Search Results for: impeding goalkeeper

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

IMPEDING THE GOALKEEPER AT A RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
The question concerns what constitutes a foul with regard to an attacking player “marking up” the goalkeeper.

A typical scenario would be a a corner kick by team A.

Goalkeeper for team B is well postioned just in front of the goal line inside the posts, facing the corner the kick is coming from. A player from team A marks the keeper and positions themselves either directly infront of the keeper (literally with their back pressed to the keepers chest) or shoulder to shoulder.

As the keeper moves to clear some space, the attacker adjusts and maintains a similar posture, shadowing the keeper in what seems to clearly be an attempt to distract the keeper or impeed the keeper’s ability to see or play a ball without having to move around player A.

Does this constitute a foul by the marking player, perhaps as misconduct or can it be considered impeding the progress of a player?

In short, is it a foul? And if so, what steps can the keeper take to counter the tactic and not be consider guilty of pushing or dangerous play?

USSF answer (May 14, 2008):
If the referee sees the situation developing, there are two choices: wait until the ball has been kicked to see what happens or step in proactively.

1. If the referee waits until the ball has been kicked to see what happens, there are two possibilities. If the player who is posting on the goalkeeper is attempting to play the ball, his tactics are legitimate. On the other hand, if the player is clearly attempting to interfere with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball, the tactics are not legitimate and the referee should call the player for impeding the goalkeeper and award an indirect free kick to the goalkeeper’s team from the point of the foul — bearing in mind the special circumstances applying to infringements within the goal area.

Unless this tactic is repeated, there is no need to caution the impeding player.

As to countermeasures taken by the goalkeeper against the marking player, they should be punished only if the opposing player is clearly attempting to play the ball and not playing the goalkeeper. The referee must exercise common sense.

2. If the referee decides to be proactive, he or she may stop play before the kick takes place and step in immediately and prevent a foul or even misconduct from occurring by having a word with the prospective perpetrator, whether it is the marking player or the goalkeeper. This keeps the ball with the team that won the corner kick (or other restart) and should defuse a potential escalation of the action into misconduct.…

Impeding

Blocking or Interfering with the Goalkeeper

Posted on by

John, an adult amateur player/referee, asks:

I supervise in an 8 v. 8 league with no offsides. Otherwise, all rules follow the laws of the game. In one game I was observing, Team A was taking a direct kick. A player from Team A was instructed to stand immediately in front of the Team B’s keeper to impede his vision (his team literally told him to stand in front of the keeper), occasionally raising his arms to make himself bigger/constantly checking over his shoulder and adjusting to ensure he was blocking the keeper’s vision. They did this for nearly every kick and the official afterwards asked how I would have handled. For one kick, there was a clear impeding that prevented the keeper from playing the ball, so the ref whistled the obstruction, but from a game management, it started to get chippy and seemed like a problem I’d have preferred to nip in the bud (either with an unsporting behavior stoppage or required distance) before the inevitable elbows and shoves and dives happen.

Of course, the quick remedy is to clarify this rule in our league, but wanted to get your take. I’m pushing for unsporting behavior because it is a safety of play issue (keeper being unable to see) for us. We have 11s as well, but typically offsides takes care of this issue (except on a corner or direct kick down the line.

Answer

What you describe is and has always been considered to be  interference with the goalkeeper, It is poor sportsmanship and, though it does not appear explicitly in the Laws of the Game, this situation is generally met in either or both of the following actions.

The referee should be on close alert anytime the goalkeeper has the ball, is in a possible situation to gain possession of the ball, or is in the process of initiating release of the ball.  The referee should be in a good position to monitor potential interference by one or more opponents who are clearly interfering with or blocking the position of the goalkeeper and/or the goalkeeper’s release of the ball and/or positioning to clearly attempt to gain possession of the ball.  One of the most typical scenarios is at a corner kick and the goalkeeper is attempting to place him/her self to protect against a goal.

In a corner kick situation of this sort, it is almost certain that one or more opponents will attempt to arrange themselves to block the goalkeeper’s ability to defend.  In such situations, it is recommended that the goalkeeper be protected from such close interference by talking to the opponents or, in more serious cases, formally ordering the corner kick to be delayed (and only restarted upon approval of the referee) until the appropriate space is achieved around the goalkeeper.  Of course, there must not be any direct physical contact with the goalkeeper.

