I used to work for a firm based in West Sussex. The head office address was Lancing Industrial Estate. I still occasionally receive communication from the company but the address is now Lancing Business Park. They haven't moved, they are still located amongst the same collection of rather scruffy industrial buildings rather than the idyllic surrounds of a park as the name may suggest.
We constantly come across words used in a way to enhance their meaning. 'Reality' television for instance does not portray real life as may be as expected. David Beckham's wife is certainly not 'posh'.
In the last few years many offences in football have been re-named. Some I think more accurately describe what is intended. For instance, the offence of 'foul or abusive language' is now 'offensive or insulting or
abusive language'.
Others seem to be altered simply to give the impression that something has changed. 'Obstruction' has given way to 'impeding'. My dictionary gives the meaning of impeding as 'to hinder, to obstruct'. So what the difference?
Before the change the law said 'An indirect free kick will be awarded if a player, when not playing the ball, intentionally obstructs an opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball or interposing the body so as to obstruct an opponent'. The rewritten law says simply 'An indirect free kick is awarded if a player, in the opinion of the referee, impedes the progress of an opponent'. You will see that, apart from renaming obstruction as impeding, there are three other main differences. The action of impeding has to be in the opinion of the referee, the word 'intentionally' has been removed and so has the qualifying sentence 'when not playing the ball'. This suggests that the opponent must be allowed access to the ball at all times and even accidental impeding
should be punished. Well not exactly.
Last week one of my golfing partners said he could never understand why players who shield the ball from an opponent, allowing it to run out of play. whilst obviously not intending to play it are not penalised for obstruction or as it is now 'impeding'. Good question. Under the old
Law this was quite easily answered for there was a separate clause which said, if a player covers up the ball without touching it in an endeavour not to have it played by an opponent, he does not infringe the law because he is already in possession of the ball and covers it for tactical reasons whilst the ball remains within playing distance. So a player could obstruct an opponent even if he has no intention of playing the ball, providing it remained within playing distance. Very clear, if long-winded and, if I may say so, very sensible.
That clause has been completely left out of the re-written laws so, if you read it literally, the law now says that
any impeding of a opponent, even accidentally, no matter whether the ball is being played or not, can be penalised, dependent on the opinion of the referee. There is the crux of the matter.
How does the referee form his opinion. Well, in part he relies on a booklet produced by the FA entitled 'Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game'. This booklet takes a whole page to say what the old
Law said in one paragraph. A player is entitled to shield the ball from an opponent provided it remains with playing distance but does not have to actually play it. Furthermore, it says that impeding cannot be penalised unless it is intentional.
I am prepared to accept that Business Park sounds more desirable than Industrial Estate, but for the life of me I can't believe that calling obstruction 'impeding' has any benefit to anyone.
Dick Sawdon Smith