Home Laws Advice Fitness SiteMap Links Set Pieces Discuss Search corshamref.org.uk   

The aim of this page is to identify and to deal with impedance.

1. What is impedance? 2. Questions:

Fig. 1: INDIRECT FREE KICK Attacker No. 9 passes the ball to a attacking colleague No. 8, and then moves forwards to collect a return pass at position 9A. Defender No. 2 moves to position X, blocks the path of the attacker No. 9 and impedes him. No physical contact is made. = Indirect Free-kick

Hover your mouse pointer over the two buttons above. Figure 2 diagram shows impedance (an indirect free kick offence) and the Figure 3 diagram is holding (a direct free kick offence).

1. What is impedance?                   Go to top of this page

Go to top of this page

(b). Illegal Impedance (no physical contact is made): (Law 12 Indirect Free Kick Offence "Impedes the progress of an opponent").

Any player who unfairly impedes the progress of an opponent by crossing directly in front of him or running between him and the ball, or intervening so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying his advance, must be punished with the award of an indirect free kick from the place where the offence occurred, in favour of the opposing team. In this manoeuvre, there is no physical contact between the opposing players. It is the illegal physical presence of the perpetrator that distracts or forces an opponent along another path that is termed unfair 'impedance'. It is when the ball is not within playing distance of a player and when he is not making any attempt to play the ball, that this offence may occur. But it is strongly emphasised that the offence must be deliberate.

If a player raises his arms to impede an opponent and steps from one side to side, moving his arms up and down to delay his opponent, forcing him to change course, but does not make "bodily contact", the referee may deem this to be unsporting behaviour and award an indirect free kick from the place where the offence occurred.

Example 1: Indirect free kick offence (no physical contact is made):

Two opposing players are running side by side, and player 'A' has possession of the ball in front of him. Player 'B' steps in front of opponent 'A' and causes player 'A' to change the path of his run, thus delaying his progress with the ball. Player 'B' makes no attempt to play (or gain possession of) the ball, and the ball is not within playing distance of player 'B'.

Fig. 1: INDIRECT FREE KICK (Example 2) Attacker No. 9 passes the ball to an attacking colleague No. 8, and then moves forwards to collect a return pass at position 9A. Before attacker No. 9 has reached his new position at 9A, defender No. 2 who ignores the ball, runs and places himself in the path of attacker No. 9. This causes attacker No. 9 to alter the trajectory of his run. He is therefore deliberately impeded by defender No. 2 at position X.  This is an impeding offence committed by the defender No. 2 and does not involve any physical contact between any of the players involved.  An indirect free kick should be awarded to the attacking team at position X.

By impeding the attacker's path to the ball, the defender No. 2 who is making no attempt to play the ball, prevents attacker No. 9 from making a reasonable attempt to regain possession of the ball at position 9A.

Fig. 2: INDIRECT FREE KICK (Example 3) In an attempt to gain possession of the ball, the attacking player No. 9 is about to run past the defender No. 2 towards the goalkeeper (G) the defender No. 2 who is facing the attacker, and has no intention of playing the ball, extends his arms outwards to block the path of the attacker No. 9 but does not physically touch the attacker.  The attacker has to change his direction because of the block. This is an impeding offence committed by the defender No. 2. and an indirect free kick should be awarded to the attacking team.

 

Impedance committed against a goalkeeper:

There have been several Law changes in the modern game, in an attempt to make the goalkeeper release the ball from his hands, and back into play as soon as possible. If an attacking player purposefully runs or walks in front of the goalkeeper in an attempt to prevent him from releasing the ball quickly, the Referee should stop play, and award an indirect free kick to the goalkeeper's team.

Attackers have learnt to weave about in front of a goalkeeper in such a subtle way as to make it seem as though the attacker is making a natural movement to reposition himself. Referees are advised to take firm action to 'stamp out' this unsporting behaviour.

If a goalkeeper who is being impeded by an attacking player manages to release the ball to the advantage of his team, the Referee should allow play to continue. When play next stops, the Referee should warn the attacking player about his conduct. A 'public warning' of this nature, also ensures that the message gets over to the rest of the players. The Referee can consider cautioning the offender for unsporting conduct, if the offender repeats the infringement.

Note: An indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team inside a defending team’s goal area is taken from that part of the goal area line that runs parallel to the goal line, at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred. In this case, the defenders must be at least back on the goal line, when the indirect free kick is taken. A goal cannot be scored direct from an indirect free kick. The ball needs to touch another player before a goal can be allowed.

---

 

(c). Physical Impedance (physical contact is made): (Law 12 Direct Free Kick Offence "Holds an opponent").

