Corners & Attacking Free Kicks

[ladbroke8745]

I genuinely didn't know what forum to put this in, but as its been on recent TV games I've watched, and highlights too, I thought I'd put it here.

I think its because there is much more games on TV that I've noticed this but why, at corners and attacking free kicks, do defenders get away with not even looking at the ball and then, with arms out wide or around their opponent, bring the attackers down and get away with it?

I've noticed this in recent Swansea matches, where Jake Bidwell literally has his back to where the ball is coming from, only has his eyes for his opponent, and as soon as the opponents move he is blocking them off by any means possible.
Bidwell v Norwich.
In this clip, he is vaguely looking at the kicker, but as soon as the kicker is moving to take the kick, his eyes are fixed on the attacker and his arms around him.
Edge of the area, Bidwell is wearing 24 (white shirt).

Unfortunately no other highlights from corners to show this tactic from this game.

In this clip, Swansea have 5 players (including Bidwell) all holding on to the attackers, none looking at the ball as its about to be crossed, all focused on the run of the players, and with that, a Rotherham player ends up on the deck.

This clip, his own attacking free kick, he leads with the elbow to block to the keeper from getting the ball and elbows him out of the way. The ball then flies over him and into the goal. Goal given.

My question is, and I know you can argue you can't see everything but, why are these being allowed?
Attackers get in way of the defenders and they go down (something else I saw Bidwell doing in the match v Brentford) and get the free kick.
But if defenders do this to attackers, nothing is ever penalised.
For me, that goal v Brentford should have been ruled out. The officials should have been looking at the situation in the area as that is where the ball is likely to be landing and would have been easily been spotted.
The situation in the Rotherham game, how is having almost half your team not even looking at the ball and completely blocking off an attack (even getting a player on the ground). This led to an attack actually by Swansea.
The Norwich game, considering where the ball ended up from the cross, this denied Norwich that extra man to attack the ball.

I could pick on other games, but these ones stood out more (and the Rotherham game I was interested in if it happened by Bidwell in other games considering what I saw in the live games v Norwich and Brentford recently, if that is his usual way of defending). I tend to watch more Championship games than PL which is why I am unfortunately picking on Swansea right now.

 

[Kes]

There's no real answer to your question and observations.

Football has evolved into a contest between two teams based on cheating and dishonesty. As referees (especially at that level), we do well to even finish a "game" with all players still on the field.

 

[PinnerPaul]

There's no real answer to your question and observations.

Football has evolved into a contest between two teams based on cheating and dishonesty. As referees (especially at that level), we do well to even finish a "game" with all players still on the field.

Covered by that horrible phrase "What football expects"

Have to answer questions like that on 'my' fans' forum!

Few recent examples

Time wasting, esp GK and the 6 seconds
Standing Over Free Kicks
Kicking the ball away
and this one picked up by microphone, Troy Deeney after scoring penalty v QPR, calling that QPR GK a c**t

Just for clarity, and to save you time, I'm well aware why the above are NOT called at the top levels!

 

[one]

I have said this in the past. On uncommon scenarios football doesn't know what to expect because they have not seen an outcome of it before. A decision can be sold either way. On more common scenarios, football expects what we referees make them expect. For example, if a goalkeeper holds a ball for 10 seconds, football expects for this to be ignored. 10 - 15 (or 20) seconds and football expect them to be warned and release the ball. Any longer they expect punishment. Now when the 6 second rule was first introduce, they did not know what to expect. There was no precedence. If every referee punished holding the ball for 7+ seconds right from the start it could have been sold due to it being a new law. And the expectation now would be completely different.

 

[cdsman]

I have said this in the past. On uncommon scenarios football doesn't know what to expect because they have not seen an outcome of it before. A decision can be sold either way. On more common scenarios, football expects what we referees make them expect. For example, if a goalkeeper holds a ball for 10 seconds, football expects for this to be ignored. 10 - 15 (or 20) seconds and football expect them to be warned and release the ball. Any longer they expect punishment. Now when the 6 second rule was first introduce, they did not know what to expect. There was no precedence. If every referee punished holding the ball for 7+ seconds right from the start it could have been sold due to it being a new law. And the expectation now would be completely different.

Fabianski held the ball for 21 seconds in last night's match! It felt like a really long time, so I rewound the TV and looked at the clock! Once Man United had scored.... he was much quicker to release the ball!

 

[socal lurker]

While I was never a fan of 6 precise seconds, it really has gotten ridiculous. Almost enough for me to start favoring a visible count.

 

[Big Cat]

Fabianski held the ball for 21 seconds in last night's match! It felt like a really long time, so I rewound the TV and looked at the clock! Once Man United had scored.... he was much quicker to release the ball!

Referees watch football matches in such comical way. Who in their right mind would rewind to time the GK release?
Couple of weeks ago, I watched the first half again on x4 speed to add up the amount of time players were down injured. 9 minutes but only 5 minutes added time!! My wife has since left me

 

[PinnerPaul]

Referees watch football matches in such comical way. Who in their right mind would rewind to time the GK release?
Couple of weeks ago, I watched the first half again on x4 speed to add up the amount of time players were down injured. 9 minutes but only 5 minutes added time!! My wife has since left me

Last night I got VERY upset that PT only added 3 minutes to the first half. The first injury took that long, he seems to have forgotten about that as the two head injuries also took 3 minutes!

 

[GraemeS]

While I was never a fan of 6 precise seconds, it really has gotten ridiculous. Almost enough for me to start favoring a visible count.

I think the answer is to increase it to 10/12 seconds, but make it clear that should be enforced strictly. You would also have to clamp down on attackers getting in the way as well.

 

[APurpleChair]

Referees watch football matches in such comical way. Who in their right mind would rewind to time the GK release?
Couple of weeks ago, I watched the first half again on x4 speed to add up the amount of time players were down injured. 9 minutes but only 5 minutes added time!! My wife has since left me

I can empathise with this. I have rewound a whole half before to add up the amount of stoppage time that should have been added. It’s just insane how wrong the timekeeping can be.

At the higher levels, I would favour the approach of stopping the clock when the ball is out of play, and only playing 55-60 minutes per game. This would eliminate any element of time wasting completely and should have zero impact on the game itself.