Question Number: 33302

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/2/2019

RE: Adult

daniel steer of Reading, Berkshire UK asks...

Hello. Why wasn't the Messi freekick goal he scored against Liverpool in the 1st leg of the Champions League Semi Final an indirect freekick? Fabhino obstructed him and got a yellow card. Isn't obstruction indirect?Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Daniel
Would you believe *obstruction * was removed from the Laws of the Game in 1997 and replaced with the no contact offence of impeding. It was further updated in 2016 to make this type of offence and the restart much clearer. Referee Grove has outlined the detail.
So once there is obstruction type offence with contact it is now an offence which has a direct free kick restart.
An IDFK foul for impeding with no contact is so rare I cannot recall the last one I seen in a game.
In the Liverpool incident there was contact in the offence so it had to be a direct free kick restart. The referee was 100% correct in the decision. Any card decision is a matter for the referee to decide based on the normal caution criteria such as tactical offence, persistent infringement, reckless etc.
I awarded a penalty in a recent game and the player told me that it was only *obstruction* to which I advised him that *obstruction* now longer existed and such contact is now a direct free kick or penalty kick restart. His protest confirmed the award of the offence to me as it was not as they say a *stonewaller*.
I hope that helps.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Daniel,
It was not an indirect free kick because there was contact. The laws say the following

''If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.''

The old-style offence of obstruction (changed to impeding in 1997) also required that there be no contact - once there was contact, it became a different offence of either holding or possibly, charging. Having said that, I would admit that on many occasions, referees would still award an indirect free kick for impeding even when there was contact (especially if it were minor) even though that was not supported in law.

Since 2016 however, we no longer need to judge this as a separate offence as there are two types of impeding: with and without contact.

Impeding without contact, were it to occur (which, as ref McHugh correctly states, it almost never does) would still be an indirect free kick offence. However impeding with contact, such as occurred here, is a direct free kick offence. The relevant portion of the laws is:

''A direct free kick is awarded if a player [...] impedes an opponent with contact''

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

See Question: 33306