|
Post by mssoccer on Jan 2, 2011 22:10:07 GMT -6
Had a discussion on this on another site...
How many of you think more needs to be done with that? Had a guy mad his daughter's team was called for it (I really don't think I've ever seen it called, maybe my memory is bad.), and it resulted in an indirect kick, which the other team scored off of.
I didn't say anything, but I really don't think it's a bad call in the right situation. Anyone that has played has taken advantage of that trick, because it is rarely called... and it can be used pretty effectively in pretty crucial moments/plays.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 9, 2011 15:41:34 GMT -6
Good referees call it. They also do an excellent job with the advantage call. The best to me are the ones that will do both of those and card the guy after advantage has played out if deemed needed. Just my thoughts. Coach Inman.
|
|
|
Post by mssoccer on Jan 9, 2011 20:22:36 GMT -6
I agree- I actually think a card's needed in a lot of situations to stop it, but didn't want to seem overly stringent. Thanks. I'll recognize a good ref.... but really am not sure I've ever seen someone actually throw a card or stop play for it.
|
|
|
Post by furriner on Jan 10, 2011 12:35:22 GMT -6
i get dinged for calling it too often.....
but then again, I am not a very good ref
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 10, 2011 13:48:04 GMT -6
i get dinged for calling it too often..... but then again, I am not a very good ref Haha bud, my mistake. What I should have put was the referees that I generally consider to be the stronger ones are the ones that actually call obstruction. I rarely see it called except by that group.
|
|
|
Post by cardsinhand on Jan 10, 2011 16:24:23 GMT -6
About the only time I call it is when they "impede" an opponent so a teammate can play the ball (pic play). I do not think that is the same as "shielding" it out of bounds, which sometimes gets called.
|
|
|
Post by mssoccer on Jan 10, 2011 16:59:36 GMT -6
There's a difference in "shielding" and "obstruction", as you know. Must be a regional thing, I don't know- glad someone else realizes how important it can be.
If you've played before, you know how easy it can be used to break up something big. I'll admit, I did it some- it's a crap play, but if the refs don't call it.... Had I been called for it, I woudn't have blamed them a bit.
Glad you recognize the "pick", and probably the most important is the one done to mess up the timing of a run- especially one to goal. That one needs a yellow.
|
|
mfg17
Bench Warmer
Posts: 34
|
Post by mfg17 on Jan 13, 2011 12:37:22 GMT -6
Had a ladies game Saturday where I called an obstruction. Ball was heading for goalie who was slow to come out. Defender was "playing the ball" but when she saw the goalie would be late to the ball, veered off sharply to the left to cut off an attacking player. By cutting to the left away from the ball, she clearly was not playing the ball which resulted in the obstruction call. First time I ever saw and called a clear obstruction.
|
|
|
Post by oldhattrick3 on Jan 19, 2011 7:17:07 GMT -6
Had a ladies game Saturday where I called an obstruction. Ball was heading for goalie who was slow to come out. Defender was "playing the ball" but when she saw the goalie would be late to the ball, veered off sharply to the left to cut off an attacking player. By cutting to the left away from the ball, she clearly was not playing the ball which resulted in the obstruction call. First time I ever saw and called a clear obstruction. OK, now before anyone gets in an uproar, this is intended in pure fun...........putting on my lawyer hat:you state: "Ball was heading for goalie who was slow to come out." - so you apparently feel that either this goalie girl is some type of snail like creature or that she lacks effort in her game apparently, either way your impression of her was that of someone who was slightly un-engaged. ;D Then you state: "Defender was "playing the ball" but when she saw the goalie would be late to the ball" - so now you claim to be able to see what the other players on the field can see - you saw, that she saw the goalie would be late, hmmmm - What am I seeing now Mr/Mrs. Ref? You go on to say: ".....veered off sharply to the left to cut off an attacking player." - so Mr/Mrs. Ref, what is your definition of "veered"? I mean, did she take 32.6756789deg turn to the left. How do you know when she so called "veered" that she saw the defender.......ahhh that's right, you saw what she saw and how her mind processed it. Could this "veering" you so called pointed out been her getting out of the way of her goalie rather than trying to so call "cut off" an attacking player? did those multiple vision eyes of yours see whether maybe there was a substandard section of field in front of her and she so called "veered" to prevent herself from hitting it and twisting an ankle? did you Mr/Mrs. ref, did you??? and now to the crux of your assumption Mr/Mrs. Ref: "By cutting to the left away from the ball, she clearly was not playing the ball which resulted in the obstruction call" - your honor, let the record show that this is clear speculation and that there is no way that Mr/Mrs. Ref could have "clearly" known the intention of my defender, unless prior to the game he completely possessed my clients brain and knew her every thought and desire in this game. OK, Mr/Mrs. Ref did you? did you take over possession of my client's brain to find out "clearly" what her intentions were? Cause if you did, and I'm not saying you definitely did, then I direct the court to understand that your possession of her brain, means that YOU actually committed the obstruction and my client is simply a pawn in your little sick games Mr/Mrs. Ref Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I point out Mr/Mrs. Ref's final words on this issue "First time I ever saw and called a clear obstruction" Is this not the words of a ref who just wanted to see and state that they had their first? Isn't this just his/her own self centered plot to brag about actually calling his/her FIRST ? I think so, I mean, lets put this all together here. In order for my client to be guilty of this, it would mean #1 - That Mr/Mrs. Ref fully knows the capabilities of said "goalie", #2 - That Mr/Mrs. Ref has the capability to see through other people's eyes, and #3 - that Mr/Mrs. Ref has not only the capability to see through my client's eyes, but also possesses her brain and knows what she is thinking. To me, it is very obvious how you must rule in this matter for my client - if numbers 1, 2, and 3 don't fit, you must acquit !