If a player unfairly impedes the progress of an opponent by using physical contact, whether by using his hand, his arm, his leg, or any other part of his body, he must be penalised by the award of a direct free kick to the opposing team (taken from the place where the offence occurred), or by a penalty kick, if the offence was committed by a player within his own penalty area. This constitutes holding an opponent and is, therefore, a penal offence.

Example 1. - direct free kick offence (physical contact is made):

Two opposing players are running side by side, and player 'A' has possession of the ball in front of him. Player 'B' stretches out an arm (or physically uses his body) to hold back player 'A' , thus preventing player 'A's' progress to the ball.

Fig. 3: PENALTY KICK (Example 2) An attacking player No. 9 runs towards the goalkeeper (G) in an attempt to gain possession of the ball. When the attacker No. 9 gets alongside the defender No. 2 , the defender who is facing the attacker, extends his arms and physically holds the on-coming attacker No. 9, who is just inside the penalty area and prevents him from advancing towards the goalkeeper. This is a foul equivalent to the Law 12 Direct Free kick offence "holding an opponent", and a penalty kick should be awarded (or a direct free kick if the incident occurs outside of the penalty area).

 

If a player uses physical contact to hold or block an opponent - this is a direct free kick (or penalty kick) offence and not an impeding indirect free kick offence. Example 3: If two contesting players are close together, and the defending player puts his arm out physically touching the chest of the attacker and directly holds back the attacker - THIS IS NOT AN INDIRECT FREE KICK IMPEDANCE OFFENCE - but the Direct Free Kick offence of holding. This is a more serious offence, and players who use any part of their body to physically touch and prevent an opponent from progressing, must be penalised by the award of a direct free kick (or penalty) to the team offended against.

The Referee should consider each type of impeding incident on its merits, and issue a yellow or red card if required. For example, if a defender impedes an attacker, and prevents that attacker from a clear goal scoring opportunity, the defender should be sent off the field of play. If the impedance is the culmination of a number of minor offences already committed by the same player, the Referee could caution this player for persistent infringement.

2. Questions:                       Go to top of this page

Question 1: Why do Referees ignore the blatant impeding (obstruction offence) when an attacker kicks the ball towards his opponent's goal line, and then attempts to regain possession of the ball. In the meantime, a defender intersperses himself between the attacker and the ball, with his back blocking the attacker from the ball, knowing full well, that if the ball is not touched, it will run out of play naturally for a goal kick. The defender is only focused on blocking the attacker from the ball, and has no intention of playing the ball himself (which is invariably never within his playing distance)?

Answer 46: By Law, blocking or screening a player from a route to the ball should only be allowed if the blocking player has the ball within playing distance of himself.

The 1996/1997 Law 12 stated that an indirect free kick should be awarded against a player committing the following offence:

" when not playing the ball, impeding the progress of an opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent".

The (1996/1997) Law 12 Decision Number 5 further explained that a player was allowed to shield the ball without touching it - so long as it is within playing distance of that shielding player.

The FIFA rewrite of the Laws in 1997/1998 simplified the wording of the Laws, which now only show:

" impedes the progress of an opponent".

This exactly describes the question incident above - so why is it still never penalised? By Law, Referees should always penalise this offence, but actual enforcement of it varies considerably from Referee to Referee. The real answer to the question, is that over the years, players have become very adept at disguising the fact that the ball is not within playing distance during these types of incidents. This has slowly lead to too many instances of this being ignored by Referees, and it has now become an unwritten demi-Law that is a semi-legal, semi-accepted part of the game. I believe that Referees should be given a mandate from FIFA to apply the Laws rigidly, and penalised this action by always awarding an indirect free kick. In the past, FIFA have mandated many stipulations for Laws that have slipped into disrepute - and this is another one that requires tightening up.
An individual Referee rigidly applying the Law cannot hope to influence the rest of the World!

By Law, Referees should always penalise this offence - but not if (in the opinion of the Referee) the defender remains within playing distance of the ball, and was therefore legally shielding a playable ball.

Impedance (obstruction) only occurs when the ball is too far away to be played by the shielding player.

Question 2: It is common for a single player to try and run down the clock by keeping possession of the ball by the corner flag, but what would happen if a team decided that the same thing could be achieved more effectively by a large group of their players (see diagram; RED players numbered 1 to 8) - they would all need to be playing the ball or as I understand they would be guilty of  impedance (obstruction),  but if everyone was touching the ball enough of the time I can see nothing to stop teams doing this - possibly for extended periods which would make the game a bit boring!! Obviously it would need a free kick corner or throw in to really get it set-up. How does the BLUE player get near the ball without fouling and the processes being repeated? What can the Referee do about this situation?

