Ushering the ball out of play.

Anyone else think that this is getting absolutely ludicrous?

My understanding of the rules were that if you made no attempt to actually play the ball, instead using your body to impede the progress of an opponent that this was deemed 'obstruction', and therefore a foul. It's one thing to decide at the last moment that to let a ball run rather than play it would benefit the team, but to body check an opponent 20 yards out and run behind a ball that's almost lost momentum by the time it reaches the byline is a £#%&!ing joke, yet it happens all the time now, in every game.

It's the sort of thing that if it happened on the halfway line would be a foul every time. I wouldn't mind if the forward was allowed a legitimate attempt to get the ball, but then it's a tackle from behind and a foul against the player trying to get the ball. Nonsense.

It's not the sort of thing that will ruin a game in the same way that diving does, but every time I see it, it winds me up because it further clouds the issue of what constitutes a foul and what doesn't.

Yeah, Yeah Yeah.....

Usher and Ludacris in the same post!!!

srsly?

Think you're taking it all a bit seriously fella.

Its kept me awake for weeks, but i just didnt have the Balls to post a thread about it.........

Thank you utd99.

Subscribed.

I'm gonna be honest, it's all I think about.

Originally Posted by forwardirektion

Think you're taking it all a bit seriously fella.

Maybe.

I thought that pointless ponderings were the backbone of a good forum though.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Its kept me awake for weeks, but i just didnt have the Balls to post a thread about it.........

Thank you utd99.

Subscribed.

Come on you @#%&!s, is it a foul or not??

Sod it - I agree.

It's not as bad as when someone brushes someone in midfield and a foul is given yet at a corner, it's bloody 2 falls and a submission for some people and the ref just puts it down to bantz.

I remember Michael Ballack on Ronaldo a couple of seasons back at a corner more or less suplexing him and virtually cleaning his clock for him as soon as he came on the pitch. As it was at a corner, the ref just continued pulling his plonker.

Inconsistency - it drives me flipping mad and I've never thought about the ushering out thing but goddam it, you're right.

Originally Posted by utd99

Come on you @#%&!s, is it a foul or not??

]

Originally Posted by utd99

Come on you @#%&!s, is it a foul or not??

Dunno, I'm more concerned to whatever happened to the lesser spotted indirect free kick. Seriously, they're a very endangered species.

Originally Posted by Jez Quigley

Sod it - I agree.

It's not as bad as when someone brushes someone in midfield and a foul is given yet at a corner, it's bloody 2 falls and a submission for some people and the ref just puts it down to bantz.

I remember Michael Ballack on Ronaldo a couple of seasons back at a corner more or less suplexing him and virtually cleaning his clock for him as soon as he came on the pitch. As it was at a corner, the ref just continued pulling his plonker.

Inconsistency - it drives me flipping mad and I've never thought about the ushering out thing but goddam it, you're right.

You've got too much time on your hands mate.

Maybe a hobby?



Just trying to get out of the firing line.

as long as the ball's within playing distance you can use your body to shield it iirc

Originally Posted by borsuk

as long as the ball's within playing distance you can use your body to shield it iirc

Seriously though, Fifa calls for an indirect free kick if you use your body to impede the progress of an opponent.

Originally Posted by utd99

Seriously though, Fifa calls for an indirect free kick if you use your body to impede the progress of an opponent.

Are you in control of the ball if you haven't touched it?

Originally Posted by utd99

Anyone else think that this is getting absolutely ludicrous?

My understanding of the rules were that if you made no attempt to actually play the ball, instead using your body to impede the progress of an opponent that this was deemed 'obstruction', and therefore a foul. It's one thing to decide at the last moment that to let a ball run rather than play it would benefit the team, but to body check an opponent 20 yards out and run behind a ball that's almost lost momentum by the time it reaches the byline is a £#%&!ing joke, yet it happens all the time now, in every game.

It's the sort of thing that if it happened on the halfway line would be a foul every time. I wouldn't mind if the forward was allowed a legitimate attempt to get the ball, but then it's a tackle from behind and a foul against the player trying to get the ball. Nonsense.

It's not the sort of thing that will ruin a game in the same way that diving does, but every time I see it, it winds me up because it further clouds the issue of what constitutes a foul and what doesn't.

Agreed. Pisses me right off.

Originally Posted by utd99

Anyone else think that this is getting absolutely ludicrous?

My understanding of the rules were that if you made no attempt to actually play the ball, instead using your body to impede the progress of an opponent that this was deemed 'obstruction', and therefore a foul. It's one thing to decide at the last moment that to let a ball run rather than play it would benefit the team, but to body check an opponent 20 yards out and run behind a ball that's almost lost momentum by the time it reaches the byline is a £#%&!ing joke, yet it happens all the time now, in every game.

It's the sort of thing that if it happened on the halfway line would be a foul every time. I wouldn't mind if the forward was allowed a legitimate attempt to get the ball, but then it's a tackle from behind and a foul against the player trying to get the ball. Nonsense.

It's not the sort of thing that will ruin a game in the same way that diving does, but every time I see it, it winds me up because it further clouds the issue of what constitutes a foul and what doesn't.

I will sign your petition.

Originally Posted by Jez Quigley

Yeah, Yeah Yeah.....

Usher and Ludacris in the same post!!!

:shakehead:

Originally Posted by Jez Quigley

Sod it - I agree.

It's not as bad as when someone brushes someone in midfield and a foul is given yet at a corner, it's bloody 2 falls and a submission for some people and the ref just puts it down to bantz.

I remember Michael Ballack on Ronaldo a couple of seasons back at a corner more or less suplexing him and virtually cleaning his clock for him as soon as he came on the pitch. As it was at a corner, the ref just continued pulling his plonker.

Inconsistency - it drives me flipping mad and I've never thought about the ushering out thing but goddam it, you're right.

I will also sign your petition.

Originally Posted by borsuk

as long as the ball's within playing distance you can use your body to shield it iirc

this should only be the case if you first establish possession by contact rather than proximity.


lampard should have been booked for diving.

Originally Posted by forwardirektion

Are you in control of the ball if you haven't touched it?

I don't know, but you don't have to be in control of the ball to be fouled. Their word is 'progress'.

Either way, it's just another example of giving an inch and taking a yard. No way should you be able to body check someone 20 yards from the byline and not even look at the ball while you are doing it.

The quick free-kick is also in danger of being wiped out of the game.
Opposition players not retreating ten yards quickly enough means all current quick free kicks are played sideways or backwards and I can't recall the last time a player was booked for not retreating quickly enough.
Bah.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Its kept me awake for weeks, but i just didnt have the Balls to post a thread about it.........

Thank you utd99.

Subscribed.