Question Number: 19629

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/21/2008

RE: IM Under 14

Pat T of Newton, MA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 19621

I didn't expect to open up such an emotional response, just seeking to clarify that something that I've never seen called and that looked like a stretch-interpretation of the rule (that the player has to get out of the way of an oncoming opponent) wasn't legit.

The below (slide 29) has always seemed to me to be fairly clear and I never had a question on it since I've done this several times both as a player and coach and there's never been any call, but apparently there are different and strongly-held views. It says 'being in the way of the opponent is not the same thing as moving into the way of an opponent' and seems to say that the former isn't 'impeding the progress.'

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

Please understand I'm just trying to ascertain what's allowed and what's not allowed so that, if something is effective with the players I get, I know whether I can use it. I recognize that it's unusual and may not be effective at the pro and college levels where you have 22 excellent athletes. At our level you get a mixed bag and last year, because having gone 19-1 with a girls team in a league that supposedly doles out even teams, my daughter and I switched to the boys' league and I got a co-ed team comprising super but mostly unathletic kids, with a desire to learn and succeed but most of whom were used to going 1-7. We came up with some unusual formations and approaches, focused on defense and went 3-1-3 giving up seven goals in as many games. The kids and parents were ecstatic. These aren't potential ODP or even high school players so I didn't see the harm in doing that versus another season of dribbling around cones - they learned a life lesson similar to the story of Columbus and the egg.

Aficionados who love the finesse-only game don't like this approach, think it's 'not real soccer,' but that's not really my concern - I think 'real soccer' is whatever legal means consistently result in your team having more goals than the other team when the referee blows his whistle twice, and if you can't get there with finesse only then you get creative, just like baseball teams that don't have hitting power opt to bunt and steal bases. Why that's controversial I don't know but I also don't care.

But I obviously want to be within the Laws in this approach, and I can see how things would come up that don't usually come up because of our unorthodox formations and style of play.

I spend a great deal of time trying to make sure that an approach I want to take is in fact within the Laws of the Game. Some of the Laws there's some gray area and it's difficult to do that - if it could be illegal then you seek clarification or don't do it. This one honestly appeared to be pretty black and white given the text of the Law and the above slide presentation. It honestly never occurred to me that that this approach could be considered an infraction until someone ran into ME in an adult pick-up game a few weeks ago and told me I'D committed a foul.

As you can see I didn't just ignore it as silly as it sounded, I asked because I wanted to be completely sure that what I was doing was legal. If I didn't care about the legality of it, I wouldn't have asked.

The FIFA slide seems to draw a distinction between stepping into the path of a defender versus standing still in what later becomes the path of the defender, the latter of which it seems to say is not an infraction.

I now know that if when you chose the space to occupy, you anticipated your teammate's next move and the defender's reaction to that move, and concluded that that space could end up being in the direction in which the opposing player might choose to run, some conclude that a foul has been committed. I'm not sure when the foul is committed or by whom - going to the spot (though players can't read minds and it's not a certainty that the defender will choose to run in that direction - if the defender chose to retreat toward the goal, then there's no progress being impeded but somehow this could still be impeding the progress?), staying in that spot (though that would create an obligation to get out of the defender's way), the ball-handler's making the pass because he sees that the space will be clear for an extra second or two (even though the person making the pass isn't himself in the defender's way).... Seems tortuous logically but perhaps in the penumbra of it there's a foul - if the Supreme Court can read penumbras into the Bill of Rights then I guess we can read penumbras into Law 12. I'm not sure what the logic is because all I got from the one ref who said there was a foul was that it's putting the reputation of the Game at stake and that he'd 'send the Coach off for it.'

I now know that at least one referee feels strongly that we're supposed to read that into Law 12 and FIFA's explanation of it. OK, well, thank you for that. But please don't question my integrity for not reading into the Law something that appears on face value to be the opposite of what it says. I asked a legitimate question for a good reason, I've had a lot of success at this game and I don't think I'm sullying its reputation.

