Yellow or play on?

one

Well-Known Member
#41
really? he has prevented it....his leg moves to the ball before the ball is played :(
I thought you were done but you are back. How can you e charged with preventing an event if the event did take place?

Same as DOGSO, you can't charge them with 'denying' a goal... if the goal was scored.
 
Last edited:

one

Well-Known Member
#42
by your logic, you can only caution a player for preventing a free kick if its NOT been taken !!!!!

"why are you booking me ref" ?

"well, see that free kick that had not been taken yet, you prevented it being taken".

"oh" :(
Correct (take the sarcastic bit out thought). It often happens when defender run in and stand on top of the ball making it impossible to kick it without safety concerns.
 

GraemeS

Well-Known Member
#43
So we're saying that the same offence (running to and standing over the ball) will be a YC for preventing the restart if the ball isn't kicked, and a YC for failing to respect the distance if the ball is kicked? Sounds like the law's been well-written then to allow for a card regardless of the FK-taker's actions.
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
#44
Sorry missed the words trying or attempting to prevent the free kick being taken or reaching its intended target.

Its one thing to intercept and another to block it. I didnt mean caution for delaying the restart it woyld be failure to respect the required distance as you quite rightly point out.

The fact is in the OP he makes an obvious movement designed at interrupting the opponent taking the free kick. He hasnt intercepted the ball through good fortune or poor play by his opponent but he has inititated a block on the free kick.
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#45
This is like educating kindegarten

Had the defender kicked this free kick to an imaginary centre half yet the blocker was two yards away..as in...kicker kicks ball from right to left....but alas, it falls short of target then blocker can go and intercept, same as a scuffed pass from this fk if it was intended for the goalkeeper for example. These examples would justify an interception as noted in the LOTG, where play can continue.

The example posted is none of these, its an opponent blocking the free kick illegally.

Prob best if you dont consider this to be a caution that you take this clip to your RA manager or coach and ask them, because folk trying to explain it on here is clealy not sinking in
 

one

Well-Known Member
#46
This is like educating kindegarten

Had the defender kicked this free kick to an imaginary centre half yet the blocker was two yards away..as in...kicker kicks ball from right to left....but alas, it falls short of target then blocker can go and intercept, same as a scuffed pass from this fk if it was intended for the goalkeeper for example. These examples would justify an interception as noted in the LOTG, where play can continue.

The example posted is none of these, its an opponent blocking the free kick illegally.

Prob best if you dont consider this to be a caution that you take this clip to your RA manager or coach and ask them, because folk trying to explain it on here is clealy not sinking in
@Ciley Myrus I don't see why you need to resort to insults.
I'll go back to playing with my lego blocks now.
 

CapnBloodbeard

Well-Known Member
#47
I disagree with that @JamesL . You can't be guilty of preventing the free kick from being taken if the free kick has been taken. .
'free kick taken' implies that the kicker was free to take the kick as they like.
By your logic, jumping a yard in front of the keeper to block a punt isn't an offence as the keeper has released the ball....
I am saying I would yellow card for "not respecting the distance" even though i can't really justify it in law.
.
Really?
You're still trying to argue that the laws permit this play?
 

one

Well-Known Member
#48
'By your logic, jumping a yard in front of the keeper to block a punt isn't an offence as the keeper has released the ball....
That is a very good point. I’d say it’s a case of poor wording of the law where it should have said “Prevents or attempts to prevent the goalkeeper from…”

'Really?
You're still trying to argue that the laws permit this play?
I don’t believe it’s the intent of the law to permit it hence that is why I would go with a yellow. I do think the wording of the law as is now permit it. See my post #9 and #11 for reasoning behind it.
 

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#49
My instincts tell me it’s a yellow but I can’t really justify it in law. Someone else may be able to help. You can go with expectations and instinct but that would mean ignoring clear wording of the law. I may be missing something here.

Law 13.3

Was the free kick taken: YES
Was the kick taken quickly: YES
Was the opponent less than 10 yards : YES
Did opponent intercept the ball : YES
OK, I'm going to get into the debate over shades of meaning here but a definition of prevent is to "keep from happening or continuing" and while blocking a kick may not have actually prevented it from happening, it has stopped the kick from continuing on its path so for me, preventing a free kick includes blocking it in the way this player has done.

