A&H

Player rooted to the spot

RefJef

RefChat Addict
After a bit of advice over something that troubles me, happened again today on a couple of occasions, perhaps easiest to try and explain by example:

1.) player with ball at feet in congested space. Beats one player, but ball is running away from him as it ( the ball) passes another defender “rooted to the spot” - think sort of mesmerised by the pace of the game going on around him. Attacker would have expected the defender to make some sort of movement, but he hasn’t, and trips over him. I think attacker initiated contact, no foul.

2.) Player receives ball with back to goal, defender behind him. Flicks ball past defender, turns to chase ball, but “rolls over” the defender and falls to the ground. Again, I think the defender hasn’t actually moved, the pace of the game has defeated him. But my thinking is that he’s not obliged to get out the way of the attacker, so no foul.

Both incidents might have looked like fouls, but I couldn’t see any foul play, I couldn’t see how I could penalise someone for just being “rooted to the spot”.

The game was a mis-match - a Cup game, these two sides wouldn’t normally play each other (different ability levels), and the attacking side in both incidents above were just so much quicker in thought and deed than their opposition and used to playing against sides who also operate at a much higher tempo & skill level and would have anticipated their defenders moving out of the space they are running into. (They ran out comfortable 8-0 winners)

I’m just left in some doubt over those decisions above. Hard to explain, but any thoughts welcome.
 
The Referee Store
Happen to think based on your descriptions you've called them right.
Its not an offence to be in someones way it is an offence to move into the way of an opponent and "impede their progress".
 
Happen to think based on your descriptions you've called them right.
Its not an offence to be in someones way it is an offence to move into the way of an opponent and "impede their progress".
This is a situation that frustrates me both as a referee and football fan. I hate seeing players running into opponents and expecting a free kick.
 
Happen to think based on your descriptions you've called them right.
Its not an offence to be in someones way it is an offence to move into the way of an opponent and "impede their progress".
Fairly easy to apply this to the OP scenarios as no foul. However it becomes a bit blur when the defender turns to chase the ball and the attacker runs into the back or the side of the defender. Very much a you have to be there, some are fouls, some aren't. Many factors involved, timing, intention, the amount of movement and direction from both players, speed, distance between player at the time of change of direction, distance between players and ball etc etc.
 
Attackers expect defenders to shift out of the way, defenders are doing just that and defending the space and his free movement. It can be six of one and half a dozen of the others but its your choice on whats what, usually its 'play on'!!!
 
1) Player has the right to stand there. IT's when he moves into the players way (ie he picked his direction after the opponent) that it's a problem. Sounds like no foul
2)This is a tricky on. It largely comes down to how far the defender has his legs apart. Having his legs out wide and I think it's likely to be a foul. It's a bit YHTBT

These are both the sorts of fouls that a lot of referees automatically give, sadly.
 
This is expressly covered in the laws:
"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."

I also disagree with The Captain's second point above. There is nothing to say that a player can't spread their legs as wide as they like.

For me, if the defender has not moved, neither are fouls.
 
This is expressly covered in the laws:
"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."

I also disagree with The Captain's second point above. There is nothing to say that a player can't spread their legs as wide as they like.

For me, if the defender has not moved, neither are fouls.
Ooh, disagreement. ;-)

For me, if you're standing there with legs out directly behind an opponent, then you've created a situation where the opponent can't 'turn and go' without tripping over you. Which I think creates a bit of an issue.

To be fair, this is one of those situations where even if the defender is standing upright, the attacker will often trip over them as they 'turn and go'. And usually I see it penalised. I've probably been guilty of that one as well.

While players have the right to their spot, I think there's an implied expectation that they're not stretching their legs out to occupy a wider spot.

Similarly, you know that situation where an attacker has the ball, defender runs in front and picks a spot and stops a moment before the attacker taps the ball to the side and runs into the defender? Way, way, way too many refs automatically call that as a foul by the defender when really you need to look at if the defender stopped before or after the attacker chose their direction. Anyway, off that slight digression, the correct response in the situation I described is no foul, but it might be a bit different if that defender had stopped with legs stretched out to the side and that's what the attacker tripped over. Because that's no occupying his space - that's artificially making himself wider and creating a situation where an player can't get past without tripping over.
 
really you need to look at if the defender stopped before or after the attacker chose their direction.
I quite like this quote

that's artificially making himself wider and creating a situation where an player can't get past without tripping over.
I don't see anything wrong there as long as you apply the the quote above to it. Did the defender make himself wider before or after the attacker chose his direction. If before, then the onus is on the attacker to find a way past (around) without being tripped. The defender is occupying as much space as he can which is not against the lotg. He has no idea which way the attacker is going .

PS: I see some parallel to a deliberate handball here (in terms of making oneself bigger) but I think the application of law is completely different.
 
The difference between handball and using feet is that players are never allowed to use their hand deliberately to handle ball. But using feet for locking or occupy space is allowed in many circumstances with the most common one being shielding the ball by placing it between opponents and the ball. That's why I think the application of law can't be compared in the two cases.
 
I think you called it right on both. My bug bear is where 2 players collide after the ball has gone just out of momentum. Both teams scream for a foul when it is just unavoidable contact.
 
Ooh, disagreement. ;-)

For me, if you're standing there with legs out directly behind an opponent, then you've created a situation where the opponent can't 'turn and go' without tripping over you. Which I think creates a bit of an issue.

To be fair, this is one of those situations where even if the defender is standing upright, the attacker will often trip over them as they 'turn and go'. And usually I see it penalised. I've probably been guilty of that one as well.

While players have the right to their spot, I think there's an implied expectation that they're not stretching their legs out to occupy a wider spot.

Similarly, you know that situation where an attacker has the ball, defender runs in front and picks a spot and stops a moment before the attacker taps the ball to the side and runs into the defender? Way, way, way too many refs automatically call that as a foul by the defender when really you need to look at if the defender stopped before or after the attacker chose their direction. Anyway, off that slight digression, the correct response in the situation I described is no foul, but it might be a bit different if that defender had stopped with legs stretched out to the side and that's what the attacker tripped over. Because that's no occupying his space - that's artificially making himself wider and creating a situation where an player can't get past without tripping over.

I agree. Speaking as an ex defender you would never, ever, stand with your legs wide apart unless it was an attempt to block the opponent. If he did manage to get it past you you'd have no chance of catching him once you had sorted your legs out. Rather you would have feet close together, no more then shoulder length apart, with one ahead of the other depending on which way you want to force him. You'd also be "one your toes", ready to react to what he does.

If a player just ran into me in that position I wouldn't be happy if a foul was given, whereas if my attempt to force him that way has failed (which it often did ..!) I would have to move into his path and can't complain if that results in a foul.
 
Back
Top