I recently received a letter from a Mr John
Jarvis about a topic which, I know, will strike a chord with many readers,
.
To long-time followers of local Reading football, John is better known as Jackie Jarvis who played for West Reading in their halcyon days. His question was, 'Is the free kick for obstruction now obsolete?' A great question, and he goes on, 'When I was playing for West Reading back in the sixties,
a free kick for obstruction was a regular feature of the game. Now I never see this particular offence penalised in either the professional or amateur game. This always comes to mind, when I see defenders literally wrestling a forward to the ground, in order for the ball to go over the goal line for a goal kick'
The first thing to say is that the word 'obstruction' does not appear in the Laws of the Game today. Prior to 1995 the law used to say, 'An indirect free kick shall be awarded if, when not playing the ball, a player intentionally obstructs an opponent i.e. running between an opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent'. This was changed in 1995 to 'Impeding the progress of an opponent,' with everything else remaining the same. Why the change we weren't told but to my mind obstruction and impeding are the same thing.
In 1997, the Laws of the Game were completely rewritten and now the law simply says that 'an indirect free kick will be awarded if a player impedes the progress of an opponent'. The previous description of the offence is left out and you must turn to the second book that all referees should have, 'Advice on the Application of the Laws'.
This repeats the earlier description but also adds 'A player having the ball under his control and within playing distance in order to prevent it being played by an opponent, is NOT guilty of an offence, unless he uses his arm or body to hold the opponent'. This means a player is actually entitled to impede an opponent by shielding the ball, providing he remains within playing distance.
It obviously relies on the judgement of the referee, as to what is playing distance. This can vary depending on the speed the players are travelling. If a player is standing still over the ball, it's fairly easy, he's got to be able to reach out with his foot and touch the ball. However, this is not necessarily the case when running after the ball, it can be further away and still be considered playable and under the player's control.
I have some sympathy with John's concerns, I have seen situations similar to those he described. I witnessed recently a goalkeeper who was shielding the ball over the line, wait for an opponent and then as he drew level deliberately back in to him,
some way from the ball. The point here, however, is that these situations are not impeding, they are
holding, a direct free kick offence.
Many people think of holding as only with the arm or the hand, the most prevalent of which today, is shirt-pulling, but holding can be with any part of the body. Again there is another judgement to be made by the referee. Who makes the contact? Does the opponent make the contact with the player shielding the ball or is it the player backing into the
opponent?
Why aren't they penalised? That's difficult to say except that it is down to each referee's individual judgement. I know for instance that I have given two free kicks for impeding in my last three games. But sadly, if they fail to do it at professional level, referees in the amateur game, like players, are influenced by what they see on television.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2007