Question Number: 15577

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/23/2007

RE: Other

Paul Perger of Worthington, Ohio USA asks...

Situation - A throw in near the corner. Team throwing is up by 2 with 1 minute remaining. They are playing 9 on the field due to injuries and thus want to "waste time" as much as legally possible.

The thrower throws the ball to the corner and then runs onto the field and follows the ball until it stops and then (without ever touching the ball) shields it from her opponents. She is, ITOOTR, within playing distance, so she is "playing" the ball, not impeding her opponents ability to play the ball.

Now, if she touches it, we obviously have a second touch violation. However, she has not touched the ball. She also legally can't touch the ball without giving up an IFK.

Question: Can she legally shield (and thus by definition, "play") a ball she can not legally touch? Or is her action of "playing the ball" without touching it reason enough to award an IFK to the opponents?

I don't want to unduly influence anyone's thought processes so I will keep my opinion, and the arguments to defend it, to myself. I am interested in hearing your responses...

Thank You,
Paul Perger
USSF Grade 7 Referee
USSF Instructor and Assessor

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

Paul, The answer is that player cannot shield if he cannot play the ball. Even though the player can reach out and touch the ball, he is guilty of impeding here as he is not elgible to play the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

It used to be legal, but it seems things have changed!

The official USSF position is that shielding is legal if the ball is within playing distance and the player is legally able to play the ball. Else it is impeding. See Jim Allen's site ( http://www.drix.net/jim/past062.html ) the entry for March 23, 2006 for the full text of this change. Ref Fleischer quotes the relevant portion in his reply.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Interesting this, a player who is prevented, by Law, from playing the ball is attempting to prevent an opponent from playing it by claiming he is playing it by not playing it. Think about that -- US Soccer has it right, it's as if the ball is not there and he is preventing the opponent from moving on the field by interposing is body. Classic impeding the progress.

Here is the US SOccer position as of March 23, 2006:

SITUATION REVISITED/REVISED ANSWER (March 23, 2006)
Questions have been raised concerning a narrow and rare situation in which the player performing a restart (for example, a free kick or throw-in) moves to shield the ball despite the fact that this player could not make contact with the ball directly without violating the Law (the "two touch" rule). In the past, the answer has been that the player may legally shield the ball as long as it remains within playing distance. This situation is now interpreted differently. Being within "playing distance" should not be considered sufficient to allow the kicker to shield the ball--the ball in fact must also be playable by that player. In other words, the concept of "playing distance" must include being able to play the ball legally.

If the player can legally play the ball and the ball is within playing distance, the player may shield as a tactic to prevent an opponent from getting to the ball (provided, of course, that the shielding does not involve holding). If the player cannot legally play the ball or if the ball is not within playing distance, such shielding becomes "impeding the progress of an opponent" and should be penalized by an indirect free kick.

Regards,