Question Number: 31053

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/26/2016

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

Yet another penalty question. This time in the Barnsley v Forest match in the Championship.

The forth goal by Forest was a converted penalty.

Yes the defender and the attacker clatter into each other, and yes, the attackers was (technically) in possession of the ball. I say technically, in that he was the last person to play the ball, however I question if the attacker was in total control of his own movement (he was recovering from a half stumble) and was the defender a victim of the attackers stumble.

Not that this determines anything, however, none of the supporting Forest players have any interest in asking the question of the ref for a penalty. They are more interested in shooting, or calling for where to play the ball. Of course it is only what the CR believes happens that matters.

This all leads to the debate of " at what point does obstruction stop and being run into begin.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
clear PK the off balance scrambling was not responsible for the late, fast and moving arrival of the defender to turn impeding into charging. The defender would have to be grounded to say the attacker fell into him. Fifth goal and hat trick for Lands was completely justified if a tad opportunistic as both the ball and the attacker were headed out into the field... ah the foul location, location, location. I noted the attacker was pointing to the spot ahead of the referee lol
As far as controversy goes though I actually found the stamp for the red card to be more ambiguous but you make a motion even without the twist or force of downward pressure you are asking the referee to weigh in.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
This is an example of why I believe that the old obstruction offence is sadly missed in the game. When I played the game this would have been an IDFK offence for obstruction inside the penalty area. It is a perfect example of what is not a foul in the sense of a penalty award yet it is nonetheless a foul.
Now as to the Law we rarely if ever see impeding called as an offence with an IDFK. This is due to 1. if there is no contact rarely is it seen as a foul and 2. when there is is contact it gets elevated to a holding or charging penal foul which happens most if the time. In this situation once the Red opponent commited to the challenge and did not win the ball it was always likely to draw the contact foul.