The BLUE number 11 is the opponent who is trying to gain access to the ball that is being shielded by the RED team players numbered 1 to 8. The RED team players are stretching their legs for the ball - to show they are in the process of playing the ball (similar to the situation when a single defender is playing the ball and they let it run out of play for a goal kick, whilst shielding the ball from an oncoming attacker).

Answer 2: Impedance occurs when a player intentionally obstructs an opponent by forming a block between the opponent and the ball. Impedance is punished when a blocking player has no intention of playing the ball, or the ball is not within playing distance of a blocking player. An impeding player (or players) achieves this by placing himself between an opponent and the ball, or by using any part of his body to purposely obstruct an opponent - with the aim of denying the opponent access to the ball in playing situations.

In the situation above, it would be impossible for all of the eight red players to be playing or having possession of the ball at the same time. Therefore, those players "who in the opinion of the Referee" have no intention of playing the ball are actually impeding the blue player. It only needs one of the Red team players to be guilty of impeding the Blue player for this situation to be deemed illegal, and punishable by an indirect free kick awarded against the Red team

In addition to this, albeit that this situation will probably never happen, the Referee could alternatively stop play in accordance with Law 12, and caution a Red player (or players) for unsporting behaviour. Players taking this action are circumventing the letter (and the spirit) of the Laws.
Law 12 states "An indirect free kick can be awarded, if in the opinion of the Referee, a player (or players) commit an offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12 (Fouls & Misconduct), for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player."

Many thanks to Bruce Wilson for this interesting question. .....(Webmaster)

Question 3: The ball is running towards a goalkeeper in the penalty area, and is being shielded all the way back, by a defending player who manages to keep the ball within playing distance. The attacking player, who is being shielded from the ball, tries to go around the defender. To counteract this, the defending player leans his body towards the attacking player to make it difficult for the ball to be approached. The ball eventuality rolls on to the goalkeeper who gains possession. Can this leaning be classed as impeding by holding?

Answer 3: In football, a reasonable amount of bodily contact is allowed. Therefore, players are allowed to physically interpose their bodies between an opponent and the ball, so long as they keep the ball within playing distance. The Referee will have to decide whether the leaning is part of the acceptable physical contact allowed in a game of football, or whether the leaning is a cunningly disguised act of holding. In most cases, opponents leaning on each other in these types of situations is acceptable, and play would normally be allowed to continue, so long as the defending player manages to keep the ball within playing distance. It can be difficult in these types of incidents, to decide which player is leaning on whom; it's up to the Referee to decide who to penalise if he thinks that the contact goes beyond what is normally accepted!

Impedance requires no contact; therefore, impedance rarely happens in these closely contested situations, as the players are usually too close to each other for impedance to easily occur. An offence is far more likely to be a penal (direct free kick) offence such as holding or pulling etc.

In nearly every case, there will be nothing for the Referee to do, except monitor the action closely, and offer proactive vocal advice such as, "Steady lads". In fact, I can't even remember the last time that I saw a foul committed or penalised in such circumstances. This is because players (both attackers and defenders) know that this is an accepted part of the game and are quite happy to have it so. In such circumstances, a Referee should not look to conjure up an offence that the players' themselves do not want. 

If a Referee is having difficulty in judging these incidents, the advice is simple. It's usually 100% obvious when a real infringement occurs. Don't focus on trying to make irrelevant contact more than what it is, but work hard to get nearby, and trust in your instinct and the players' reactions before you make any decisions.

If the Referee decides that the defending player is blatantly holding back, or pushing back the attacker, then a penalty kick could be awarded if the ball was not within playing distance of the defender.

Question 4: The ball is running out for a goal kick, towards the goal line. A defending player has the ball within playing distance and is shielding it from a nearby attacking player who is close behind. The defending player then slows down to allow the ball to run out of play. During the slowing down by the defending player, the ball is running away from him, so it cannot therefore be within playing distance? Is this then classed as ‘Impeding’?

Answer 4: It’s up to the individual Referee to decide when a player is within playing distance of the ball or not. The scenario above would be a difficult (if not an impossible call to make) in a game situation. There is no specific measurement that says when the ball is out of a player’ reach. But as a rule of thumb, an easy way to identify this, is to judge whether or not the ball remains within two paces of the shielding player. This distance will vary between minor youth players and senior players.

Provided that the ball is within playing distance, the player may legally interpose his body between opponent and the ball. If the Referee decided that at any time, the ball is NOT within playing distance of the shielding defending player, then play could be stopped and an indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team.

