Obstruction was not looked at before the umpires moved onto comment about third party obstruction. Physical contact offences combined with obstruction were. Any defending player can be obstructed when within playing reach of the ball and prevented by the body movement of the ball-holder to position the body between the defender and the ball in a way that prevents the defender attempting a legitimate tackle, when they would otherwise have been able to do so. Physical contact is NOT a necessary element of an obstruction offence i.e it is not a necessary element of the offence of backing into (it is necessary to think of backing into as backing into paying reach, not into physical contact - in the same way as one might back a car into a parking bay or a garage without continuing until the car hit a wall). The Rule lists separately the action of moving bodily into an opponent, this clause IS about physical contact combined with obstruction. The penultimate clauses (the last to be amended, in 2009) makes the distinction better than the preceding clauses. A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it. The critical words are "a position - within playing distance - between the ball and an opponent" no mention of physical contact which is a separate and additional offence. th-cam.com/video/o4Y6hO50dKY/w-d-xo.html
We have in the Rule Explanation both backing in and moving into physical contact which, if interpreted as being the same is a repetition of instruction. We also have a player may move off in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between an opponent who is attempting to play at the ball and the ball, the same two separate instruction, with different wording, repeated in a clause which was added in 2009 (the last amendment made to the Rule). As a player who is within playing distance of the ball may be obstructed by an player in possession who is shielding the ball to prevent a tackle attempt I assert that "backing in" does not necessarily mean backing into physical contact, but it must mean backing with the ball shielded and bringing the ball into the playing reach of an opponent who is demonstrating an attempt to play at it, thereby obstructing that opponent because a tackle is prevented by body shielding. The moving to position between clause repeats and reinforces that assertion, just as the moving bodily into part of it repeats and reinforces the prohibition on physical contact. Allowing a ball holder to back into a position between a defender and the ball without penalty when the defender is demonstrating an intent to play at the ball and is within the playing reach of the ball fails to apply the Obstruction Rule. It is not necessary to wait until physical contact is made by the player who is backing in. On the matter of 'third party' shown in the video. It needs pointing out that a player who is not her own goal-side of the ball cannot be obstructed. Certainly a player who has been by-passed by an opponent in possession of the ball cannot run into the back of that opponent (by running faster) and claim to be obstructed , even if the player in possession slows to a walk. Therefore the example of 'third party' used in the video, which does not look at all like a typical 'third party' anyway, cannot be valid. There is a planned 'third party' by the ARG team in this video. th-cam.com/video/amCy4eXQjpg/w-d-xo.html
Great video an explanation, thanks. I don't think the example of 3rd party obstruction at 3:58 - 4.10 is clearcut though. The blue defender is coming from behind the red "offender" - who is following the ball and in playing distance. The blue defender is never in a position to "legitimately play or attempt to play" the ball as she is coming from behind. The red "offender" does not appear to intentionally block the blue player coming from behind her - she merely slows down to avoid running in to her teammate who takes over possession of the ball. That transition does make it a close call, but I wouldn't blow it.
My daughter gave up ice hockey for this sport. This sport is worse than soccer. The whistle blows every few seconds, always an obstruction or something else. Not being able to use your body makes it very weak.
Very nice! I'm just starting my officiating journey and these are very helpful. thanks.
Thank you so much for making these videos!
Obstruction was not looked at before the umpires moved onto comment about third party obstruction. Physical contact offences combined with obstruction were.
Any defending player can be obstructed when within playing reach of the ball and prevented by the body movement of the ball-holder to position the body between the defender and the ball in a way that prevents the defender attempting a legitimate tackle, when they would otherwise have been able to do so. Physical contact is NOT a necessary element of an obstruction offence i.e it is not a necessary element of the offence of backing into (it is necessary to think of backing into as backing into paying reach, not into physical contact - in the same way as one might back a car into a parking bay or a garage without continuing until the car hit a wall).
The Rule lists separately the action of moving bodily into an opponent, this clause IS about physical contact combined with obstruction. The penultimate clauses (the last to be amended, in 2009) makes the distinction better than the preceding clauses.
A player with the ball is permitted to move off with
it in any direction except bodily into an opponent
or into a position between the ball and an
opponent who is within playing distance of the
ball and attempting to play it.
The critical words are "a position - within playing distance - between the ball and an opponent" no mention of physical contact which is a separate and additional offence.
th-cam.com/video/o4Y6hO50dKY/w-d-xo.html
We have in the Rule Explanation both backing in and moving into physical contact which, if interpreted as being the same is a repetition of instruction. We also have a player may move off in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between an opponent who is attempting to play at the ball and the ball, the same two separate instruction, with different wording, repeated in a clause which was added in 2009 (the last amendment made to the Rule).
As a player who is within playing distance of the ball may be obstructed by an player in possession who is shielding the ball to prevent a tackle attempt I assert that "backing in" does not necessarily mean backing into physical contact, but it must mean backing with the ball shielded and bringing the ball into the playing reach of an opponent who is demonstrating an attempt to play at it, thereby obstructing that opponent because a tackle is prevented by body shielding.
The moving to position between clause repeats and reinforces that assertion, just as the moving bodily into part of it repeats and reinforces the prohibition on physical contact.
Allowing a ball holder to back into a position between a defender and the ball without penalty when the defender is demonstrating an intent to play at the ball and is within the playing reach of the ball fails to apply the Obstruction Rule. It is not necessary to wait until physical contact is made by the player who is backing in.
On the matter of 'third party' shown in the video. It needs pointing out that a player who is not her own goal-side of the ball cannot be obstructed. Certainly a player who has been by-passed by an opponent in possession of the ball cannot run into the back of that opponent (by running faster) and claim to be obstructed , even if the player in possession slows to a walk. Therefore the example of 'third party' used in the video, which does not look at all like a typical 'third party' anyway, cannot be valid.
There is a planned 'third party' by the ARG team in this video.
th-cam.com/video/amCy4eXQjpg/w-d-xo.html
Nice work ladies. Practical demo are nicely presented. Thanks
Nice videos. I've been following you. Can you do one on drag flick interpretation? E.g. if the ball hits the post man.
Great video an explanation, thanks. I don't think the example of 3rd party obstruction at 3:58 - 4.10 is clearcut though. The blue defender is coming from behind the red "offender" - who is following the ball and in playing distance. The blue defender is never in a position to "legitimately play or attempt to play" the ball as she is coming from behind. The red "offender" does not appear to intentionally block the blue player coming from behind her - she merely slows down to avoid running in to her teammate who takes over possession of the ball. That transition does make it a close call, but I wouldn't blow it.
Thank you, very clear!
Thank u so much
My daughter gave up ice hockey for this sport. This sport is worse than soccer. The whistle blows every few seconds, always an obstruction or something else. Not being able to use your body makes it very weak.
hate to break it to you but that seems like a very low level of play. Obstruction is very common in high school levels on turf/grass