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Jan 19, 2011 19:44:57 GMT -6
Had a ladies game Saturday where I called an obstruction. Ball was heading for goalie who was slow to come out. Defender was "playing the ball" but when she saw the goalie would be late to the ball, veered off sharply to the left to cut off an attacking player. By cutting to the left away from the ball, she clearly was not playing the ball which resulted in the obstruction call. First time I ever saw and called a clear obstruction. OK, now before anyone gets in an uproar, this is intended in pure fun...........putting on my lawyer hat:you state: "Ball was heading for goalie who was slow to come out." - so you apparently feel that either this goalie girl is some type of snail like creature or that she lacks effort in her game apparently, either way your impression of her was that of someone who was slightly un-engaged. ;D Then you state: "Defender was "playing the ball" but when she saw the goalie would be late to the ball" - so now you claim to be able to see what the other players on the field can see - you saw, that she saw the goalie would be late, hmmmm - What am I seeing now Mr/Mrs. Ref? You go on to say: ".....veered off sharply to the left to cut off an attacking player." - so Mr/Mrs. Ref, what is your definition of "veered"? I mean, did she take 32.6756789deg turn to the left. How do you know when she so called "veered" that she saw the defender.......ahhh that's right, you saw what she saw and how her mind processed it. Could this "veering" you so called pointed out been her getting out of the way of her goalie rather than trying to so call "cut off" an attacking player? did those multiple vision eyes of yours see whether maybe there was a substandard section of field in front of her and she so called "veered" to prevent herself from hitting it and twisting an ankle? did you Mr/Mrs. ref, did you??? and now to the crux of your assumption Mr/Mrs. Ref: "By cutting to the left away from the ball, she clearly was not playing the ball which resulted in the obstruction call" - your honor, let the record show that this is clear speculation and that there is no way that Mr/Mrs. Ref could have "clearly" known the intention of my defender, unless prior to the game he completely possessed my clients brain and knew her every thought and desire in this game. OK, Mr/Mrs. Ref did you? did you take over possession of my client's brain to find out "clearly" what her intentions were? Cause if you did, and I'm not saying you definitely did, then I direct the court to understand that your possession of her brain, means that YOU actually committed the obstruction and my client is simply a pawn in your little sick games Mr/Mrs. Ref Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I point out Mr/Mrs. Ref's final words on this issue "First time I ever saw and called a clear obstruction" Is this not the words of a ref who just wanted to see and state that they had their first? Isn't this just his/her own self centered plot to brag about actually calling his/her FIRST ? I think so, I mean, lets put this all together here. In order for my client to be guilty of this, it would mean #1 - That Mr/Mrs. Ref fully knows the capabilities of said "goalie", #2 - That Mr/Mrs. Ref has the capability to see through other people's eyes, and #3 - that Mr/Mrs. Ref has not only the capability to see through my client's eyes, but also possesses her brain and knows what she is thinking. To me, it is very obvious how you must rule in this matter for my client - if numbers 1, 2, and 3 don't fit, you must acquit ! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I would like to point out that under FIFA LOTG all fouls are decided with the caveat "In the opinion of the referee". As a side note NFHS rule book states that decision by officials on points of fact are final. Judge I would ask that opposing counsel be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous case before this court and also be held in contempt of court
|
|
|
Post by oldhattrick3 on Jan 20, 2011 11:13:59 GMT -6
Dern, tonygalinto, getting me sent back to jail AGAIN. Please please don't
|
|
|
Post by mssoccer on Jan 31, 2011 20:15:01 GMT -6
Had a ladies game Saturday where I called an obstruction. Ball was heading for goalie who was slow to come out. Defender was "playing the ball" but when she saw the goalie would be late to the ball, veered off sharply to the left to cut off an attacking player. By cutting to the left away from the ball, she clearly was not playing the ball which resulted in the obstruction call. First time I ever saw and called a clear obstruction. That is AWESOME to hear, and exactly right. Happens ALL the time. Not just on goals, but it is the most obvious. Look for it when a team is trying to sit on a lead at the end of the game, too- all over the field.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 1, 2011 5:35:02 GMT -6
I continue to scour the laws of the game do this illusive obstruction foul, but it is nowhere to be found. Could you possibly be referring to a player impeding the progress of another?
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Feb 1, 2011 10:55:53 GMT -6
yup
|
|
|
Post by mssoccer on Feb 1, 2011 19:51:18 GMT -6
Sure- whatever you wish to call it, I'd just rather call it a one-word foul. Whatever the proper name, it's still a foul.
|
|