Why can players shield the ball when it's going out for goal kick?

dinneenp

Hi,
Scenario- ball is kicked forward for attacking player to get to. Attacking player and defender are running for the ball, the defender shields the ball, uses his body to block the attacker getting the ball. It goes out and it's a goal kick.

IF this happened elsewhere on the pitch AND the ball wasn't running out of play the ref would give a free kick for blocking/obstructing.

In both scenarios the defending player hasn't touched the ball so he's not in control of it, so (I think) he shouldn't be allowed to shield it....

ALSO, in theory if player A takes a shot and it's going towards the goal attacking player B could shield the ball from the goalie....
Anyone else an opinion?
Pa.

GLaDOS

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
Scenario- ball is kicked forward for attacking player to get to. Attacking player and defender are running for the ball, the defender shields the ball, uses his body to block the attacker getting the ball. It goes out and it's a goal kick.

IF this happened elsewhere on the pitch AND the ball wasn't running out of play the ref would give a free kick for blocking/obstructing.

In both scenarios the defending player hasn't touched the ball so he's not in control of it, so (I think) he shouldn't be allowed to shield it....

Anyone else an opinion?
Pa.

As far as I know the distinction is because in the second scenario you're blocking it so that your team-mate gets possession, which is deemed a foul. It is rather silly though because you still get possession indirectly in the first scenario anyway

That_Guy

There's a big difference between blocking the ball and obstructing.

Obstruction means you're blocking the player and not the ball.
Shielding the ball is blocking the ball and not the player.

A Dub in Glasgo

I agree with the OP, any where else on the pitch and a foul would be called. It is infuriating.

Ush1

That_Guy wrote: »

There's a big difference between blocking the ball and obstructing.

Obstruction means you're blocking the player and not the ball.
Shielding the ball is blocking the ball and not the player.

Yes, but the latter assumes you are in fact, in control of the ball.

ArmaniJeanss

dinneenp wrote: »

IF this happened elsewhere on the pitch AND the ball wasn't running out of play the ref would give a free kick for blocking/obstructing.

This is something commentators/studio-experts like to say, and in typical commentator/studio-expert style its complete and utter garbage.

Mainly because there is next to no reason for a player to be shielding the ball in this way except when its running out of play. So its never happened and to opine what a referee would do if it happened is pointless.

Having said that I agree with you that its a very frustating element of the game.

GLaDOS

That_Guy wrote: »

Shielding the ball is blocking the ball and not the player.

Blocking the ball, from the player, which is the same as blocking the player as he's trying to get the ball

lordgoat

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, but the latter assumes you are in fact, in control of the ball.

Well you are in control of the ball, you're choosing to let it go out of play but you can still play it if you have to. I think attackers hate this rule and defenders like it. Part and parcel of the game get on with it. Much more annoying things than this imo.

corcaigh07

its an unwritten rule that you can do this, should be a foul

Ush1

lordgoat wrote: »

Well you are in control of the ball, you're choosing to let it go out of play but you can still play it if you have to. I think attackers hate this rule why defenders like it. Part and parcel of the game get on with it. Much more annoying things than this imo.

You're in control of the ball without touching it? It depends on the situation, but usually it's the defender sticking his arse out onto the attacker and the ball isn't really under his control.

lordgoat

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Blocking the ball, from the player, which is the same as blocking the player as he's trying to get the ball

Well one's allowed in the rules and one's not so there's a little difference...

leninbenjamin

Ask FIFA. Here's the rules of the game.

FIFA wrote:

Impeding the progress of an opponent
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

I personally don't agree with shielding the ball being allowed. If the defender isn't going to play the ball then it should be a foul imo. But i don't make the rules.

edit: it's also a bit of a nonsensical rule. Shielding the ball is permitted, but doesn't that translate as holding off a player with one's body?

theteal

dinneenp wrote: »

Scenario- ball is kicked forward for attacking player to get to. Attacking player and defender are running for the ball, the defender shields the ball, uses his body to block the attacker getting the ball. It goes out and it's a goal kick.

so the attacker wasn't in control of the ball? both players running together, the defender was quicker, got in front of the attacker and let the ball run out of play? it's assumed that since the defender got in front that he is in control, i don't see the issue, it's shielding the ball, it happens all over the pitch (e.g. corner flag at the last minute). the defender doesn't have to get out of the way

obstruction on the other hand would be if the attacker had the ball, knocks it by the defender and then gets cut off by said defender

Iago

There's no reason in the world for it to be a foul. If you have the ball within playing distance and you can can shield it out, or hold it up in the corner or whatever then you should. There's really no difference between that and rolling the ball under your foot while holding off your opposition behind you.

Each player has the right to take a stance/position anywhere on the pitch, if you get there first, you're under no obligation to get out of the way.

Ush1

Iago wrote: »

There's no reason in the world for it to be a foul. If you have the ball within playing distance and you can can shield it out, or hold it up in the corner or whatever then you should. There's really no difference between that and rolling the ball under your foot while holding off your opposition behind you.

Each player has the right to take a stance/position anywhere on the pitch, if you get there first, you're under no obligation to get out of the way.

The defender often doesn't.

theteal

Ush1 wrote: »

The defender often doesn't.

ah yes, as for the instances where the defender starts blocking and almost forgets about the ball as it slowly gets further away, closer to the line, completely out of reach and he is purely focussed on offering his ass to the attacker. . .that's a foul (there tends to be a bit of arm usage in those instances too)

corcaigh07

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

theres your problem right there, most of the time, the defender is using his body and arms, Evra is a demon doing it for united(and fair play to him, thats not a criticism) its an unwritten rule that if its on the way out of play, the defender can foul the attacker crudely once the ball is on its way out. bugs the hell out of me...

A Dub in Glasgo

Iago wrote: »

There's no reason in the world for it to be a foul. If you have the ball within playing distance and you can can shield it out, or hold it up in the corner or whatever then you should. There's really no difference between that and rolling the ball under your foot while holding off your opposition behind you.

Each player has the right to take a stance/position anywhere on the pitch, if you get there first, you're under no obligation to get out of the way.

'within playing distance' what's that? 1 foot, 6 foot? Many times, the player shielding is not rationally within playing distance of the ball therefore it is a foul

Mrmoe

The rules should be changed or at least the advantage given to the attacking player. It would open the game up a bit more.

Guy:Incognito

That_Guy wrote: »

There's a big difference between blocking the ball and obstructing.

Obstruction means you're blocking the player and not the ball.
Shielding the ball is blocking the ball and not the player.

You shouldnt be able to shield a ball that's not in your possession. To gain possession you should have to touch the ball otherwise it should be deemed as no ones ball and no one can obstruct someone getting it.