Agree on this. As I recall when I checked some time back, the only place the word "foul" is used is in the title of law 12 and in SFP. So we only know what a "foul" is from history or from the process of elimination: Law 12 is F & M, so that which is not misconduct must be a foul. IMO "foul" is much too convenient of a concept to be dropped for this obsession with just calling everything "offenses."
No, but as this is a refereeing forum rather than English comprehension, I shall be like the panda that eats, shoots and leaves.
It's not "progress", it's "movement" and of course there is movement before the ball is in play - the players are constantly moving around, jockeying for position, before the ball is in play. Also, even if a player is not moving, that could be precisely because that movement is being impeded by them being held.
Yeah, I took "progress" from impeding. I used to know what "obstruction" meant, but changing to "impeding", then distinguishing between with or without contact, and wondering whether any one of 20 players running round a penalty area before a corner is holding or impeding (and therefore stopping "movement" or "progress") does I think rather prove my point. For instance, it's obvious that one tactical aim at a corner (using the bit about players being entitled to their space) is to impede the progress / movement of the GK.
Belatedly, for the record, in the French version, the word for foul in the title of law 12 is the same as for "offences" in the text. Fautes.
