The Ref Stop

The 'Draught Excluder'

Should the freekick wall 'draught excluder' be outlawed in the LOTG

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 43.3%

  • No

    Votes: 17 56.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    30
Kent Ref said:
PIADM.
Click to expand...
That is only after ball is in play. You can't stop (not allow) them from doing it. You can only advise them against it and penalise it after they have done it. (Much like for a a FK an attacker standing behind the wall in front of keeper in an obvious offside position)
Would you still penalise if no ball or player goes near said player?
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
That is only after ball is in play. You can't stop (not allow) them from doing it. You can only advise them against it and penalise it after they have done it. (Much like for a a FK an attacker standing behind the wall in front of keeper in an obvious offside position)
Would you still penalise if no ball or player goes near said player?
Click to expand...
"Whilst trying to play the ball..."
 
one said:
Are you supporting my argument or opposing it?

I looks like the latter but feels like the former 🤣
Click to expand...
Might have quoted wrong post.

My point was PIADM has to involve whilst attempting to play the ball so lying on the goal line, not attempting to play the ball is not an offence
 
I'm surprised attacking teams don't just drill the ball along the ground in the hope it hits the excluders arms. I mean, they'd clearly be in an unnatural position
 
BCMilan said:
I'm surprised attacking teams don't just drill the ball along the ground in the hope it hits the excluders arms. I mean, they'd clearly be in an unnatural position
Click to expand...
See earlier posts from me. Unnatural position is not a problem. Making the body unnaturally bigger is. It's quite a distinction as well. But if you're lay on the floor with arms pinned to body hard pressed to say the arms are making body unnaturally bigger
 
Fair point. The ball would probably get stuck under them, and it could lead to attacking players trying to kick it through them. I still think it's a serious accident waiting to happen
 
BCMilan said:
Fair point. The ball would probably get stuck under them, and it could lead to attacking players trying to kick it through them. I still think it's a serious accident waiting to happen
Click to expand...
On the flip side to that, goalkeepers diving at attackers feet is an accident not only waiting to happen, but has caused injuries. But are you really going to stop them from doing this?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one
BCMilan said:
Fair point. The ball would probably get stuck under them, and it could lead to attacking players trying to kick it through them. I still think it's a serious accident waiting to happen
Click to expand...
Buuuuuut you don't get low free kicks...so its not going to happen.

Pretty strange thread this
 
BCMilan said:
Fair point. The ball would probably get stuck under them, and it could lead to attacking players trying to kick it through them. I still think it's a serious accident waiting to happen
Click to expand...
At which point it can become playing in a dangerous manner. Until then, it's nothing.
 
Kent Ref said:
PIADM.
Click to expand...

Playing in a dangerous manner​

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

Is a man laying down behind a wall trying to play the ball?
 
Quarryref said:
Agree. Feels like the thread is trying to address a problem that doesn't exist - the very definition of refereeing busyness we should avoid !

There is a long enough list of real problems to pick from ....
Click to expand...
48% of people would disagree with you 😉

I think it’s a stretch to say it’s a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s a relatively new tactic that has come in but it will certainly become a problem when a player gets seriously injured when a stud from a size 13 goes through their face.

I would put it in a similar category to law 15.1 “all opponents must stand 2m away from the touch line” - it probably wasn’t a problem that existed until the long throw became a heavily used tactic so defending teams tried to come up with a way to combat it
 
Ignore the above post as I didn't look at page 2 to see this has already been mentioned 😆


Interesting one though, maybe one for @JamesL to contact his mate at IFAB about...

Does a player lying behind the wall become part of that wall?
As we know, an attacker can quite happily stand amongst a 'wall' of 2 players because the law refers to a wall of 3 or more players. If you have a wall of 2 players standing and one laying behind them (unlikely maybe, but still), would this then constitute a wall of 3 or more? or not?
 
RefereeX said:
Does a player lying behind the wall become part of that wall?
As we know, an attacker can quite happily stand amongst a 'wall' of 2 players because the law refers to a wall of 3 or more players. If you have a wall of 2 players standing and one laying behind them (unlikely maybe, but still), would this then constitute a wall of 3 or more? or not?
Click to expand...
I didn't think attackers could stand amongst a wall, now ?
 
BCMilan said:
I didn't think attackers could stand amongst a wall, now ?
Click to expand...
A wall consists of 3 players..they can stand next to a "wall" of 2 players.

That's his point does the "draught excluder" make a 2 man wall a 3 man wall and this exclude an attacker from standing within a metre.
 
JamesL said:
A wall consists of 3 players..they can stand next to a "wall" of 2 players.

That's his point does the "draught excluder" make a 2 man wall a 3 man wall and this exclude an attacker from standing within a metre.
Click to expand...
Oh, with you. Never realised a "wall" consists of 3 players. As they say, you learn something new each day ! 👍
 
The Ginger Ref said:
I think it’s a stretch to say it’s a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s a relatively new tactic that has come in but it will certainly become a problem when a player gets seriously injured when a stud from a size 13 goes through their face.
Click to expand...
No it won't.

Self inflicted by a team on their own player and less likely to result in injury than any number of other normal football actions, including many legal tackles
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The Ginger Ref said:
I think it’s a stretch to say it’s a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s a relatively new tactic that has come in but it will certainly become a problem when a player gets seriously injured when a stud from a size 13 goes through their face.
Click to expand...
It's been happening for a long time now, so thousands of games, and I don't recall seeing or hearing about any cases of a player being injured by it. Players in the wall jump straight up, so are extremely unlikely to land on someone that is behind them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top