If needed, the referee has the ultimate authority to caution any opponent who has failed to follow the referee’s space requirements or who rushes into blocking the goalkeeper’s space just as or after the kick is taken.  In short, the Law implicitly requires that opposing players have no right under any circumstances to be so close to a goalkeeper who is placed to receive the ball, has received the ball, or is in the process of releasing the ball.

The referee needs to monitor closely situations where one or more opponents are too close to the goalkeeper, to advise players who are clearly moving closer to the goalkeeper or hindering her/his movements, to watch carefully any opponents who appear to be charging a goalkeeper who is in the process of receiving the ball, or to charge with such speed toward a goalkeeper that it is obvious there will be a collision.

The younger the players, the more carefully these issues must be monitored and quickly resolved.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

INTERFERING ILLEGALLY WITH THE GOALKEEPER PRIOR TO AND DURING A RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
Before a corner kick or a direct kick or an indirect kick, the team with the ball is placing a player directly in front of the keeper. Also, that person is screening the keeper and is pushing backwards on the keeper and trying to push the keeper into the goal.

The screening player will do everything to prevent the goalkeeper from getting in front of them. I believe this is a violation of “Impeding the Progress of an Opponent”. All this is happening before the kick is made and when the ball is put into play. What is the ruling?

Answer (June 2, 2012):
What you describe is actually pushing or holding, both direct free kick offenses that should be punished by the referee. (Unfortunately, many referees do not recognize this and make no call or fail to bawl out the goalkeeper.)

It is a general principle underlying the Law that players are not permitted to “play” the opponent rather than the ball. Except under certain conditions spelled out in the Laws (such as at a penalty kick or throw-in or goal kick), a player is permitted to stand wherever he or she wishes. After the ball is put in play, a player who — without playing or attempting to play the ball — jumps up and down in front of the goalkeeper to block the ‘keeper’s vision or otherwise interferes with the ‘keeper’s ability to play the ball is committing the foul of impeding an opponent. If there is contact initiated by the player doing this, the foul becomes holding or pushing. When such activity occurs, the referee should immediately stop the restart and warn the players to conduct themselves properly. If, after the warning (and before the restart), they do it anyway, they have committed unsporting behavior and should be cautioned. The restart remains the same.

Before the ball is in play, the referee can simply allow the opponent of the ‘keeper to impede, wait for the restart to occur, blow the whistle, award an indirect free kick coming out, and card if needed. This is the “harsh” approach and it carries the danger, provided the jostling doesn’t sufficiently enrage the goalkeeper (or any other defender), that the tensions or violence will escalate to something more serious. It is also not a good approach when it is an attacker who is doing the jostling.

The referee can see the situation developing and verbally and/or by a closer presence encourage correct behavior on the part of the jostlers in the hope that they will cease their misbehavior. This is the “proactive” (some would call it the “wimpy”) approach and is more likely to prevent escalation, if it works. If it doesn’t work, the referee can always hold up the restart, caution, and then signal the restart or go to the option above.

Such actions against the goalkeeper can also occur during dynamic play and are very often missed by both referee and assistant referee.…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE OR IMPEDING?

Posted on by

Question:
This occurred in a U13B game today.

Forward is lined up, even with the 18, but outside of the penalty area, a step offside, with a defender next to him. Through ball is passed beyond both of them. They both run for the ball. As the AR, I am thinking, forward is offside, but lets see who gets to the ball first.

Defender establishes position between the forward and the ball, and attempts to shield the ball over the goal line for a goal kick.

As they both move toward the goal line, following the ball, the center decides the defender is not within playing distance of the ball, whistles, and calls obstruction, awarding an indirect to the attacking team.

But doesn’t awarding obstruction imply the forward would have played the ball, or at a minimum interfered with play, which means he was offside?

USSF answer (March 12, 2011):
Unless we are misreading your question, the referee’s decision would seem to have been incorrect. We recommend for your (and the referee’s) reading this excerpt from the Advice to Referees (2010/2011):

11.4 INTERFERING WITH AN OPPONENT
“Interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. Interference can also include active physical or verbal distraction of the goalkeeper by an opponent as well as blocking the view of the goalkeeper.

