The Ref Stop

What is a wall?

J

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
I think we all understand what a wall looks like, but what actually is one?
I can find no definition in the LOTG about how close players have to be to be in a wall and so on.
In years gone by it wouldn’t have mattered but now with the rule about opponents being close and so on it does.
Do players have to be touching one another? Do they have to be shoulder to shoulder? If so is the man lying behind not part of a wall? Is 30cm apart still a wall?
 
The Ref Stop
Jtpetherick1 said:
I think we all understand what a wall looks like, but what actually is one?
I can find no definition in the LOTG about how close players have to be to be in a wall and so on.
In years gone by it wouldn’t have mattered but now with the rule about opponents being close and so on it does.
Do players have to be touching one another? Do they have to be shoulder to shoulder? If so is the man lying behind not part of a wall? Is 30cm apart still a wall?
Click to expand...
What if there are two walls? Which one is the wall that matters?
 
Surely the purpose of the law change was not that at any given freekick the defending side could put groups of greater than 2 around the place. That would be mayhem.

Of course, I can't really see why anyone would, other than to be a tit
 
Redster said:
Surely the purpose of the law change was not that at any given freekick the defending side could put groups of greater than 2 around the place. That would be mayhem.

Of course, I can't really see why anyone would, other than to be a tit
Click to expand...
But again, that’s my point. I’m not questioning the spirit of the law - more it’s applicability.
 
Redster said:
Surely the purpose of the law change was not that at any given freekick the defending side could put groups of greater than 2 around the place. That would be mayhem.
Click to expand...
Of course they can. I'm at a loss to see how such stupid defending created any kind of mayhem--it means 6 (or 9) defenders are tied to one place leaving lots of unguarded space.

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it looks like a wall, it's a wall. I really don't see this being a difficult judgment call for referees to make.

The whole purpose of the yard away standard for the attacking team is to prevent them pushing into the wall. Go by that as the spirit, and this should not be hard to apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
socal lurker said:
Of course they can. I'm at a loss to see how such stupid defending created any kind of mayhem--it means 6 (or 9) defenders are tied to one place leaving lots of unguarded space.

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it looks like a wall, it's a wall. I really don't see this being a difficult judgment call for referees to make.

The whole purpose of the yard away standard for the attacking team is to prevent them pushing into the wall. Go by that as the spirit, and this should not be hard to apply.
Click to expand...

I get your point in a glib sort of way, but that's not really an explanation to his question (or the OPs which I personally find quite interesting). :)

The notion of a "wall" in real terms, is of something "joined up" consisting of defenders close enough together to (presumably) make a direct shot at goal more difficult. It then stands to reason (for me anyway) that theoretically, any space between those defenders large enough for the ball to pass through (notwithstanding the space underneath if they jump) potentially rules out the notion that it's a wall in the accepted sense.

This may seem like semantics, but it's quite a pertinent point if say, as the LOTG, dictate you insist that an attacker is a yard away from it who might then turn to you and say "But that's not a wall ref - they're 1/2/3 feet apart". What would your argument (as the referee) be in response if there's no clear direction or distance requirements mentioned in the LOTG? :)
 
Last edited:
This goal was allowed, not sure whether VAR would have intervened. Suppose you could debate whether the deeper wall is 2 or 3 man but the spurs leg is within a metre of the first wall.

1611158181664.png
 
bester said:
This goal was allowed, not sure whether VAR would have intervened.
Click to expand...
Egad. The thought of VAR determining whether an attacker was within a meter of a wall to wipe out a goal is truly disturbing. (Though I cannot think of a reason it is not technically possible for that to happen.)

For those of us outside the VAR world, I think this is a simple SOTG issue and a tool for the R. It's not about 80 cm vs a meter, but is the defender close enough to what ITOOTR is a wall that it is likely to be a problem. If I, as R, think so, I'm going to make the attacker take as step away.

(I also think it was an unnecessary change and another example of overly-officious drafting by IFAB, as the real effort is to stop pushing in the wall--which is solved by a simple foul call.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
For the record, I’m not asking because I want to disallow goals or because it’s an issue I had.
It occurred to me last night in the WHU v WBA game. There was a wall of three (I think) and another defender was about a foot away. There was an opponent very close to this other defender and it got me wondering whether he is in the wall or not.
I’ll be honest and say I was surprised there was no definition in LOTG.
 
socal lurker said:
Egad. The thought of VAR determining whether an attacker was within a meter of a wall to wipe out a goal is truly disturbing. (Though I cannot think of a reason it is not technically possible for that to happen.)

For those of us outside the VAR world, I think this is a simple SOTG issue and a tool for the R. It's not about 80 cm vs a meter, but is the defender close enough to what ITOOTR is a wall that it is likely to be a problem. If I, as R, think so, I'm going to make the attacker take as step away.

