Question Number: 17904

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/13/2007

RE: Adult

tom blashill of bournemouth, united kingdom asks...

why is not even an indirect free kick given when a player is blatantly obstructed trying to stop the ball crossing the goal line? If the same action took place in the penalty area most refs would award a penalty.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Don't know what you're referring to but if the ball is within playing distance this is NOT impeding the progress of an opponent. It's merely shielding the ball and perfectly legal anywhere on the field of play

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

A player is allowed to use their body as a barrier to prevent the opponent to play it, so long as they commit no fouls while doing so, AND they are within playing distance of the ball.

The player shielding the ball should expect a certain amount of allowed physical contact that might otherwise be prohibited, but the allowed contact is not that much greater.

I have no idea where you got the idea that shielding the ball is a penalty - we often see players do this so their keepers can collect the ball cleanly without opponent pressue. So long as the defender adheres to the standards I listed above, this too is allowed.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Even if the actions of the player constituted impeding the progress of an opponent, the result would be an indirect free kick, not a penalty kick. My colleagues have described the difference between legal shielding and illegal impeding.

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

Not sure what clip this is referring too. If a player impedes the progress of an opponent, then it should be an IFK for the not guilty team. Players can shield the ball if the ball is within playing distance. It is never a penalty kick as it is an indirect free kick offense.