Yes but it's usually used to get a goal kick or throw in,so the last touch was from the opposite team. Under those cirmcumstances how can the player be in possesion of the ball?
Jonny,I respect your views as a ref,but it has allways annoyed me,never really understood why it is not obstruction.
Yeah Jonny, I'm paraphrasing. Same thing - quote from my first post on this subject: Este - it's not just for getting a throw-in or goal-kick, it happens all over the pitch, but people choose not to notice it because they see it as a player having good ball control. It's just that in the positions you mention, the player decides not to touch the ball but to gain a different advantage. That's why it annoys so many people. The interesting question is the freekick given for "turning" a player. It is not in the laws but many refs give it, and I believe in some circumstances they are wrong to do so when you consider this aspect, especially using the terminology that Jonny provided "within playing distance". The ball comes in to someone who is on their heels, waiting for it, and a player challenges from the side or back to go round and nick it. But the first player turns their body as the ball passes them (ie within playing distance) blocking the challenger and then often controls the ball with their trailing leg. The challenger ends up on a heap on the floor. Zaliukas tried it and did not get a free kick, from which Wednesday scored. But you often see it given as a free-kick. I sometimes think some refs in these circumstances are making it up as they go along, which is not helpful to anyone. re obstruction: It's not obstruction because the player is able to play the ball, and is therefore classsed as having possession, so they are legally able to shield it from others, like anywhere else on the pitch. It's also not obstruction because the term has been removed from football language.
Thank you. Reasons: 1) That is how the law is written, 2) Fairness, it is a skill to shield the ball, opponent still has a chance to get to the ball. 3) Fairness, doing so off the ball is not really a skill, just mindless physical play. Denies the oportunity to the opponent from making a play for the ball.
I still don't agree with it,but hey who am I to argue. Re point 3,I allways got fouls against me for that 'tactic' here in spain.
Now since we've got 2 referees on board here, can I ask another question about something that rankles with me? I remember Alan Smith scoring on the goal line with an overhead kick (just sayin' in case you think I'm biased). The goal stood, even though in my view, it was dangerous play by him. The defender had a choice - leave it, be safe & lose a goal; or go for it, save the goal, and possibly die in the process. I have never seen a referee blow for dangerous play in these circumstances. In fact, this was compounded last weekend in a premiership game where we had this situation & the defender raised his arms to protect his face as he went in. Result? A penalty!!! (He may even have been sent off - I can't remember). Now in my view, it was never a penalty anyway, as the ball was kicked into his arms, but IMO, this was nailed on dangerous play & the ref bottled it. What's the official referees position on such overhead kicks? Is there such a thing as dangerous play in these circumstances, or are we expected to applaud the kickers skill without due consideration for the defenders life?
Jock,good point,I think peles first overhead kick was ruled dangerous play. Saw one this week think it was diego coste atl madrid,made contact also with the defender,nothing given. Good to see what the refs say,I appreciate their opinion.
Dangerous play - good question! This is applied very differently based on the age and skill level of the players. At all levels, safety is the referees primary responsibility. At the youth level even more so. The result is that if a youth player is on the ground with the ball nearby, we will usually blow the whistle to stop play to avoid the player being trampled on or hit by the ball. If the ball is above the waist and a player tries to kick it with an opponent nearby, we award an indirect free kick to the opponent. In the pro game, I am not sure that I have ever seen it called. As mentioned above, a player pretty much needs to be kicked in the face and then it is a direct free kick. I hope that helps.
I've always wondered this. Realistically, following the rules of the game it should be an indirect free-kick to the opponent
Let's not forget that laws are text and adjudication is by humans in real time. And all places bring in their own cultural differences so different countries have generically different levels of acceptance of certain types of play. For UK, we are still governed by the inborn 'hard but fair' in general and our own code of gentlemanly conduct. So that's why we see differences in interpretations of what is a foul by refs of different nationalities. Overhead kicks are difficult to judge. Do it right and everyone wants to see such awesome skills. Do it right in a attacking position, pull off a wondergoal in a crowded penalty area - and then have the ref chalk it off? Accusations would fly how refs ruin the beauty of the game. Get it wrong and smash someone's face? Possibly see red. Dangerous play is a judgement call whether the referee saw that someone went for the ball but then ducked out at the last minute because of the potential for injury in this example. But in pro game, I expect players to put their heads where normal people fear to put their boots - get there first and if you get kicked, deal with it later But it is a tough call in that scenario and is not black and white
The overhead kick argument, a defender cannot challenge for the ball without it being a dangerous situation. I can understand when an overhead kick is done in complete space but it often isn't.