A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent.

Referees are reminded that the reference to “playing or touching the ball” (see Advice 11.5 below) does not mean that an offside infringement cannot be called until an attacker in an offside position actually touches the ball. Please note: Here and elsewhere in the guidance for offside, “play,” “touch,” and “make contact with” are used interchangeably (as they are in the Laws of the Game and its Instructions). However, these terms are interchangeable only for the attackers. For the defenders, merely touching the ball is not sufficient in the context of an offside decision — they must actually play (possess and control) the ball, meaning that for them there is indeed a meaningful distinction between “touch” and “play.”

“Touching the ball” is not a requirement for calling an offside infringement if the attacker is interfering with an opponent by making a movement or gesture which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts that opponent.

According to the IFAB Circular of August 17, 2005: “A player in an offside position may be penalized before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other teammate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.” Further, “If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalized for interfering with an opponent.” In addition, referees must remember that the indirect free kick restart for an offside offense is taken “from the initial place where the player was adjudged to be in an offside position.

Therefore, the referee should have called the player in the offside position offside at the moment the defender was distracted by his movement and moved to protect the ball. The indirect free kick would be taken from the place where the forward was when the ball was played by his teammate.

In addition, we must also point out that your reaction—”As the AR, I am thinking, forward is offside, but lets see who gets to the ball first”—was the entirely wrong action to take. In these circumstances, it doesn’t matter who gets to the ball first; that reasoning would be used only when the race is between an offside position attacker and another attacker who started from an onside position. The very fact that the attacker’s action caused a defender to race with him to the ball is sufficient to stop, square, and raise the flag for what would eventually be an offside signal. What happened afterward (the alleged “obstruction”) was not the offense.…

"Inventive" Refs

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
I play for a U19 girls soccer team, and we played a game today that many of our fans, coach, and players felt that it was an unfairly reffed game. The team we played for had a referee that additionally works at that teams club. I’m not positive because I was pretty sure that you can not ref a game for a club you work for…that would be an unfair bias. He additionally called about 11 obstruction calls on our team whenever we got within the 18 yrd box of the opposing team(the club he works for team) If I am mistaken again but I thought obstruction would be typically called on the defending team.

We also got called for an obstruction call on the goalie when a teammate of mine stood in front of the goalie on a corner(not even touching her) We got called for another on a girl who did not have the ball yet and then once on our own 8 yrd line our defending player got called for obstruction for playing typical defense on a corner….what exactly is this obstruction rule and why is it being used, I have never heard this rule in my life but once? Lastly I would like to know if there is a way to report a referee somehow, because I think he should not be allowed to ref for a club team for the club he works for.

USSF answer (October 17, 2010):
If you have problems with a referee, then the best thing to do is to submit a report to the competition authority (the league, cup, tournament, etc.) that is responsible for the game. You will also want to send a copy of that report to the state referee authorities in your state.

In general, refereeing a game in which you have a vested interest in a team (such as working for that team or club) is considered to be a conflict of interest. In such a case, you can also file a complaint with the state soccer association responsible for that particular competition. Look on the U. S.Soccer website for Federation Policies, in particular Policy 531-10 — Misconduct of Game Officials, Section 2, Procedures. You can find the Federation’s Bylaws and Policies (and Amendments to the Policies) at this URL:
http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Governance/Bylaws.aspx .

There is no such foul as “obstruction,” although there was such a foul until the major editing of the Laws in 1997. It would appear that the “referee” for your game has not read the Laws of the Game since 1996. Either that or he (a) paid no attention in training classes or (b) is not a referee at all.

“Obstruction” became “impeding the progress of an opponent” in 1997. impeding the progress of an opponent is defined in the Laws of the Game: “Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.” It is punished by an indirect free kick for the opposing team. In addition, “It is an offense to restrict the movement of the goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him, e. g. at the taking of a corner kick.” In either case, if contact is initiated by the impeding player, this is considered to be the direct free kick foul of holding.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF THE OPPONENT?