Overall though and the minutiae of semantics aside, I think it's a mistake to look simply at the perhaps slightly clumsy wording of the law and we should instead look at its basic intent. The IFAB uses phrases like "what football would want or expect" and I can't believe that anyone with a feeling for the spirit of the game or a sense of fair play would consider that when the law talks about an interception, it is intended to apply to a player who stays within a yard of the free kick, making not the slightest attempt to withdraw the required distance and then moves towards the path of the ball before it is kicked and sticks a leg out to block (i.e. prevent) the kick from proceeding on its way.

As I mentioned earlier, the law is not much help in distinguishing between an interception and a deliberate prevention but this also reminds me of the saying about obscenity - it's difficult to define but you know it when you see it. As @Ciley Myrus said, probably about 95% of people looking at this incident would see it as an offence and a yellow card.
 

bloovee

Well-Known Member
#50
So we're saying that the same offence (running to and standing over the ball) will be a YC for preventing the restart if the ball isn't kicked, and a YC for failing to respect the distance if the ball is kicked? Sounds like the law's been well-written then to allow for a card regardless of the FK-taker's actions.
This is going on precisely because the law has not been well written.

"Until the ball is in play all opponents must remain: at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts". So any player who's 10 yards away and moves closer commits an offence. It doesn't say so, but for me that means any attempt by an opponent who's less than 10 yards away to go closer to the ball is an offence. The only reason players do it is because it's not penalised.

THEN you can look at the other bits.

"If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play."

It's no good arguing it's "semantics" when the law is self-contradictory. The first bit says it's a retake unless there's advantage (to the team with the kick, you'd hope that means). The second bit introduces the idea of a quick free kick (without defining it - presumably without waiting for the referee's signal) and says you don't retake it even when there's no advantage, and we have to argue what "intercept" may mean. Then it talks about "deliberately preventing" a quick free kick, which leads to nonsense like how do you prevent a player taking the kick (the ball moves) unless the opponent is actually touching the ball.

I might be missing something but, for a "ceremonial" - on the whistle - where does it say to caution a player who encroaches (e.g. from a wall) and intercepts the ball? He hasn't prevented the kick, slowly or quickly.
 

GraemeS

Well-Known Member
#51
This is going on precisely because the law has not been well written.

"Until the ball is in play all opponents must remain: at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts". So any player who's 10 yards away and moves closer commits an offence. It doesn't say so, but for me that means any attempt by an opponent who's less than 10 yards away to go closer to the ball is an offence. The only reason players do it is because it's not penalised.

THEN you can look at the other bits.

"If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play."

It's no good arguing it's "semantics" when the law is self-contradictory. The first bit says it's a retake unless there's advantage (to the team with the kick, you'd hope that means). The second bit introduces the idea of a quick free kick (without defining it - presumably without waiting for the referee's signal) and says you don't retake it even when there's no advantage, and we have to argue what "intercept" may mean. Then it talks about "deliberately preventing" a quick free kick, which leads to nonsense like how do you prevent a player taking the kick (the ball moves) unless the opponent is actually touching the ball.

I might be missing something but, for a "ceremonial" - on the whistle - where does it say to caution a player who encroaches (e.g. from a wall) and intercepts the ball? He hasn't prevented the kick, slowly or quickly.
He's failed to respect the distance! I'm already getting bored of this chat - if the criteria for preventing a restart don't apply, look at the criteria for failing to respect the distance at a restart before posting again please.
 
#52
Hi
the game has got itself into this problem. It has now become accepted practise for player to run in front of the ball to prevent the QFK or for the player beside the ball to stay there and not retreat the 10 yards. Referees have many times *allowed* this to happen by not cautioning.
The referee here was 110% correct to caution here as the kicker could see an one on one down the field so the opponents sticks out a leg to stop the ball before it was kicked. Now we might cut the opponent some slack if it was an aimless deliberate kick at the player to draw the 2nd caution. that is not what happened. The Law was amended in 2016 to the current wording which includes the word TAKES. The player here clearly moves his leg towards the ball before the kick is taken so that in no way can be seen as a interception. An interception is where the kick is taken and then the opponents acts
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#53
This post did not need 3 plus pages, or indeed myself to be warned as to my wording on a reply.
If you doubt that's a yellow card, ignore anyone on here and take the clip to your RA manger or coach or Tom Wartons ghost itself (one for the Scottish refs) and have them tell you, but then again you probably wont believe them either.