Preston Goal

[filham]

One thing is for sure Rodak and his defenders need to sort the matter in training this week so that he doesn't get himself in a similar position against Bournmouth. Parker will have seen the goal and no doubt try copying the tactics a couple of times.

[Motspur Park]

Just found this........

In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."

'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'

The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?

UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.

"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."

"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."

So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.

There is clear contradiction between the law you cited and referee Sutton's interpretation of physical contact. One of them has to be wrong. From the standard of refereeing we witness,  I can take a punt on which is correct.
[/quote]

What I quoted was a question that was posed in respect of a specific incident, but I don't think there is a contradiction. I think the new interpretation of what used to be obstruction is now that this is only applicable  if there is no actual physical contact. It used to be interpreted that when a player intentionally put himself in the way of a player attempting to reach the ball and in doing so, the coming together of the players was penalised by the award of a free kick for obstruction and an indirect free kick. The referee is stating that is no longer the case and the contact between the players can NOW only be punishable by a direct free kick to the team the ref has awarded in favour of.

[bobbo]

Rodak has to get a defender between him and the guy who obstructs him. We can't really complain about players blocking at corners, we do it all the time and have scored several goals because of it.
Then Rodak has got to be stronger and railroad his way to that ball, floating in the six yard box.

your right he needs the defender in front of him. I actually think refs should make it clear to the players before the game ( I used to ) just two or three things not acceptable and standing in front of the keeper with no other intention other than obstructing him is one of them . They need to blowup the second the free kick/ corner is taken and award the free kick . It would soon puta stop to it . When do you ever see indirect free kicks ever gin for obstruction , the law still exists though.

Just found this........

In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."

'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'

The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?

UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.

"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."

"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."

So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.

well done motspur I didn't know about the change but it really isn't a change it's just re worded. And as we both say we never see indirect free kicks given , only when it's offside . When I was running the refs courses at Uxbridge many many years back there were actually 18 offences that warranted indirect free kicks and only 9 penal offences warranting a direct free kick or a penalty if in the area . I probably need to read the up to date versions now.

[Arthur]

At the end of the day the moment the ball hits the guy on the goal line from Evans header ITS OFFSIDE.  Forget any handball it's offside.

It's a close call, but is it offside?

Robinson's left foot looks as close as anything to the line. And Rodak seems level with the Preston player.

[Stevieboy]

For me when some players usher balls out they clearly impede the opposing player by not trying to play the ball whilst holding the player off.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

For me when some players usher balls out they clearly impede the opposing player by not trying to play the ball whilst holding the player off.

Yes, that's the most common one

[SG]

Offside or not the ball was put into the net by the upper arm. Therefore it should automatically have been disallowed for handball. That is the new law.

[Jamie88]

Offside or not the ball was put into the net by the upper arm. Therefore it should automatically have been disallowed for handball. That is the new law.

I mean, I'm certainly not on the other side of the fence regarding the goal here, but you're wrong. Part of the upper arm is now allowed, as in the 'T-shirt line'.

[Motspur Park]

Offside or not the ball was put into the net by the upper arm. Therefore it should automatically have been disallowed for handball. That is the new law.

I mean, I'm certainly not on the other side of the fence regarding the goal here, but you're wrong. Part of the upper arm is now allowed, as in the 'T-shirt line'.

This is from the laws of the game....

HANDLING THE BALL
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player's hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

The ball was nudged in by his upper arm (under the armpit). In my opinion it was a clear handball and should have been disallowed.

[Motspur Park]

There is even a picture on the FA website and the ball was struck clearly lower than the permissible area (where it is not deemed to be handball).

[Bill2]

For me when some players usher balls out they clearly impede the opposing player by not trying to play the ball whilst holding the player off.

The ball is at the players feet when this normally happens and therefore has it under their control and it is their decision to play it. What is a fouls is where the ball is in open play and you deliberately stop an opponent getting to the ball. This is Association Football not the American variety where blocking would appear to be allowed.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

I think it is about time that we gave up discussion on this goal . We have had two goals allowed this season when it has been very marginall as to whether a Fulham player clearly impeded an opposing player or not.
These goals were planned tactics as was the infringement on Rodak but they all got away with it.
The goals stood so let's move on.

[Whitesideup]

I think it is about time that we gave up discussion on this goal . We have had two goals allowed this season when it has been very marginall as to whether a Fulham player clearly impeded an opposing player or not.
These goals were planned tactics as was the infringement on Rodak but they all got away with it.
The goals stood so let's move on.

Prefer people not to tell me what we can or cannot discuss. Suggest you don't "read on" and let others discuss what they like.