Shielding the ball vs Obstruction

Logan!

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
6,120
At what point does the former become the latter? For me it seems to be a massive grey area.

I've always been of the opinion that to 'shield' the ball you have to at first be in possession of it, yet we see in every game players 'shepherding' the ball out of play with no intention of taking possession of it, just the intention of blocking the attacking player from taking possession of it. Is that not obstruction? :confused:
 
Logan! said:
At what point does the former become the latter? For me it seems to be a massive grey area.

I've always been of the opinion that to 'shield' the ball you have to at first be in possession of it, yet we see in every game players 'shepherding' the ball out of play with no intention of taking possession of it, just the intention of blocking the attacking player from taking possession of it. Is that not obstruction? :confused:
Click to expand...

I agree. You used to not be able to do that but somewhere along the lines it became acceptable.
 
You have to be within playing distance of the ball. Any further and it's deemed obstruction.
 
Logan! said:
At what point does the former become the latter? For me it seems to be a massive grey area.

I've always been of the opinion that to 'shield' the ball you have to at first be in possession of it, yet we see in every game players 'shepherding' the ball out of play with no intention of taking possession of it, just the intention of blocking the attacking player from taking possession of it. Is that not obstruction? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, it is obstruction as they're playing the man and not the ball.
 
i'm going to throw this out here since I havent played the game so excuse my ignorance:

If you decide to use a position of strength then if the opposing player overpowers you then there is no foul. So in instances a player holds the defender at arms length, shepards the ball, 50/50 ball shoulder charge. so strength v strength and skill v skill.

Does this work or it only works in theory and could never realistically be implemented.
 
The rule has to change in my opinion. I hate players ushering the ball out of play, attackers get nothing given in these situations.

My proposal to the world of football is this.

Once you have touched the ball, you then have possession of it and therefore the right to use your body to shield it from opposition players. Otherwise if you just shield it and havent touched it then by using your body to block an opponent you are in fact obstructing them.

This would rid us of all the big stupid defenders just swatting away attackers and allowing the ball to trickle out of play for throw ins and goal kicks. Two of the most frustrating things in football in my opinion.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
The rule has to change in my opinion. I hate players ushering the ball out of play, attackers get nothing given in these situations.

My proposal to the world of football is this.

Once you have touched the ball, you then have possession of it and therefore the right to use your body to shield it from opposition players. Otherwise if you just shield it and havent touched it then by using your body to block an opponent you are in fact obstructing them.
Click to expand...
Yep, I agree with that. I also want to see players go shoulder-to-shoulder when fighting for the ball, without the refs penalising the guy who wins by giving a foul against them.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
The rule has to change in my opinion. I hate players ushering the ball out of play, attackers get nothing given in these situations.

My proposal to the world of football is this.

Once you have touched the ball, you then have possession of it and therefore the right to use your body to shield it from opposition players. Otherwise if you just shield it and havent touched it then by using your body to block an opponent you are in fact obstructing them.

This would rid us of all the big stupid defenders just swatting away attackers and allowing the ball to trickle out of play for throw ins and goal kicks. Two of the most frustrating things in football in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Good post FV. I agree wholeheartedly
 
I hate when it's done to us but I always applaud our defence if we do it, it works both ways really.
 
Solius said:
I hate when it's done to us but I always applaud our defence if we do it, it works both ways really.
Click to expand...

So when watching a game not involving a side you support you would find it annoying if it happend at all?

Of course i applaud when my defender does it, it is good defending however if you take it away it would mean the defender would have to do something other than shield the ball to display good defending in these instances. Have to look for a pass or to play it off his man or clear the danger out for a throw or up the park and that would be applauded in turn.

That would be applauded in a game you watch impartially also as you can respect the defending but on the other hand the tenaciousness of Rooney, Park, Fletcher and co would make it very difficult for defenses to do that and it would in turn favour the play of sides like United who apply pressure to defenders.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
The rule has to change in my opinion. I hate players ushering the ball out of play, attackers get nothing given in these situations.

My proposal to the world of football is this.

Once you have touched the ball, you then have possession of it and therefore the right to use your body to shield it from opposition players. Otherwise if you just shield it and havent touched it then by using your body to block an opponent you are in fact obstructing them.

This would rid us of all the big stupid defenders just swatting away attackers and allowing the ball to trickle out of play for throw ins and goal kicks. Two of the most frustrating things in football in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Dead right.
 
^ this. I think this os one rule that needs to be changed. I hate watching this type of play as it really is not in the spirit of the game. I really think that defenders should have to play the ball and have wondered why this action has crept into the game.
 
I think if youre playing the ball out while you're 'on top' of the ball then it should be fine. But if youre standing a considerable distance away from the ball and actively obstructing the opposing player then that really means youre not trying to play the ball. Picture if the defending player was facing the other direction (the attacking player), and not the ball, would this be allowed?
 
