seen one case where the attacking player made the contact first. Not one. It was invariably the defender slowing down and backing into the attacking player. I guess that's the beauty of these boards, though - we all have our own personal experiences and observations! <<As long as the defender does not stick the arms to keep the attacker from getting the ball, it's fine>> Unfortunately, if the defender makes contact first, it's also classified as holding. It's not just the arm placement. <<Also, how about the case of defenders protecting their goalkeepers by doing the same manoeuver until the GK collects the ball??? It protects the GK from potential injury by an over eager forward. Safety is the first duty of the referee. How will you distinguish the case where the defender is protecting the goal keeper but the goal keeper decides a goal kick is better than a punt?>> Forwards have just as much right to the ball as defenders and goalkeepers, and impeding is impeding, plain and simple. Are you going to allow a forward to impede a goalkeeper so another forward can get to the ball?? Referees should not bias their calls depending on where the ball is on the field. <<There is no need for this change. Attackers just need to make more accurate passes.>> Best response I've seen yet! But I can't get this one into the rule books!
Well...if the defender is slowing down, so as not to overrun the ball as he shepards it out of bounds, and the attacker is trying to get to the ball...the net effect is that the attacker will bump into the defender. This is almost always the way the play works, since the defender's intent is simply to escort the ball safely out of bounds without touching it...while the attacker's aim is to get the ball away from the &*^(@&! defender. A player who is shielding the ball may be fairly charged from behind...so there is usually no foul, unless one player or the other gets a bit too aggressive about the contact. But the observation that "I haven't seen one case where the attacking player made the contact first" suggests (at least to one referee) that you're probably an attacker. And it doesn't seem to coincide with the observations that I --- or, I imagine, most people --- have made over the years. No...impeding is a foul. Shielding is perfectly legal, and a long- and universally-accepted part of the game. From the viewpoint of an official, the person complaining about "impeding" is almost always the one being deliberately shielded from the ball. And generally, I've found that many (though by no means all) real cases of obstructing go unnoticed by the player being impeded: he's usually so intent on getting to the ball that he often doesn't realize he's being fouled until I blow my whistle. And, just to bring some perspective to the matter: your comments suggest that, out of simple fairness, the referees should also be giving the ball to the defenders, whenever the attacker is trying to keep it by shielding it. I suppose that this would make defense considerably easier, but I don't think it would improve the game at all. And I really don't think that's quite what you have in mind.
I'm not a ref, but I'd still like to join in the conversation. I think that the defender should be able to shield the ball, as long as he doesn't use his arms to prevent the other player from going around them. I also don't consider slowing down or even stopping to be causing contact. The bigger issue is how such a rule will affect the game. You can't have a seperate rule for when the ball is near the end line than you'd have in the middle of the pitch. If a forward kicks the ball behind a defender, and the defender steps in between the forward and the ball, you wouldn't want the ref to blow the whistle because the defender hasn't played the ball yet. I agree that the plays going over the end line is out of hand. However, the defender has the right to shield the ball. My beef (and as a non-ref, comments would be appreciated) is when a player moves away from the ball when he's shielding it. You shouldn't be able to back away from the ball to keep someone away from it. I see the same problem in the general case when a player kicks the ball behind a defender. The defender is allowed to run in between the player and the ball, even veering into the forward's path when he's closer to the ball than the forward. What I see a lot of is the defender, starting to get passed by the forward, turns away from the ball when they're pretty much level, and knocks the forward away from the ball. It doesn't get called much because it's "shoulder to shoulder", but it seems to fall into the category of playing the player, not the ball. If this is a foul, like backing away from a ball going out of touch would be, then no rule change is needed, just better enforcement.