Question Number: 33323

Other 5/8/2019

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 33318

Referee Mr McHugh said: 'I adopt zero tolerance in there by the attacking team.' I absolutely agree with this sentence. In my opinion, Zinchenko was not interested in the ball at all. I think that the defending team should be allowed to end these time-wasting situations as quickly as possible. It was better in yesterday's match Liverpool vs. Barcelona. Only 'ball shielding' player and opponents were involved. Everyone just wanted to play. Has it ever been solved by IFAB? Thank you!

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
I wonder if perhaps we are talking about different incidents? The one I looked at (and which seemed to match the time you specified) did not involve Zinchenko trying to shield the ball. Another City player was shielding the ball, Zinchenko wasn't. If there was anything there, it was a simple case of a player committing a pretty much trifling and extremely short-lived pushing offence which to my way of thinking was just not worth penalizing. In fact it was so short-lived, I had to watch the clip several times over to be able to see it.

Just to mention, I also heartily dislike the tactic of shielding the ball in the corner for sometimes minutes at a time towards the end of a match.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
Thanks for the follow up.
The solution that IFAB would say is to use the Laws appropriately.
In essence it is contrary to the spirit of the game which is to score goals. Holding the ball up in the corner though is not illegal. There are plenty of other actions that are also *gaming* the Laws for benefit such as multiple substitutions in the last few minutes many of which are using up time and disrupting the flow of opponents, laying down *injured* when before that the player was able to walk, stretching the time taken to restart by walking / jogging to the ball rather than running. The list goes on.
The most recent *intervention* by IFAB was the deliberate kick to the goalkeeper law. Before that teams abused the situation by multiple passes to the GK which could be picked up, withheld from challenge and repeated. It became a joke in some games which required something to be done which has worked. I feel that IFAB could easily come up with other solutions that help improve the game as a spectacle rather than running down the clock tactics of teams in the lead. For one I would introduce use it or lose it on restarts. In our national game of Gaelic football if a team does not restart promptly the referee has the ability to cancel the restart and go with an aerial challenge for the ball between opponents. It is not used extensively yet it is available as required.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr,
So you hold it was a CLEAR deliberate scenario not one where one might go go hmm looks slightly suspicious? While I could agree the intent was there, was it truly a factor in the outcome? It was obviously doubtful or trifling or marginal to the referee of the match. The referee could have awarded a free kick out for the interference of impeding. I certainly would not object if it was whistled and awarded, the LOTG would support such a call. The issue is when have you last seen such a call made in an actual match? You can hold the opinion if it should be a factor and perhaps if it was called we see this type of ploy fade away. In truth I rarely see more than a single player shielding the ball as multiple opposition surrounds him. In the rare cases where his teammates try to block the opposition access it might indeed be a good decision to award the INDFK or DFK out for impeding. In essence the solution is there IF it is perceived as an issue.
Cheers