Posted on by

Question:
I am a referee grade 8 and also a coach. During my son’s U14 Advanced match on Saturday, our team played a through ball from about 35 yards out approximately even with the left edge of the goal area (as viewed by the attacking players). Our center forward had started his run toward the ball from about 30 yards from the goal line in the middle of the field. One of the defenders looked back at our forward, never looking at the ball, and ran back and placed his body between the offensive player and the ball. The ball was about 2 yards away. Our forward was right behind his back and the defender continued to be between the attacker and the ball the entire way until the goalkeeper picked it up. The defender also put out his arms to block the attacker from getting through, but the attacker never contacted the arms. At the time, I thought our team should have been awarded in IFK, but I wanted to look at it objectively.

Here are the issues that need to be answered in my mind.
1. Is 2 yards playing distance for a U14 game? To me, this goes to the opinion of the referee.
2. Is the defender looking back a sign that he is not playing the ball and playing the man, thus he is impeding the progress of his opponent?
3. I believe that the arms outstretched are irrelevant because the attacker never tried to go around and never made contact with his arms.

USSF answer (November 4, 2008):
1. Only the referee on the game can judge whether or not this is “playing distance.” And that decision rests on the referee’s evaluation of the player’s speed and skill.
2. It makes no difference what the defender does if he or she is deemed to be within playing distance of the ball. Any defender wants to know where the opponent is, so looking back and adjusting positon is clearly legal — as long as the requirement for playing distance is met. However, if not within playing distance of the ball, looking backward to “place” the opponent could certainly be seen as an indication of impeding.
3. And we agree.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SCREENING/SHIELDING VS. IMPEDING AN OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
I am having some trouble understanding the difference between these two offenses. screening I believe is when the player has the ball under control without using his hands, arms, legs or body to protect his control of the ball, if an offense has occurred the opponent is awarded a DFK.Impeding the progress, I believe would be when the ball is not under control, the player deliberately prevents the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the shortest path to the ball, the opponent would be awarded an IFK.

If the opponent is impeded in his progress to the ball by a player using his arm, legs, hands or body (what else can a player impede and opponent with) is the opponent awarded a DFK? Thank You for your time, great web site.

USSF answer (April 10, 2007):
“Screening” is not necessarily an offense, though the word is certainly used that way by various people. To “screen” someone illegally is to block that person’s view. It is most applicable in relation to a player in an offside position “screening” the view of the opposing goalkeeper (or possibly an opposing defender).

You might perhaps mean “shielding,” which is when a player has possession of the ball and does not wish others to take it away. (This is also called “screening.”) When shielding, a player may use the body and arms to protect the ball, but the arms may not be used as tools to push the opponent away. (In other words, the player may not contact the opponent with the arms.) That would be the offense of either pushing or holding, depending on what was done.

Shielding becomes impeding when the player who is shielding the ball does not have possession and cannot establish it.

Here is a definition of impeding from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.14 IMPEDING AN OPPONENT
“Impeding the progress of an opponent” means moving on the field so as to obstruct, interfere with, or block the path of an opponent. Impeding can include crossing directly in front of the opponent or running between the opponent and the ball so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying progress. There will be many occasions during a game when a player will come between an opponent and the ball, but in the majority of such instances, this is quite natural and fair. It is often possible for a player not playing the ball to be in the path of an opponent and still not be guilty of impeding.The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).

12.15 PLAYING DISTANCE
The referee’s judgment of “playing distance” should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard.

The restart for holding or pushing is a direct free kick, taken from the spot of the offense. The restart for impeding is an indirect free kick, taken from the spot of the offense.…

Definitions

Shielding the Ball

Posted on by

Erich, an adult amateur player, asks:

Throughout the game I am writing about, the other team would “shield” us off the ball (which as an experienced player I am fine with and do myself): however, rather than attempt to maintain control of the ball within a playable distance they were initiating contact with our players, often by backing up away from the ball or to their sides specifically to initiate the contact. This was often accomplished with substantial physicality, to the point that several of our players were repeatedly knocked down throughout the game while attempting to go around opposing players or to defend them. It was never called because the referee judged the ball to be within a playable distance (which he arbitrarily defined as 3 feet, which I know is not the rule and is not part of my question).

The question is essentially this: at what point does “shielding” with the ball near enough to be controlled become a foul? Does it matter that the player be actually trying to control the ball? If you are at least nominally controlling the ball, can you just back over a defender rather than trying to go around him/her?

Answer

We know you said this is not part of your question but we feel compelled to point out that, currently, there is an official, lawful, and therefore controlling definition of “playing distance” … and it is not 3 feet.  For the first time ever, the International Board has provided a clear statement on this subject which applies, actually, to a several different scenarios in soccer, of which “shielding” is only one of them: it is the “Distance to the ball which allows a player to touch the ball by extending the foot/leg or jumping or, for goalkeepers, jumping with arms extended. Distance depends on the physical size of the player”.  There you have it.

Now, as for “shielding,” let’s return to the Law (as we always should when starting on the path to enlightenment), and we find the following in Law 12: “A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.”  While we might wish that this would answer everything, it doesn’t.

Your scenario is a dynamic situation that often occurs a yard or so inside the field and is performed usually for the purpose of allowing or preventing the ball from leaving the field depending on which team would gain the restart.  Shielding can be either a defensive or attacking team tactic.  The dynamic can become particularly intense the smaller the field space is available for ball movement and the greater the number of players being shielded.  These factors are important to keep in mind because they help us understand why players do what they do.

Two critical issues are raised by the Law’s language.  First, while a shielding tactic may start with the ball within playing distance, it must continue to be in playing distance for the shielding action to continue to be legal.  If the ball is allowed to move beyond the defined distance or if the shielding action moves sufficiently away from the defined distance, the shielding itself becomes impeding an opponent (assuming no physical contact).  Second, even while still within playing distance, the otherwise legal shielding action can become converted to a foul by either the shielder or the opponent being shielded.  The shielding player could extend an arm to prevent an opponent from getting around the shielder’s body and thus commit the foul of holding if contact is made (the same would be true of extending a leg sideways to achieve the same result).  An opponent, who remains allowed to perform a legal challenge against the shielder, must not allow the challenge to become illegal in any way — for example by using excessive force or by using any force to make contact with the shielder’s back.

Most of this is generally clear, understood, and accepted.  Where we find the greatest debate is when the shielder, instead of standing solidly, attempts to push backward with the shielder’s back against the opponent, thus making contact.  While the intent is clear (to gain more distance to maneuver), the end result is usually an offense.

Simple contact is often made between opposing players due solely to inertia, and the innocence of the contact is shared by both players.  When such contact proceeds to include pushing (forcefully using the body to displace another player), we are into foul territory and guilt falls on the player who initiates, not the contact, but the forceful displacement.  If the shielder moves back to displace the opponent, the shielder must be called for pushing.  Likewise, if the opponent moves forward to displace the shielder, the opponent must be called for pushing.  And if the shielder moves far enough backward in an attempt to make contact (forceful or not) but the opponent evades and this results in the shielder moving beyond “playing distance,” the shielder must be called for impeding.  Pushing, of course, is a direct free kick foul whereas impeding is an indirect free kick foul (in the given scenario involving no contact). And if there is force which is deemed reckless or excessive, there must be a card.

It need hardly be added that deciding what happening in a shielding situation calls for close observation by the Referee and/or the closest AR.…

2016 and Later Law Changes

Playing Distance (and Happy Holidays to Our Readers)

Posted on by

Scott, an adult amateur Referee, asks:

Is there a distance from the ball when a referee should call an impeding foul instead of allowing the defender to “shield” the ball from the attacker. For instance, the ball is rolling quickly and is on a path to go out of bounds if no one touches it and there is an attacker running full speed towards the ball from a distance and the defender steps in 5 yards from where the ball is and shields the attacker so the ball will go out.

Answer

Good question and, as with many similar good questions, there isn’t a simple answer.  Fortunately, the answer became less complex in 2017 when the International Board published the 2017-2018 Laws of the Game.

At the core of your query is the concept of “playing distance” which arises in several different scenarios in soccer generally as well as in the Laws.  For example, it arises in Law 12 when the offense of “impeding the progress of an opponent” is discussed:

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. [emphasis added]

A bit later on in the same section of Law 12, your scenario is targeted:

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent. [emphasis added]

Other places where the concept of “playing distance” arises include “interfering with an opponent” as one way of committing an offside violation, as one of the criteria for DOGSO (denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity), and as one of the ways that a legal charge can become illegal.  Clearly, knowing what “playing distance” is and is not is an important element of refereeing.

Years ago, it was common for referees to treat “playing distance” as some absolute value – e.g. one or two yards or several steps – in all cases and circumstances.  More recently, the 2014 version of Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game made the following observation:

The referee’s judgment of playing distance should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard such as a specific number of feet or steps a player is away from the ball. The decision as to whether a player is or is not within playing distance of the ball belongs solely to the referee.

In 2017, the International Board for the very first time provided an operational definition of the concept as follows:

Playing distance.  Distance to the ball which allows a player to touch the ball by extending the foot/leg or jumping or, for goalkeepers, jumping with arms extended. Distance depends on the physical size of the player

In essence, the now-official definition is completely consistent with USSF’s 2014 Advice to Referees that the concept has to be defined by the “player’s ability to play the ball” and adds the critical reminder that, even so, it has to depend on “the physical size of the player.”  Obviously, for most referees, this means that an average-sized U14 player will have a shorter playing distance than would an average-sized adult amateur player – all of which takes us back to what we said at the start of this answer and what Advice to Referees said in 2014, that decisions about playing distance belong solely to the Referee. What has changed (and improved) is that the International Board has now given us a “yardstick” for exercising this judgment – the distance between the ball and how far a player can stick his or her own, individually-sized leg out (or a goalkeeper can jump up or out while reaching for a ball in the air).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

A Clarification Unrelated to Any Question

Posted on by

(Originally published on 10/22/17, “Operation Restore”)

From time to time, we become aware of an authoritative clarification of some element in the Laws of the Game and it is our intention to make sure that this website’s readers are informed.  This posting relates to a relatively brief, somewhat unexpected, and a bit confusing new sentence that was added in 2016 to Law 12 immediately following the list of those seven actions (a.k.a. fouls) for which a direct free kick should be the response if the action were careless or reckless or performed with excessive force.  Here is the sentence (p. 82 in 2016, p. 95 in 2017):

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Among the seven offenses in the list prior to the above sentence were three which explicitly included the attempt to perform the action (striking, kicking, or tripping).  Attempting to do something like striking, kicking, or tripping normally implies that, being unsuccessful, the action missed — i.e., did not involve contact.  Adding a bit of mystery to this issue was the introduction into the 2016 edition of the Laws of the Game (continued in this year’s edition) of the first specific and concrete distinction between impeding involving contact and impeding not involving contact with the added admonition that the latter was an indirect free kick foul while the former, because of the contact, must be considered a direct free kick (or penalty kick) offense.

The explanation in 2016 did not clarify the reason or purpose of this sentence and was primarily a simple restatement of its language.  It has now been clarified.  We thought that the positioning of the new sentence was unusual (right in the middle of Law content related to direct free kick offenses).  It turns out that the reason the sentence was added was because a disturbing number of Referees (no numbers, no indication of where they were, etc.) were treating a “dangerous play” event involving the so-called “high kick” as still an indirect free kick offense even if the kick was not only high but also made contact with the opponent!  To disabuse Referees of this notion, the sentence was intended to advise all Referees that an indirect free kick offense can become a direct free kick offense if it includes contact with an opponent.

This was abundantly clear given the International Board’s Law revisions involving impeding (with and without contact) but, for some reason, the Board handled the application of this concept differently in the case of dangerous play.  We personally felt that that the principle the Board was setting forth here (an eminently reasonable one which has been part of USSF training for years, we should add) might have been more clearly understood if the sentence had, for example, been located in the section on IFK offenses or if each of the IFK offenses that might involve physical contact with an opponent could have been rewritten (as the Board did with impeding) to emphasize that an IFK foul which included physical contact raised the level of the offense to that of the DFK/PK offense.

Impeding (of course) and now dangerous play have this contact/no contact distinction but the principle could just as well be extended to interfering with the goalkeeper’s release of the ball into play.  It seems to us reasonable, for example, to treat kicking the ball out of the goalkeeper’s hand(s) as a DFK offense since a ball in the goalkeeper’s possession is an extension of the goalkeeper and therefore kicking a ball held by the goalkeeper is the functional equivalent of kicking the goalkeeper — ergo, a DFK restart (with possible misconduct punishment levied the same way as would be considered appropriate if the kick had been delivered directly to the goalkeeper’s body).  This also, by the way, has been the guideline used in USSF Referee training for more than 20 years.…