for the refs

[Window Cleaner]

I was watching Liverpool-Utd earlier on and the ref gave Liverpool a free kick for obstruction,thought that would be indirect but Gerrard shot at goal anyway. Does then the indirect free kick still exist?

[skintsaint]

its was more of a body check than obstruction. Think of obstruction as someone shielding the ball rather than checking someones run.

 

I even think Obstruction inside the box is an indirect free kick? Might be wrong.

[Nexstar]

Yeah blocking the run is a free-kick, whereas obstruction of the ball I think is indirect.

 

I believe that a high-foot should also be indirect

[Dr Who?]

You can still shoot if it is indirect, and hope the keeper gets a hand to it, or hits a defender and goes into the net.

 

A block is obstruction, but I think this was a foul not just standing in the way but forcefully pushing or shoving. Did the ref have his hand up when the kick was taken.

 

You can still get an indirect free kick in the box, for back pass and obstruction. Also offside free kicks are indirect.

[Dr Who?]

Techencial free kicks are indirect.

 

Foul play is direct

[lettuce]

So when you see a defender "shielding" the ball out of play for a goal kick (which probably happens in almost every match at some point or another) he's technically committing obstruction if there's an attacking player trying to get to the ball? Don't think I've ever seen a free-kick given in that situation...

[Dr Who?]

So when you see a defender "shielding" the ball out of play for a goal kick (which probably happens in almost every match at some point or another) he's technically committing obstruction if there's an attacking player trying to get to the ball? Don't think I've ever seen a free-kick given in that situation...

 

Nope, seems to be an unwritten rule that it is ok to do this, and I do not know why, or how this came about! Anywhere else on he pitch, and a free kick all day, how did this ever come about?