Question 6: A player has control of ball and is screening off an opponent. However, the player with the ball is holding his arms straight out to the side, almost to shoulder height. No contact is made between the player with ball and the opponent. Clearly, if player has elbows out about 20-30 degrees this could be considered normal playing position and no violation (within playing distance of ball).
If within playing distance to ball and arms out like airplane wings but no contact made is this a violation? What if the opponent moves closer and initiates contact with the player's outstretched arms - is the player now guilty of holding? Or is it an impedance offence?

Answer 6: The wording in Law 12 is very short, and no longer has any explanation of what impedance actually is:

 "An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee, impedes the progress of an opponent."

The Law book chapter, "Additional Instructions of Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials" states:

Screening the ball
It is not an offence if a player with the ball under control within playing distance, screens; the ball from an opponent without using his arms.
If however he prevents an opponent challenging for the ball by illegal use of the hand, arm, legs or body he must be penalised by a direct free kick, or a penalty if the offence was committed inside the penalty area.

One can also go back to the Law book of 1996-1997 to get some idea of the spirit of the impedance ruling.

"If a player positions his arms to impede an opponent and steps from one side to the other, moving his arms up and down to delay his opponent forcing him to change course, but does not make 'bodily contact', the referee shall caution the player for ungentlemanly conduct and award an indirect free kick."

It also stated "if a player is in possession of the ball and covers it for tactical reasons whilst the ball is without playing distance, he is actually playing the ball, and does not commit an infringement."

It is not an illegal stance when a player holds out his arms sideways whilst remaining within playing distance of the ball. An infringement only occurs when something has an unfair effect on the play. 

For example, if the opponent tries to get past the outstretched arms and the arms stiffen to hold or move to push the opponent, a penal offence of holding is committed (the restart here would be a direct free kick, or a penalty kick if committed on an attacking player, by a defending player in his own penalty area.)

As long as the player with the outstretched arms remains in playing distance of the ball, an impedance offence cannot be called. Impedance has to do with a blockage of an opponent's intended path when no physical contact is made. Impedance is not based on the position of the arms.

Most opponents faced with this situation will make a play for the ball by closing in, and making contact with the player's outstretched arm(s). If the player continues to hold his arms in an outstretched position, and physical contact is established, the onus is on the player to drop his arms into a natural position, else he will be considered to be illegally using his arms to hold the opponent back, when the opponent makes a fair play for the ball. 

Question 7: A player takes a free kick and then uses his body to shield the ball from an opponent without anyone else touching it. Is this player committing any offence?

Answer 7: As far as the written Laws are concerned, there is no exception that excludes a free kick taker.

"It is not an offence if a player, with the ball under control within playing distance, screens the ball from an opponent without using his arms." Law Book Chapter entitled 'Additional Instructions for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials.

But……………………… 

When a player takes a free kick, the kicker does not touch the ball a second time until it has touched another player (Law 13).

So, no matter how close the kicker is to the ball, it is never within playing distance of him, and he cannot be said to have the ball under control. In other words, he cannot play it, or control it, until another player has touched it. 

Therefore, if he purposefully uses his body as a shield to block off an opponent, he is guilty of impeding the progress of an opponent (Law 12). It makes no odds how close the kicker is to the ball, as he cannot legally play it, and he can he have it under his control.

Question 8: An issue that always annoys me and many of my older acquaintances is the habit if protecting the ball on its way to the goal line, particularly in premiership matches. When we learned to play football the ball had to be within 1 yard or playing distance or you were guilty of obstruction.
Currently the defending player has no intention of playing the ball, nor is he close enough to play the ball and is preventing access by arms and legs outstretched. (a practice that would definitely incur an indirect
free kick in the field of play) yet because it is going behind all rules are forgotten. WHY?

Answer 8: This is one of those things that has over the years been accepted by the players as being acceptable, so we as referees have to go along with it, as it's their game and not ours. If you were to try and penalise players every time for this, they would soon let you know about it! Nevertheless, when the
ball really is a long way away from the player, then it's easy to justify a decision to penalise him for impedance. But I don't recommend that you start a one man crusade!
Playing distance is roughly about a pace to a pace and a half away, but this obviously differs depending on the size of the player. Over here in England, we don't have an issue about this, and in most cases, the ball is retained roughly not much more than a pace and a half away. The speed that the ball and the players travel would make it very difficult to make a slide-rule judgement each time, so we give players the benefit of doubt.

This is the end of the Law 12 Impedance page.

Go to top of this page