Question Number: 14920

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/28/2007

RE: Recreational Adult

John Anderson of Brighton, UK asks...

Dear Ref,

impeding or pushing?

Apologies if this sounds a little confusing, I had hoped to send a picture for clarity. In a recent game of football a situation arose in which payer A (attacker) with the ball at his feet was facing player B (defender). Both players were stationary. Player A then kicked the ball along the ground into space behind and to the right of player B, leaving a direct line of sight to the ball (approximately 45 degrees). The ball was lying roughly 5 metres away. Player A then began to run towards the ball in a straight line. Player B, to regain a defensive position turns and also runs towards the ball, however, player B selects a path that means that he turns and runs in front of player A, i.e. player B turns to his right and runs a slight arc towards the ball. Player A then subsequently runs into the back of player B and player B is pushed to the ground. At no point is either player within playing distance of the ball.

An argument ensued in which, on the one hand, player B claimed to have been pushed to the ground from behind (i.e. a direct free kick should be awarded to the defending team) while on the other hand player A claimed to have had his direct path to the ball impeded by player B hence the ruling should be an indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team.

Situations like this have arisen on a number of previous occasions and have usually been accompanied by extensive bouts of arguing which tend to remain largely un resolved.

My personal view is that in this situation Player B is not allowed to move in a way that impedes player A from reaching the ball unless he is moving in a straight line himself towards the ball. To get in front of player A, player B must have had to move in such a way that he was not directly heading for the ball at all times and in this case an impeding offence should be called and an indirect free kick awarded to the attacking side. If on the other hand the ball had been kicked by player A so that player B did not run an arc to get in front of player A but was already standing in the line of site between player A and the ball then player A would commit a foul by pushing player B and a direct free kick should be awarded to the defending side.

Any help with resolving this dilemma is much appreciated.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

To analyze any situation like this, the first thing to do is ask, what happened first?

1. A kicked the ball - legal.
2. B moved in between A and the ball - illegal, impeding.
3. A knocked B down - also illegal, pushing (if that was the opinion of the referee - it could have been innocent contact).

So the restart is based on the first illegal item, #2. It's an indirect free kick for A's team. If B complains about it, you just remind him that he acted first.

Item #3 isn't ignored. You would do well to tell the player that he was likely saved from committing a foul because the impeding happened first. If it was a reckless or done with excessive force, you would still deal with the misconduct.

You are correct in your revised scenario. If B is already between A and the ball, he has no obligation to get out of A's way. A cannot barrel through, committing a foul in the process.

The header says you're a player - have you considered becoming a ref? You seem to already have a good grasp on the Laws. Or do the "extensive bouts of arguing" turn you off from the idea?

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I'll have to disagree. As a general rule, don't run over your opponent and then claim he impeded you. If the player in question DID impede, and the opponent was forced to run around him, call the impeding. If the player impeded and his opponent COULD have run around him but chose to bulldoze him instead, I'm inclined to call this pushing or charging and award a DFK to Player B's team. It's illegal to cut off an opponent. It's illegal to run over an opponent that's in your way. Player A has a responsibility to avoid contact if possible. If contact is unavoidable by Player A's actions, then I'd award a DFK for player B's team as player A is guilty of holding, not impeding.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

NO apologies necessary I often manage to strangle a simple explanation into philosophical obscurity! That said I think your take is already on point ! Spot on mate!

In an impeding call there is NO contact the player impeded is diverted from his path .
A player who impedes then blocks the opponent through actual contact is now guilty of holding!
An opponent who is being blocked without contact but decides to run over the fellow in front maybe quilty of charging or pushing.

The order of events may in fact be related to a too late whistle for impeding as the agrieved player may think that unfair action was being allowed so he will retailiate and just run the bugger over!

Notice though I noted a block, not impede as a player is under no obligation to get out of the way if he is on a line to the ball and slower than the opposition but if the trailing opponent moves off and over and the front runner readjusts his path to the ball to block without contact and the ball is not within playing distance (which is about two steps at the speed they are going) that is impeding, call it BEFORE it goes into contact either as a foul or as misconduct.

Each situation has a life of its own but as your foul recognition improves your guts get a better read on when to pull the players up for the fouls! or let things slide as part of ongoing play!! One player usually sets the picture your job is to see which one is out of focus! Cheers