Thank you

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

It all boils down to what did the ref see you do, and when did he see you do it?

(1) If you move into the path, or a very nearby likely path, of an opponent you have impeded his progress.

(2) If you simply find yourself already stationary in the path or likely path of the opponent, you are not required to move. You are not impeding.

(3) If you move to a position, stop, and then a very short time later find yourself in your opponent's path, it will be the opinion of the referee as to whether you did (1) or (2). It's your gamble.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Integrity is a personal characteristic that you either have or do not have. In my opinion I have not questioned it in any way only explained that the dynamics of active play and in the opinion of a referee is a match condition that you need to adapt too. I coach all manner of kids as well from the best and brightest to house league recreational and there are many ways to play based on the talents available to be competative.

Impeding is a player deliberately playing an opponent NOT the ball is as basic as I can put it. A player is not allowed to move into a position forcing the opponent to avoid contact. Occupying space is not a foul unless it it was SEEN to be done for the reason I just stated. Most often in impeding is a push or holding foul occurs instead from the unfair contact that trying to impede creates.

As I mentioned taking away passing lanes and intercept positions by correct positioning is not impeding just sound tactical placement.
Coaches teach any number of ideas including keeper jumping up with the kneee out in front for an example which CAN be as dangerous to an opponent as the keeper being run into by the opponent. Although I get why it is taught because in the opinion of the coaches a referee fails to adequately protect the keeper in contact situations, it is in fact often seen as PIADM..
Keepers can bounce the ball in law when in fact it is not a good idea and I coach not to do it but rather quickly carry that ball into an effective release position .
Impeding where players stand in front of the keeper then become his shadow even BEFORE the free or corner kick is actually a form of USB as much as it could be impeding if the ball was in play.

In basket ball you can take a stationary position feet planted directly in front of an oncoming dribbler and draw a charging foul if he contacts you going up for the shot. Essentially a player can remain where he is but as referee if I see the opponent move into an intercept position to challange as being soley to play the oncoming player it is either impeding or perhaps a holding foul.

IF your player and an opponent are both pursuing or challanging for the ball and you have a team mate take a deliberate position to pick him away if I see it as that I will call impeding. I see it in the bracing for impact that a body takes when it sets itself for the impact.

As I said tactically you do what you think you can to improve your team's chances but UNDERSTAND the referee of the match as a MATCH condition may see your tactical ploys in a different light!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I guess I'm still confused as to exactly what you are doing.
If a player moves so as to block or alter the path of an opponent, he has impeded the progress of that opponent.
You are free to station your players anywhere you want as long as when they move to that area they do not alter the path of an opponent.
If you have a player with the ball and there is a teammate 5 yards away standing still, the player with the ball may dribble towards this teammate and if the teammate stands still the player with the ball may be able to lose a defender that is guarding him. Is this what you are doing? If so, I still fail to see how this tactic will be at all beneficial as the defender simply has to take a step around the stationary player.
Impeding the progress of an opponent is not a difficult foul to recognize and any referee with any experience will be able to look at what you do and tell right away if it is legal.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

The only possible positive advantage I can see from such tactics is it will teach your players where to be when they need to be, and how to anticipate what will happen next in a game. These are good things, and can translate into positive playing into space, etc.

As for whether or not the specific tactic you outlined will be legal or illegal depends on too many variables to give a definitive answer. Not the least of those issues is the experience and savvy of the referee crew.

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

I'm glad you chose to ask Jim Allen at US Soccer's Q&A site. I'm also glad his answer was essentially the same as what we had previously written.

USSF answer (July 21, 2008):
Simple answer covering all eventualities: A player is allowed to occupy space but is not allowed to move into space that an opponent is actively using with the result that the opponent is forced to stop, swerve, or slow down to avoid contact. Under normal circumstances, "impeding" does not involve physical contact (which is why it is a "lesser" offense) ? if contact occurs, the impeding player is now guilty of a direct rather than an indirect free kick offense.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 19650