(I also think it was an unnecessary change and another example of overly-officious drafting by IFAB, as the real effort is to stop pushing in the wall--which is solved by a simple foul call.)
Click to expand...

this is the part that’s daft to me. It’s like IFAB created a solution to a problem that didn’t exist. Walls have always been a SOTG issue, no need for a tape measure etc. But if we’re measuring the attackers’ distance from one it would be good to know what it looks like.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
But again, that’s my point. I’m not questioning the spirit of the law - more it’s applicability.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm with you

Kes said:
The notion of a "wall" in real terms, is of something "joined up" consisting of defenders close enough together to (presumably) make a direct shot at goal more difficult. It then stands to reason (for me anyway) that theoretically, any space between those defenders large enough for the ball to pass through (notwithstanding the space underneath if they jump) potentially rules out the notion that it's a wall in the accepted sense.
Click to expand...
And perhaps this is the way to handle it. As referee's we say, no, a wall is 1)a group of more than two according to the laws of the game, and 2) positioned in the manner described above, according to the usages and history of the game. It sure makes it hard to fall back to pointing to the book after the match, though!

Isn't IFAB the best?
 
The answer is written in Law 13 for all to see.
"Where three or more defending team players form a 'wall', all attacking players must remain at least 1m (1yd) from the wall until the ball is in play".

If there is a gap between players then they are not forming a wall. Hence the example where a wall of 3 then a separate defender it's allowable for an attacker to be near the single play - as long as they are not within 1m of the 'wall'.
 
ASM said:
The answer is written in Law 13 for all to see.
"Where three or more defending team players form a 'wall', all attacking players must remain at least 1m (1yd) from the wall until the ball is in play".

If there is a gap between players then they are not forming a wall. Hence the example where a wall of 3 then a separate defender it's allowable for an attacker to be near the single play - as long as they are not within 1m of the 'wall'.
Click to expand...
Now that you have defined a 'wall' can you define a 'gap' :)

I am with @socal lurker on this. Go with the spirit of this. We all know what a wall looks like. Stating it has to be three or more defenders is enough. The more we ask IFAB to spoon-feed us the little bits that don't need explanation the more confusing things get. As for the image above, it looks like a poorly managed CFK by the referee. I wouldn't want VAR to get involved .
 
ASM said:
The answer is written in Law 13 for all to see.
"Where three or more defending team players form a 'wall', all attacking players must remain at least 1m (1yd) from the wall until the ball is in play".

If there is a gap between players then they are not forming a wall.
Click to expand...
With respect, I don’t think you’ve answered my question. The quote from LOTG offers no definition of wall - in fact, it even puts the term in quotation marks in a ‘oh, it’s a slang term but we all understand it’ way.

And your point about gaps is a huge leap.

Does each member of the wall literally have to be touching one another?
 
one said:
Now that you have defined a 'wall' can you define a 'gap' :)

I am with @socal lurker on this. Go with the spirit of this. We all know what a wall looks like. Stating it has to be three or more defenders is enough. The more we ask IFAB to spoon-feed us the little bits that don't need explanation the more confusing things get. As for the image above, it looks like a poorly managed CFK by the referee. I wouldn't want VAR to get involved .
Click to expand...
A 'poorly managed free kick' by...................... Michael Oliver?!:eek:
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
With respect, I don’t think you’ve answered my question. The quote from LOTG offers no definition of wall - in fact, it even puts the term in quotation marks in a ‘oh, it’s a slang term but we all understand it’ way.

And your point about gaps is a huge leap.

Does each member of the wall literally have to be touching one another?
Click to expand...
The term ‘wall’ is in quotation marks as it is then used in other sections of law 13 such as in offences/sanctions but don’t let that worry you.

There is nothing about gaps being a huge leap, it’s simple and basic understanding. A group of 3 or more stood together is a wall. Defenders stood apart are not a wall.

Sometimes I do wonder if some expect a member of IFAB to accompany them onto the pitch to answer every possible permutation/query from within the laws as they go along. Hey, if we get enough of them maybe then could form a wall for us :wall:
 
I’ve always been unsure about this law. We often see the attacking team making a wall of their own to block the keepers view, but what if they were to be proactive and make the wall 10 yards away before the defending team make theirs? Are they forced to move if the defending side make their wall right behind them?
 
QuaverRef said:
I’ve always been unsure about this law. We often see the attacking team making a wall of their own to block the keepers view, but what if they were to be proactive and make the wall 10 yards away before the defending team make theirs? Are they forced to move if the defending side make their wall right behind them?
Click to expand...
Since the restriction is on attackers, not defenders, I think the answer is yes--they can't be within a meter of the wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top