Unpunished Annoying Foul Play

[splott parker]

It should be made public that every ref & linesman will be receiving instructions from the governing bodies that the letter of the law has to be adhered to, make it plain that the directive is coming from the top. No doubt some will still berate the officials but if it’s well publicised that it’s come from the ruling bodies only the dimwits will carry on abusing the officials. Unfortunately there are many dimwits in the game. If it’s applied across the board there should be no grey area. Many’s the time I’ve seen shirt tugging & grappling ignored but have my heart in my mouth when one of ours does it shortly after fearing that this time it’ll be penalised.

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

I noticed in Poland’s last game, that they eliminated pushing and shoving in the box at corners, by all their players standing on the goal area line and then running in when the corner was taken

I thought it was great

Goal area line..which line is that then?

[splott parker]

Goal area line..which line is that then?

18 yard line, edge of the box perhaps.

[Tuerto]

IÂ’m of the opinion that if a player has no intention of playing the ball while holding a player off heÂ’s committing an offence. Free kick for obstruction every time.

What about a striker holding the ball up and pinning a defender while waiting for support? That's an art in itself.

[BLUETIT]

Goal area line..which line is that then?

18 yard line, edge of the box perhaps.

I forgot how to spell meter Steve

[splott parker]

What about a striker holding the ball up and pinning a defender while waiting for support? That's an art in itself.

If he’s pushing an opponent with the ball nowhere in sight, it’s a foul. Harry Kane is guilty of this, that is ‘making a back’ against a defender, who if he wins the ball in the air is in danger of plunging over the top of Kane. Very dangerous foul play, could result in injury.

[fugsyphil]

What about a striker holding the ball up and pinning a defender while waiting for support? That's an art in itself.

If you have touched the ball last you can do some of that but if not it's obstruction (Kenny dalglish was a master at it)

[Tuerto]

If you have touched the ball last you can do some of that but if not it's obstruction (Kenny dalglish was a master at it)

Dalglish was brilliant at it. It's just shielding the ball, it's not like the player in question has put the ball up his jumper. There are those on here who seem to think that a player should give the opposition a fair and just opportunity to get the ball back, absolutely crazy in my opinion, and i would love to play against them if i was in a position to play anymore. Thanks very much..........

[splott parker]

Dalglish was brilliant at it. It's just shielding the ball, it's not like the player in question has put the ball up his jumper. There are those on here who seem to think that a player should give the opposition a fair and just opportunity to get the ball back, absolutely crazy in my opinion, and i would love to play against them if i was in a position to play anymore. Thanks very much..........

The sticking point seems to be, ‘Is a player in possession of the ball if he hasn’t touched it and has no intention of touching or playing it?’
I’d like to think that’s he’s not in possession and if he’s pushing, backing in and in any way preventing an opponent legitimately, as in not being the one pushing, pulling or shielding, getting to the ball, a free kick should be awarded. If he plays/touches the ball he’s in possession, much the same as a tackle, if the tackler gets the ball vigorously but fairly that ok, even if the player who’s tackled hits the deck in a heap. If he tackles vigorously and misses the ball completely. It’s a free kick.

[Tuerto]

The sticking point seems to be, ‘Is a player in possession of the ball if he hasn’t touched it and has no intention of touching or playing it?’
IÂ’d like to think thatÂ’s heÂ’s not in possession and if heÂ’s pushing, backing in and in any way preventing an opponent legitimately, as in not being the one pushing, pulling or shielding, getting to the ball, a free kick should be awarded. If he plays/touches the ball heÂ’s in possession, much the same as a tackle, if the tackler gets the ball vigorously but fairly that ok, even if the player whoÂ’s tackled hits the deck in a heap. If he tackles vigorously and misses the ball completely. ItÂ’s a free kick.

If the ball is at the players feet then he or she are in possession, it's not obstruction, and the player shielding the ball has absolutely no obligation to move or change their body shape, as long as the ball is at the players feet. If a player does the same thing without the ball then it's an obstruction. Players shield the ball constantly, they turn in on themselves if there's no options available, Ramsey used to do it a lot, in order to change the angle and put himself in a position where he's not face on with a defender, it's just protecting the ball, it's not foul play, wherever a player is on the field of play.

[HiVis]

We wouldn't have a game to watch if every little thing that happens on a football field was pulled up, although it may make you feel better at 6.45 pm when the final whistle blows.......

[HiVis]

So do you want pens given for shirt pulling and/or grappling, sly digs etc in the box or vice versa, attackers fouling defenders being penalised? Or let everything go, despite the laws, because it means the game doesn’t stop……when, we know it does hold the game up as it is, many’s the time the ref halts proceedings and delays corners, free kicks etc to lecture players about their shenanigans. Doesn’t penalise further or brandish a card and it just carries on unpunished. So what happens at the next corner? Rinse & repeat, it needs sorting out, this is what slows the game down.

why not do what they do in (ice) hockey. instant penalty with only the more serious offences getting yellow and red.

