A&H

Impeding opponent - was I right or wrong?

MI-Ref

New Member
In a game I was officiating last night the attacking team had a "2 on 1" (2 attackers vs 1 defender) deep in the defending teams area. The defender chose to defend the attacker without the ball (player B) and leave the attacker with the ball (player A) for the goalkeeper. As the attacker with the ball crossed into the penalty area, the goalkeeper came out toward her (player A). She decided it was best to pass to her teammate (player B) instead. As she sent her pass towards her teammate (Player B), the defender impeded the movement of player B and she was unable to get to the ball.

I called an indirect free kick from the spot where the impeding offense occurred.

The coach of the attacking team was upset that I awarded an indirect and said it should have been a direct free kick (PK since it was in the penalty area). I told him I called it indirect because the player who was impeded was nowhere near the ball. His argument was that because the defender impeded with physical contact it didn't matter that she wasn't near the ball and should have been a direct free kick (PK).

Of course they missed the indirect free kick so he was even more upset about it.

Would like to know if I got that one right or wrong so I know in the future.
 
The Referee Store
In a game I was officiating last night the attacking team had a "2 on 1" (2 attackers vs 1 defender) deep in the defending teams area. The defender chose to defend the attacker without the ball (player B) and leave the attacker with the ball (player A) for the goalkeeper. As the attacker with the ball crossed into the penalty area, the goalkeeper came out toward her (player A). She decided it was best to pass to her teammate (player B) instead. As she sent her pass towards her teammate (Player B), the defender impeded the movement of player B and she was unable to get to the ball.

I called an indirect free kick from the spot where the impeding offense occurred.

The coach of the attacking team was upset that I awarded an indirect and said it should have been a direct free kick (PK since it was in the penalty area). I told him I called it indirect because the player who was impeded was nowhere near the ball. His argument was that because the defender impeded with physical contact it didn't matter that she wasn't near the ball and should have been a direct free kick (PK).

Of course they missed the indirect free kick so he was even more upset about it.

Would like to know if I got that one right or wrong so I know in the future.
You are missing the important determining factor. Was there contact?

If no contact, idfk. If contact PK.
 
Well, if it was impeding with contact, that is by definition a DFK offense. Being nowhere near the ball has no effect on whether it was direct or indirect.

As to whether it was actually an impeding offense, not enough here to tell.
 
You are missing the important determining factor. Was there contact?

If no contact, idfk. If contact PK.
There was some contact. Defender had her arm out to prevent the opponent from moving freely. My interpretation was the fact the player was not within playing distance of the ball was more significant than the contact. Is that wrong on part?
 
Well, if it was impeding with contact, that is by definition a DFK offense. Being nowhere near the ball has no effect on whether it was direct or indirect.

As to whether it was actually an impeding offense, not enough here to tell.
Thank you! I believe I was in the wrong. Good to know for next time.
 
There was some contact. Defender had her arm out to prevent the opponent from moving freely. My interpretation was the fact the player was not within playing distance of the ball was more significant than the contact. Is that wrong on part?
Yes. If an offence involves contact a DFK (or PK) is awarded. Ball in playing distance or not.
 
If ball is in playing distance it can not be an impeding offence. It can be other offences though. (That's where 'ball in playing distance' comes into this)

Having an arm out doesn't necessarily mean an impeding offence. It's one of those you have to see to call
 
Back
Top