Non-tackle sliding

[The Ginger Ref]

This situation requires a bit of explaining, so bear with me!

An attacker is in possession of the ball, and a defender makes a sliding challenge. However, the defender does not attempt to win the ball—importantly, the slide isn't careless, reckless, or excessive. But the slide forces the attacker to change direction (but they don't need to take evasive action). The defender’s clear intention is to delay or slow the attacker by using the slide as a block, making the attacker change their path to avoid losing the ball or running into the challenge.

To me, this kind of challenge seems to go against the "spirit of the game." It feels borderline obstruction, but it no different to a defender sliding to block a shot. You'd be hard pressed to award a foul for it!

PIADM - doesn't feel particularly dangerous for attacker or defender.

IDFK - Impedes the progress without contact being made - feels like the most obvious criteria but the ball is in playing distance, but the defender isn't playing the ball.

Describing this was really challenging so apologies if it doesn't make sense

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made = indirect free kick.

 

[es1]

Don't see any issue with how I think you've described it!

 

[The Ginger Ref]

Impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made = indirect free kick.

I don't disagree but...

The ball is within playing distance (explicit in the LOTG)

The defender chooses not to challenge for the ball (Not explicit in the LOTG)

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

 

[OldNavyRef]

Probably falls into the category of smart defending.

As long as they aren't being dangerous or blatantly trying to obstruct.

You just play on.

Did the obstructed player/team appeal?

 

[one]

Think of the same scenario but rather than slide, imagine the defender is on his feet and runs in between the ball and the attacker. If ball is within playing distance, there is nothing wrong with it even if contact is made. Players are allowed to challenge for space which means their opponents have to find a different path.

Key here is you would have to determine it is not careless first. If not, part of football.

 

[The Ginger Ref]

Probably falls into the category of smart defending.

As long as they aren't being dangerous or blatantly trying to obstruct.

You just play on.

Did the obstructed player/team appeal?

They did indeed, and my response was:

"What do you want me to do? They haven't made contact with you, the challenge wasn't unfair and you have kept possession of the ball"

They accepted the answer, but it didn't sit right with me because I do believe the attacker was disadvantaged by the slide, but not in law.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

No different to a defender running in front of an attacker in possession. Play on.

 

[JamesL]

agree with this

As @The Ginger Ref has rightly pointed out IPoP with or without contact is off the the table because the ball is within playing distance of at least 1 of the players.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

As @The Ginger Ref has rightly pointed out IPoP with or without contact is off the the table because the ball is within playing distance of at least 1 of the players.

Prefer "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"?

 

[socal lurker]

Prefer "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"?

Sure, but players absolute have the right to move in the way of an opponent, as long as it is within playing distance of the ball.

Shielding the ball doesn’t become illegal because a player goes down—unless it becomes PIADM.

 

[one]

Sure, but players absolute have the right to move in the way of an opponent, as long as it is within playing distance of the ball.

Shielding the ball doesn’t become illegal because a player goes down—unless it becomes PIADM.

Or CRUEF

 

[socal lurker]

Or CRUEF

What foul would be CREF if it is non-contact getting in the way? The hypothetical is that it was not a tackle or challenge for the ball.

 

[one]

Attempting to kick or attempting to trip can fit the action.
The point is, if you give a free kick, you can justify it using the lotg.

 

[socal lurker]

Attempting to kick or attempting to trip can fit the action.
The point is, if you give a free kick, you can justify it using the lotg.

Seems quite a stretch, as nothing in the scenarios we’ve been talking about suggests the player was attempting to do anything other than get in the way.