Fairs fair, nice to get some sort of insight into the Rulebook which seems full of conjecture and misinterpretation also
Obviously impeding means to prevent the movement of a person but you are suggesting that as soon as contact is made then it becomes a foul despite the fact it would be in many peoples eyes obstruction/impeding of movement
Gotta say, no wonder the SFA referees are hopeless
so many rules open to interpretation depending on how they were taught.What I will ask then...why is obstruction/impeding movement not given when player needs to run around an opponent with no contact as they are 'in the way' is a foul never given then? It certainly seems quite bizarre to myself that's all.
I think the problem is, looking back at the Steven Davis incident for the penalty I would like to know what part of a direct free kick foul you would have considered davis to have commited? Looking at the rules the 10 fouls that result in a direct free-kick do not relate or at least I would believe do not relate to the incident. Reason being that Davis did not move towards Stokes and held his ground with Stokes actually charging in Davis.
Obviously I'm not the one who has been on a refereeing course but I'm sure you can be receptive of me questioning this as it is certainly not clear as day from the Rule Book they have in place.
Also if this is the case then surely we would have footballers doing this week in and week out to exploit the rules to gain a foul?
Also why did he not give penalty when Joe Ledley was as you would say fouled in the box in exactly the same way? What would he have deemed that as?
I think this is why referees should be open to both critisism and also to speak after a game to explain certain decisions.
Last edited:
