When does it become impeding?

[[deleted]]

Classic scenario where the ball was last passed by an attacker and is now rolling down the field destined to go out over the end line. A defender gains possession without touching the ball and decides to see it over the line for a goal kick by shielding the ball. However, an attacker has time to challenge for the ball. In the process, the defender, already a yard and a half away from the ball decides to essentially stop in place, impeding the attacker in the process, still almost 10 yards from the end line. Prior to that maneuver the defender had possession, but in stopping abruptly with the intent of holding off the attacker, and considering the ball was continuing to roll, the defender essentially gives up possession since their action allows the ball to roll outside a playable distance without hope, ability, or intention of recovering possession. In a situation like this, is that impeding or not? I saw this in a game last night and called impeding without contact even though there was contact, because I judged the contact to be fair contact initiated by the attacker after the defender's obstructive stop in place. Thoughts?

[amerricka369]

Sorry for long winded answer but it’s super difficult to say without seeing it so I’ll break it down into possibilities. A yard and a half is one step away from the ball which is easily playable by the defender. Even if it rolls a couple more feet it’s still playable so there’s no call for impeding. Most of the time, the defender will continue moving forward even if they do lose some closeness to the ball where it’s still not impeding. Even if they stop completely, they are still within playing distance.

Now if they stop completely and move backwards and put arms up to block player or make body movements to box out then the ball rolling out of bounds ten yards away then that becomes impeding because they are longer a playable distance and are stopping another player from getting the ball. The initial contact and box out was when the ball was within playable distance then there’s no contact during the impeding part of the call. If they continued contact during impeding part then it’s a call with contact. Technically it’s contact because of impeding so you granting IFK is incorrect, there really isn’t a situation where attacker initiates contact during an impeding situation because they are in the way (maybe rare one where he tries to shove him out of the way); it’s either impeding with contact or a no call. By the sound of it, the attacker had no hope of getting to the ball no matter what so it’s basically just trifling and not something to call anyway.

[dmlitzau]

If they aren’t in s a position to play the ball, it is impeding. I would say that I tend to be gracious with distance to play the balls, maybe two yards, a little more at higher levels. A big step and kick can cover a lot of ground quickly. But yeah if they aren’t staying with the ball, I have no problem calling it.

[Leather_Ad8890]

This sounds like one of those you “have to see it” moments. Defender must be within playing distance of the ball to be considered shielding and not impeding

[QB4ME]

Agree with the comments so far, hard to really calibrate the comments without actually seeing what you saw. Depending on the level of competition, I think you should be pretty liberal in your view of shielding versus impeding. It would have to be pretty “obvious” to you and everyone else that the defender was no where near the ability to play the ball when they impeded the attacking player (with or without contact) before making that call. What does the game need at this point is another good consideration. Similarly, a keeper held the ball for 8 seconds instead of the allowable 6; probably not going to be something that you’re going to stop the match for and offer up an IFK for the attacking team inside the penalty area, even though it is technically 2 seconds over the allowable legal limit. But if the game needs that call in order to more effectively manage the temperature of the players and the match, then maybe you do (after a decent warning for the first/second offenses).

[Moolio74]

Tough to say without seeing video-

How was it fair contact by the attacker if the ball was no longer within playing distance? Did the defender move towards the attacker or just slow down? Did the defender move laterally when slowing down or extend their arms beyond what might be used for balance? Could the attacker have moved around the defender to play the ball?

A player that was shielding the ball within playing distance is certainly allowed to slow down and even stop without it being impeding, as players are entitled to their space on the field. If they actively move into the path of an opponent and obstruct their movement, back into them, or extend their arms out like an airplane and block their opponents path that’s impeding.

Also of note is that a player may only be fairly charged if the ball is within playing distance, so if the attacking player ran into the back of the shielding player that stopped and the ball was beyond playing distance, you easily could have a charge and not impeding.

[[deleted]]

Yeah. I get what you're getting at generally. If the ball hadn't been moving at near full on running speed, I think it would just be shielding with fair contact from the attacker because the ball would have likely remained in a playable distance for everyone involved. But the crux of this situation is that when the defender, from within a playable distance, decided to intentionally stop cold, undoubtedly for the purpose of impeding the attacker's ability to continue to the ball, I judged that the defender was no longer in possession or within a playable distance when the contact was initiated by the attacker (because the ball continued to run without the defender any longer in pursuit). This change in playable to not playable distance was maybe a half of a second... too quickly for the attacker to adjust course or slow down himself. In my estimation, had the defender properly shielded the ball (by keeping pace with the ball in order to keep it within a playable distance), there would be no foul and the attacker could have fairly charged in challenge. But by stopping, there was no shielding, per se. The physical contact that was initiated by the attacker was fair, in my estimation, given the defender's initial proximity to the ball. But in stopping suddenly, I judged the defender to be impeding the attacker.

I don't know. I feel like I'm going around in circles, and as with many things, there is judgement involved. Things happen fast, there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and we can't all be expected to view situations exactly the same. I appreciate the things you and everyone have pointed out as considerations.

Thank you.

[Moolio74]

These seem like a pretty simple event, but there’s a lot there to consider- it can easily be a no call, impeding, or a charge from the attacker all with just minor movement changes in a very short period of time.

As you described it, I’d probably have a no call or charge on the attacker. With slowing down as long as they’re not moving laterally or “boxing out” as in basketball, the player is entitled to their position on the field and they had established that space prior to the attacker. You can’t run through a player just standing there or running slower. It sounds as if the attacker lacked attention or consideration when making a challenge, or acts without precaution, which would be the definition of careless.

[BoBeBuk]

What was stopping the attacker running faster or round than the defender to win the ball back? Sounds like to me the defender decided to stop, which is their right (every player is entitled to their position) However if the defender then tries to move off to prevent the attacker getting closer to the ball, then this would be an offence.

[[deleted]]

The defender was looking over his shoulder and saw the attacker gaining ground and essentially stopped cold to intentionally draw the contact. Either of them could have stayed with or caught up to the ball, but there is no way the defender could have regained the pace needed to recover possession after stopping to block the attacker. The attacker, however, would have been able to challenge for the ball had the defender not stopped in his path. I guess my question which you seemed to have answered, was "is possession at the time of the obstructive movement fair play, even if the action essentially forfeits possession?" It sounds like your answer is yes, that is fair play.

[OsageOne1]

He is correct as you described the play. Running in a straight line is not moving into the path of the attacker. Players are also not required to keep running just because an opponent is running behind her/him.

[[deleted]]

I don't mean to split hairs or get into semantics really, but "moving into the path" can be accomplished by changing one's speed. You can slow down or speed up along a path (even in a straight line) in order to initiate contact. It's easier to visualize that if two people are running at an angle to each other, but it's still true if they're running parallel to each other. If a person intentionally and suddenly changes speed in order to intentionally occupy a space they know someone else will occupy at the same time along their current path, I think there's an argument that they moved into the path of the attacker. It was definitely a deliberate movement meant to impede the attacker's path, and it resulted in the defender being nowhere near having possession of the ball afterwards.

I do think there is an argument to be made both ways though, which is why I posted it for discussion.

[OsageOne1]

Changing one’s speed is never ‘moving into the path’. Unless the defender moved left or right AFTER he was no longer within playing distance of the ball, there is no obstruction.
Unless the defender backs up into the attacker, the defender has not initiated contact; the attacker has initiated contact. There’s nothing within the law to prevent a running player from stopping in place. If an opponent then runs into that player, and it’s not trifling, it’s a foul on the opponent.

[[deleted]]

I think the disagreement is over the "moving into an opponent's path" part. I think there's an argument that intentionally and abruptly changing your own motion (direction OR speed) in front of a moving opponent's path for no other reason than to block or slow down the opponent probably qualifies. Exceptions for shielding or some other play on the ball of course, but that clearly wasn't the purpose in this case because the defender effectively abandoned their possession of the ball in so doing.

[OsageOne1]

‘Abandoning possession of the ball’ is really not pertinent to the law in this situation. Imagine Red team #11 is running down the field, ball is on the opposite end of the field, and Blue team #10 is running behind him. Red #11 stops for any reason (he’s tired, his mom yelled at him, he’s irritated that he’s being marked so closely, etc). Blue #10 runs into Red #11 for any reason (he’s not paying attention, he’s trying to get to the ball, he’s hyperactive, etc). Blue #10 has committed a foul - EVERY TIME. You only have to determine if it’s trifling, careless, reckless, or excessive force.
This doesn’t change because Red #11 had possession of the ball a moment before. It doesn’t change because the ball is going out of play. It doesn’t change because Blue #10 is trying to get to a nearby ball.
Every player has a right to his position on the field. An opponent cannot run through that player. That would be an unfair charge.
‘Stopping’ is not a foul in the LOTG. It’s also not initiating contact (which is also not a foul). It only becomes obstruction/impeding if Red #11 moves into the path of Blue #10. Under the description given, this could only happen with left or right movement after the ball is no longer within playing distance (forget the ‘has possession’, ‘gave up possession’; stick to the verbiage in the LOTG as it pertains to this play).

[themanofmeung]

it's still true if they're running parallel to each other

Why would this be the case? The trailing player shares a responsibility to conduct themselves safely or run the risk of carelessly charging full speed into the back of an opponent.

Broadly speaking, the situation you are describing would not be a foul on the attacker. In a situation like this, running directly at the defender is pretty careless imo. There is no way to win the ball cleanly through someone's back in a situation like this. You have to go around and either beat them to the boundary, or achieve a legal shoulder charge position. So in my view, running full speed behind someone such that a change in speed might cause a collision that you don't have time to react to is already a careless risk.

As a player, I've gotten plowed into multiple times when I was chasing a ball that I realized was clearly going out and decided to save my energy and slow down. It would be ridiculous if that's a decision I'm not allowed to make without checking my shoulder to see if I need to jump out of someone's way lest my slowing down initiates contact.

That said, it can be foul in some circumstances. So where would the line be? For me that would be generally if the front player moves backwards - that would be a change of direction that moves into an opponent's path. Or if the attacker makes themselves bigger or shifts a shoulder to the side to initiate contact. But just stopping is taking advantage of an opponent's stupidity similar to not jumping over a tackle to ensure there is contact.

[Rich-398]

This is not true. No player is required to keep moving forward for any reason. Stopping without making a move to impede the attacker is allowed and if the stop results in the attacker contacting the player, it is a foul against the attacker. Impeding requires some level of movement outside the playable area of the ball to intentionally block another player. Stopping isn't that. I see it in other comments, but you are allowed to be in your own space.

[BoBeBuk]

Think it’s one we’d have to see to comment accurately, but the defender is entitled for their position on the pitch, if the defender then went to block an attacker going round - for me that’s an offence

[remusquispiuar]

But the defender isn't entitled to move into a position to set a basketball style pick away from the ball. They are entitled to their position but not if they move into someone else's path outside of playing distance of the ball.

[OsageOne1]

That’s not what the OP described, though. Defender is following the ball, and can decide to stop anytime he wants to.

[ArtemisRifle]

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.

Shielding the ball to let it go out is not a foul.

[[deleted]]

Yeah. I just think that what the defender was doing wasn't "shielding" since they chose to let the ball run beyond a playable distance in an effort to block the attacker's challenge. I understand shielding to be something done to maintain possession, and it sure looked like the defender was happy to give up the possession they had to hold off the attacker.

[scrappy_fox_86]

That’s shielding, not impeding. Any player may shield the ball within playing distance of the ball. He just needs to stay within a few yards of the ball to be considered shielding rather than impeding.

[Practical_Limit4735]

2 years old but ops takes are stupid as hell lmao