Monday 16 August 2010

Obstruction of Justice

Doesn’t it drive you crazy? The ball is running out of play. The man positions himself between the ball and his opponent, blocking the path to the ball and making no attempt to play it himself. The ball goes out and the sequence of play is ended. The clock runs down. A hazardous or difficult situation is neutralized, possession is gained or retained, and the game goes on – but in a less interesting way.

Now take a look at this extract from the laws of the game:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

- plays in a dangerous manner

 
- impedes the progress of an opponent

 
- prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

 
- commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player


Clear enough isn’t it? “impedes the progress of an opponent”. What else is a player doing if he blocks the path to the ball without attempting to play it? FIFA may have instructed referees that, providing the player in possession has control of the ball and it is within playing distance, he is not guilty of obstruction and is therefore not in breach of the laws of the game, but this argument falls apart on closer inspection. Think about it. ‘Control of the ball’ – can a player be said to have control of the ball if he has not touched it, and if he has to impede the progress of an opponent in order to achieve his desired outcome?

The current interpretation of the rule is all the more peculiar when considered in the context of FIFA’s track record in protecting the game’s integrity as a spectacle. Changes in the laws on offside, passes back to the goalkeeper and the tackle from behind have all worked to eradicate areas of negativity and improve the flow of play. The ‘professional foul’ and shirt-pulling have also come under the microscope, with steps taken to remove them. In fact, there has been a gradual and successful thirty-year campaign to prevent the game descending into violence and cynicism. All along the way the tendency has been to improve the flow of play, cut out time-wasting, and protect teams and players working to achieve positive, attacking outcomes.

Against this background, failure to uphold the law on obstruction has started to look like a glaring anomaly.

2 comments:

  1. Referees can only have been instructed by FIFA to allow this entirely-perverse practice, to do the opposite of what FIFA claims to encourage - positive, attacking, exciting play - and not to use their common sense and interpret the laws as they see fit. Bending the rules to keep a player on the pitch in the World Cup Final when he's assaulted an opponent by kicking him in the chest in the first half of the game has a certain logic attached to it (apparently he would have been sent off if he had committed the same foul in the forty sixth minute or later), but allowing the killing of a game by preventing an opponent from playing the ball is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Possibly owing to blanket media coverage of the game, referees appear to be interpreting the rules less and adhering to increasingly-stricter guidelines. There is a difference between a defender 'shepherding' the ball out of play and positioning himself between ball and opponent for a second to achieve this and a player putting himself between ball and opponent for several seconds, or taking the ball to the corner flag and shielding the ball for the same, in order to prevent his opponent from being able to touch the ball. Let referees interpret the laws of the game (as the rule book apparently encourages them to do ) and apply common sense; introducing technology to assist referees / linesmen in their decision-making and retaining a human element in the application of the rules are not incompatible.

    ReplyDelete