The Ref Stop

The 'Draught Excluder'

Should the freekick wall 'draught excluder' be outlawed in the LOTG

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 43.3%

  • No

    Votes: 17 56.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    30
T

The Ginger Ref

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
I'm on a LOTG - Spirit of the Game mission tonight 🤣

In my opinion, some of the most satisfying free-kick goals in history are the ones that go under the wall. They require a combination of skill, precision, and a bit of risk from the taker.

However, the introduction of the "draught excluder" seems to take away the attacking advantage. The balance was better when defenders had to make the choice to either jump or stay grounded and with the law change that prevents attackers from being part of the defensive wall, the scales have been futher tipped in favor of the defending team.

A simple adjustment, like requiring all players to remain on their feet, could help restore the attacking team’s advantage without compromising fairness.
 
The Ref Stop
I think "taking away the attacking advantage" is no good reason or I'd go as far as a poor reason. So does a wall altogether. Or allowing more than 3 defenders in the wall. Or banning attackers to be in an offside position in the line of sight of defenders.

Defenders should be given a fair chance of defending the free kick.

Safety maybe a concern but where do we stop? Playing football altogether is a safety concern 😀. Look at all the injuries. Heading the ball is a safety concern.... For me, fair game.
 
one said:
I think "taking away the attacking advantage" is no good reason or I'd go as far as a poor reason. So does a wall altogether. Or allowing more than 3 defenders in the wall. Or banning attackers to be in an offside position in the line of sight of defenders.

Defenders should be given a fair chance of defending the free kick.

Safety maybe a concern but where do we stop? Playing football altogether is a safety concern 😀. Look at all the injuries. Heading the ball is a safety concern.... For me, fair game.
Click to expand...
Yeah but is it likely that anywhere else on the pitch you will have someone jump up and potentially land a full boot of studs in the side or back of someones head? And thats likewise for the rest of the body. If the players in the wall jump up and back, they can land on the player and potentially seriously injure them. And thats not even if they get the ball booted at the back of the head because of the free kick.
 
one said:
I think "taking away the attacking advantage" is no good reason or I'd go as far as a poor reason. So does a wall altogether. Or allowing more than 3 defenders in the wall. Or banning attackers to be in an offside position in the line of sight of defenders.
Click to expand...
We often use the phrase "attacking advantage" when discussing quickly taken free kicks and shouldn’t penalise a team that wants to go quickly. Ultimately, football is about scoring goals, and the laws of the game should eliminate anything that gives defenders an unfair advantage—just as they do for attackers.

For example:
  • An attacker in an offside position blocking the goalkeeper’s line of sight—no issue, they're offside and actively interfering.
  • Feinting before taking a penalty—again, no issue, whilst it's a good skill, it’s unfair to the goalkeeper.
  • No attacking players allowed in the defensive wall—while I’m not a fan of this rule, I agree attackers shouldn’t be allowed to manoeuvre the wall.
one said:
So does a wall altogether.
Click to expand...

A defensive wall is an established part of football that few would argue against. However, the development of the 'draught excluder' could be seen as unfairly disadvantaging the attacking team. Lying on the ground isn’t a normal football action, whereas a wall is akin to blocking a shot within the game.

The LOTG reference the 'spirit of the game,' and I don't believe this fits within that spirit. It feels more like a loophole or technicality that teams have exploited, leaving the lawmakers behind.

Then there's the forum's disliked phrase , 'what football expects.' From a fan's perspective, I find the 'draught excluder' unfair, as it can nullify a promising attacking opportunity.

As a referee, I think it’s both unfair and potentially dangerous, and it certainly doesn't align with the spirit of the game.
 
Fin said:
Yeah but is it likely that anywhere else on the pitch you will have someone jump up and potentially land a full boot of studs in the side or back of someones head? And thats likewise for the rest of the body. If the players in the wall jump up and back, they can land on the player and potentially seriously injure them. And thats not even if they get the ball booted at the back of the head because of the free kick.
Click to expand...
A lot of ifs there. 🤣
We have had the tactic for a long time, how many of this type of injury have you heard of?

To give you an anology, lotg explicitly allows scissors kick. Yes it has conditions but for the argument of safety it is irrelevant because there are far more injuries from scissors kicks than draught excluder but no one is complaining.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
eliminate anything that gives defenders an unfair advantage
Click to expand...
I think it all comes to this. You think draught excluder is an 'unfair advantage' and I understand you have your reasons. I think it's neither unfair nor should it be referred to as an advantage. And it looks like there is an split opinion on the forum as well. ☺️
 
Votes yes as I like seeing a cheeky free kick under the wall. No real refereeing reason for it.

If it hits the draft excluders arms on the floor are they automatically in an unnatural position?
 
bester said:
If it hits the draft excluders arms on the floor are they automatically in an unnatural position?
Click to expand...
Of course I know what you mean but for pedantry's sake it's not unnatural position that we look for but making the body unnaturally bigger.
In reality I could have my hands in any manner of unnatural positions but this would not matter if it did not make my body unnaturally bigger.

So to, not really, answer your question (not that I think you actually wanted one) I guess it would depend on where the hands were in relation to the body and then can we justify or is a consequence of the movement for that specific situation
 
The Ginger Ref said:
How long is it until a 'draught excluder' gets a boot or a ball to the head, that may be what it takes to have it outlawed
Click to expand...
Or, as I had a few weeks ago when on the line, one player actually landed on the ‘draught excluder’ with their studs making a fair amount of impact. Thankfully the player was ok after a few minutes of treatment but on another day that would probably have resulted in a horrible injury. I absolutely think it should be done away with. That being said, if a player will willingly accept that risk, then there’s not much anyone can do about it.
 
If a defender wanted to lay on the goal line at a corner would you allow it?

I wouldn't as it was a danger to himself and others.

Why should a free kick be any different?
 
To play devils advocate, think of the infamous John Terry salmon dive; if someone did this in your game, would you penalise them?

As much as I love an under the wall free kick (Coutinho was great at them) I’m not overly fussed what they’re doing, as long as they’re the required distance. The attacking team already have an advantage by having a free shot or pass
 
Kent Ref said:
If a defender wanted to lay on the goal line at a corner would you allow it?

I wouldn't as it was a danger to himself and others.

Why should a free kick be any different?
Click to expand...
If we’re all for allowing the advantage to the attacking team, surely this gives them a great advantage? They’d be playing everyone onside!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top