[splott parker]

If the ball is at the players feet then he or she are in possession, it's not obstruction, and the player shielding the ball has absolutely no obligation to move or change their body shape, as long as the ball is at the players feet. If a player does the same thing without the ball then it's an obstruction. Players shield the ball constantly, they turn in on themselves if there's no options available, Ramsey used to do it a lot, in order to change the angle and put himself in a position where he's not face on with a defender, it's just protecting the ball, it's not foul play, wherever a player is on the field of play.

Don’t get that, do you mean that he’s protecting the ball and not touching it all? Wouldn’t he have to touch it in order to move away with it or pass? Otherwise two players are ‘dancing’ and the ball is static. If the ball is being played past them and, we’ll say Ramsey, impedes an opponent preventing him getting to the ball it’s surely a foul.

[Tuerto]

Don’t get that, do you mean that he’s protecting the ball and not touching it all? Wouldn’t he have to touch it in order to move away with it or pass? Otherwise two players are ‘dancing’ and the ball is static. If the ball is being played past them and, we’ll say Ramsey, impedes an opponent preventing him getting to the ball it’s surely a foul.

If the ball is at a players feet, whether they touch it or not, it's fine, if it's not within distance of the feet then it's not ok to back into an opponent, that's an obstruction. The position of the ball is crucial.

[splott parker]

If the ball is at a players feet, whether they touch it or not, it's fine, if it's not within distance of the feet then it's not ok to back into an opponent, that's an obstruction. The position of the ball is crucial.

Just read up on it. A player is generally considered to be in possession of the ball when they have it under control, if the player has their foot near the ball but doesn’t make contact, they are not considered to have possession, they must make contact or have some control over it. Simply having your foot near the ball doesn’t mean you possess it.

Anyway it does seem very much a spectator/player issue. Players on the whole seem to accept the situation and don’t seem to make a song and dance about it, I s’pose they view it as tit for tat. Whereas spectators see it as a disruption of a, perhaps, flowing move or definite fouls that should be penalised.

[PontBlue]

It should definitely be a free kick when a defender is shepparding the ball out of play but opts to move away from the ball to obstruct an attacker from getting to it. Often there is no way the defender could reach the ball to touch it but it's never given as a foul

[Rjk]

The only way to stop it is to “spray paint” their shirts on

they should trial it in the women's game and see if it catches on

[Tuerto]

Just read up on it. A player is generally considered to be in possession of the ball when they have it under control, if the player has their foot near the ball but doesnÂ’t make contact, they are not considered to have possession, they must make contact or have some control over it. Simply having your foot near the ball doesnÂ’t mean you possess it.

Anyway it does seem very much a spectator/player issue. Players on the whole seem to accept the situation and donÂ’t seem to make a song and dance about it, I sÂ’pose they view it as tit for tat. Whereas spectators see it as a disruption of a, perhaps, flowing move or definite fouls that should be penalised.

A player is going to have go some way into not touching the ball if an opposition player is attempting to dispossess them. I'm fine with it, so are the authorities by the looks of it, and the players managers and coaches, and most of the fans.........

[splott parker]

A player is going to have go some way into not touching the ball if an opposition player is attempting to dispossess them. I'm fine with it, so are the authorities by the looks of it, and the players managers and coaches, and most of the fans.........

I wouldn’t say the fans, most are up in arms if one of their own are obstructed, having their shirt pulled, grappled to the ground etc and nothing is given. As I say players seem to accept it, coaches/managers have a melt down though, waving their arms like loonies

[Tuerto]

I wouldnÂ’t say the fans, most are up in arms if one of their own are obstructed, having their shirt pulled, grappled to the ground etc and nothing is given. As I say players seem to accept it, coaches/managers have a melt down though, waving their arms like loonies

Over the stuff you mention, not the shielding of the ball stuff, there's hardly any furore over that.

[splott parker]

Over the stuff you mention, not the shielding of the ball stuff, there's hardly any furore over that.

I shout like f*ck at defenders shielding it and shepherding it out for a goal kick……you don’t sit close enough to me

[Tuerto]

I shout like f*ck at defenders shielding it and shepherding it out for a goal kickÂ…Â…you donÂ’t sit close enough to me

I sit next to Dai Hunt in order to drown out the noise........

[splott parker]

I sit next to Dai Hunt in order to drown out the noise........

My ventriloquism reaches all parts!!!!!

[Tuerto]

My ventriloquism reaches all parts!!!!!

"Sausages"

[splott parker]

"Sausages"

Haven’t you heard Dai Hunt? ‘Gluegirds, Gluegirds’