RefSix

Attempt to block, offence?

#1
This incident happened while a group of refs and assessors were watching a game. We saw it live and watched later on video that I can’t share.

Blue striker, inside right, approaching edge of box towards the intersection of the D, moving quite fast shapes to shoot with right foot, red defender comes from the left side on, lunges low with left outstretched off the floor, just in front of blue, to try to block the shot, but fails to block.

Blue screws the shot wide right, blue tries to jump a little to avoid collision, but blue’s front foot motion collides with the red leading leg, red’s trailing leg not extended then comes in from behind/side and impacts blue trailing leg, blue goes down a little painfully.

Outside the box, so quick that ball is definitely in play when both the lunging leg and trailing leg content is made.

The question: is attempting to block a shot a special case in the LotG, your mind, guidance you’ve been given or what you’ve seen - how do we deal with different ”late blocks” that impact or wipe out players - what’s your tolerance?
 
Last edited:
#3
No different to any other tackle where a foul is committed.
Agreed. Under the Laws of the Game, there is no reference at all to "attempting to block" so there is no special case on that basis. I also have not seen any guidance that applies to it so I'd say the normal criteria for a foul (was it careless, reckless or using excessive force) should be used.

So in this case, and assessing for CRUEF, I think that for instance, while an attempt to block a shot that leads to contact only with the front foot of the blocker (and partially due to the forward motion of the kicker's foot) would probably not be a foul for me, the way you describe the trailing leg of the blocker coming in to impact the kicker's trailing leg could easily be a careless or reckless challenge, with excessive force even being a possibility depending on the speed/force involved.
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#4
No different to any other tackle where a foul is committed.
Disagree. How many times have you seen on tv an attacker take a shot before being wiped out. It is never punished and the attacker rarely complains. It is not based in law, just how it goes.
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
#5
Disagree. How many times have you seen on tv an attacker take a shot before being wiped out. It is never punished and the attacker rarely complains. It is not based in law, just how it goes.
What you see on TV as we all know, does not always abide by the laws......I agree that it is not always a foul especially if the attacker is not impacted but falls over the defender.......and then again how many times have we seen just that; lead to a penalty on the TV screen.....
 
#6
Disagree. How many times have you seen on tv an attacker take a shot before being wiped out. It is never punished and the attacker rarely complains. It is not based in law, just how it goes.
That might be an answer to the part of the question, "is attempting to block a shot a special case [based on] what you’ve seen," but it's not an answer to what I think are the more important parts of the question "is attempting to block a shot a special case in the LotG, your mind [or] guidance you’ve been given."
 

one

RefChat Addict
#7
It's a YHTBT. From the description I'd go for careless trip/tackle.

There ats some block slides far enough from the opponent that the opponent can avoid contact. But he deleberately makes contact to milk a foul. That for me generally is not a foul.

Re "block" being in laws, well nothing in laws. But if contact is made, and you know it's a foul* you just fit it under one of the existing categories. For a long time 'bite' or 'challenge' were not in laws but when they happened we used one of the other categories.

* A good referee knows a foul when he sees one without having to fit it under one of CRUEF categories.
 
#8
Very good comments.

With this incident, the ref gave nothing but did pause the game as the striker stayed down.

No one else noted this incident as something to review. I was convinced at the time it was reckless and was still convinced after repeated views after the game.

However, my peers were blank faces. Then our assessors/mentors, a very very experienced group, after a little debate, all called it no offence based on it being an attempt to block and some of the contact being due to the striker’s forward motion, even though we discussed that has no basis in the LotG!

I was and still am uncomfortable with this. It was an obvious foul, anywhere else on the field it’s an easy yellow. In the box these are tough to give if the shot has gone off clean, but they are also easier to give if there is a scissors and it’s late, as here.

Tough one for me as I was arguing against the four guys who decide our promotions! I file it under ”smart refereeing” but... argh;)

It would be great if anyone comes across some similar clips to discuss
 
Likes: JH

RobOda

RefChat Addict
#9
So like, blue ends up kicking red's leading leg during the shot process, and then is taken out by the trailing leg shortly afterwards? Was it a scissor action or did he slide past and then shift into him?

Just trying to picture it, a video would be great for this one I think. :)
 
#10
So like, blue ends up kicking red's leading leg during the shot process, and then is taken out by the trailing leg shortly afterwards? Was it a scissor action or did he slide past and then shift into him?

Just trying to picture it, a video would be great for this one I think. :)
Yes and quite the scissors
 
#11
Yes and quite the scissors
From the clarifications you've made since, my earlier assessment that the way you had described it, made it sound like a careless or reckless tackle to me, have only been reinforced.

I know exactly what you mean about referees ignoring what would otherwise almost certainly be seen as fouls, simply because the player being fouled still managed to get a shot away. I see it quite often and it does puzzle me a little. When a forward does something similar in trying to block a defender's clearance it's routinely given as a foul (and in the vast majority of cases, the forward is cautioned as well). Yet when a defender commits an almost identical challenge on a forward attempting a shot, it's often completely ignored.
 
#12
From the clarifications you've made since, my earlier assessment that the way you had described it, made it sound like a careless or reckless tackle to me, have only been reinforced.

I know exactly what you mean about referees ignoring what would otherwise almost certainly be seen as fouls, simply because the player being fouled still managed to get a shot away. I see it quite often and it does puzzle me a little. When a forward does something similar in trying to block a defender's clearance it's routinely given as a foul (and in the vast majority of cases, the forward is cautioned as well). Yet when a defender commits an almost identical challenge on a forward attempting a shot, it's often completely ignored.
Exactly this. And I tried not to start by describing it as reckless because that was my interpretation.

Surely this is something that would be worth addressing in the LotG. Football wants more goals. If it was harder for defenders to get away with attempted blocks then they would e.g. have to stand up and give forwards more time/space to shoot. This is kinda what has happened with the handball law, defenders have to watch their hands far more than 5 years ago.
 
#13
Silver lining... even though the debate around this incident ended with me alone hoisted petard etc. in the face of the divine wisdom of not one but four of my referee gurus... someone must have like the cut of my whinging jib because I have been given a plumb game in two weeks. It's off season so there are not many 11-a-sides around but I have been given a middle in the national u18 girls top div between two of the best teams in the country. Rejoice. Fingers crossed - it's not so quick but of course technical expectations are very high.
 
Top