Gio said:
You have to be within playing distance of the ball. Any further and it's deemed obstruction.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding, also the speed of the ball effects what is considered the playing distance.
 
:lol:

Gave me a giggle that.

Anyway, to those saying a player needs to be within playing distance i guess it is fair enough. However it's still gray and interpretable distance which is almost never questioned. If you force a player to touch it you lose the eliment of doubt and increase excitement. Obviously they would need to trial it but you would still get 50/50s where players are chasing a ball down and go shoulder to shoulder. It would just stop all the time wasting that happens when defenders sheild balls out of play. Which cant be a bad thing. Players should be encouraged to keep the ball in play anyway, not play for goal kicks, throw ins and corners...
 
It's one of the shittest parts of the modern game.

A player should have to use his skill to deal with the situation, not just stand in the way. No-one gets away with that level of obstruction when shielding the ball in any other part of the field.
 
I wouldn't ordinarily revive an old thread, but just watching the Everton - Arsenal game and there was a really clear example, with Coleman stepping in front of Iwobi but making no attempt to play the ball. It was always something that annoyed me as a player and reading the proposal by FranklyVulgar it seems an obvious solution, however I'm unsure if it would ever be implemented. Are there any strong views on why this is OK/acceptable as part of the game?
 
I never saw this thread at the time but it's one of my biggest hates in football - I just don't understand how shielding is an accepted part of the game and not just obstruction. Worse still, crowds standing to applaud some brick shithouse of a defender as if he's done something clever and skillful just for being bigger, stronger and more negative than an attacker.

A player should be allowed to shield the ball only as long as he continues in a natural line between his original position and the ball. If the other player attempts to run around him and the defender moves out of that line and blocks the opponent without touching the ball, it's obstruction and should be penalised as such.

In the interest of fairness, I should note that I was once sent off for kicking the legs out from under a centre back who thought elbows were a valid element of "shielding".
 
diarm said:
Worse still, crowds standing to applaud some brick shithouse of a defender as if he's done something clever and skillful just for being bigger, stronger and more negative than an attacker.
Click to expand...

As a tall defender I’m gonna have to call you out on that one. It’s a silly statement unless you want football to become the anti basketball, a sport where being small instantly increases your chances of becoming good. (And that already kind of is the case) The entire focal point of being a defender in football is being negative. Try to play with 11 guys that have no “negative” football skills, and you’re gonna lose every game. You will obviously have flashier highlight videos though. Are you not gonna applaud your goalie for closing down an attacking player when he’s through on goal either? Has de Gea not been undisputed poty multiple times in his United career despite not having the positive footballing qualities of martial? Defending is a part of the sport with various needed skills, just like attacking.

Btw, if you rule out moving to a side to shield the ball from attackers, then what do you do with attackers shifting their body balance to the side of the onrushing defender in order to draw a foul? Does that become a foul by the attacking player?
 
Lyricist said:
As a tall defender I’m gonna have to call you out on that one. It’s a silly statement unless you want football to become the anti basketball, a sport where being small instantly increases your chances of becoming good. (And that already kind of is the case) The entire focal point of being a defender in football is being negative. Try to play with 11 guys that have no “negative” football skills, and you’re gonna lose every game. You will obviously have flashier highlight videos though. Are you not gonna applaud your goalie for closing down an attacking player when he’s through on goal either? Has de Gea not been undisputed poty multiple times in his United career despite not having the positive footballing qualities of martial? Defending is a part of the sport with various needed skills, just like attacking.

Btw, if you rule out moving to a side to shield the ball from attackers, then what do you do with attackers shifting their body balance to the side of the onrushing defender in order to draw a foul? Does that become a foul by the attacking player?
Click to expand...

I have nothing against big, strong defenders who are attempting to play football which at the end of the day, is what the game is all about. I love good defending and appreciate physicality and aggression in the game.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post. Once a defender (or any other player) is prepared to touch the ball I have absolutely no issue with him using his body to shield it from an opponent. My issue with this notion that standing between the ball and an attacker and moving your body in a semi-circle around the ball to prevent them from getting at it while it rolls out for a throw in or goal kick is somehow something to be applauded.
 
Actually think that forwards in the last few mins are the most egregious example of this. Running down time by taking it to the corner flag.
 
Bobski said:
Actually think that forwards in the last few mins are the most egregious example of this. Running down time by taking it to the corner flag.
Click to expand...
Not something that initially sprung to mind when I was thinking about this earlier, but this is probably a more frequent example of the issue. It just seems like negative football to me.
 
Another version of this I've noticed more lately is the 'screen' to borrow from basketball, when a defender runs across the path of an attacker closing down the keeper.

Also Giroud is pretty good at doing this as an attacker on crosses, he'll jump into a defender to clear the way for other attackers behind him, even though the ball might be several feet out of his reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.