Actually, the indirect free kick would be taken from the place where the offence took place. The penalty spot is only for direct free kick offences committed within the penalty area, (unless of course the obstruction occurred there).
I know.
I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that **Law 12 - impedes the progress of an opponent ** refers to the situation where the ball is between two players within playing distance for both. The law refers to a situation where a defender positions himself **between ** the opponent and the ball and, although too far from the ball to play it, prevents the opponent going where he wants to go. About the only time you ever see it is when defenders shirtfront someone chasing the return ball from a 1-2.
The rule came about in the 1950’s in England because defenders with arms outstretched were preventing their opponents from chasing the ball and allowing it to run out of play or to their goalie. The FA instructed referees to award an indirect free kick for obstruction and that was the first use of the term.
Without buying into the “Neill was deliberately trying to trip him” there is no law to prevent a defender doing what Neill did - goalies do it often when worst come to worst.
However I will have another look at the video some time because if Neill did attempt to trip Grosso then the referee was right to award a penalty if he thought so too, even if the attempt failed.
Obstruction simply refers to any situation in which a player attempts to block an opponent’s progress on the field with no attempt to play the ball. It doesn’t matter how far one is from the ball. For example, using your body to block an opponent’s attempt to reach the ball in order to allow it to roll into touch is obstruction, even if it’s almost never enforced by referees anymore. The fact that most referees don’t enforce the rule doesn’t change the nature of the infraction. It’s like traveling in the NBA: it’s clear what constitutes traveling even though referees don’t consistently enforce the rule as it is written.
This is one of the two rules that I think need to be addressed.
The shielding of the ball, usually on the goal line, to allow it to run out should be punished with an indirect free kick by the referees. If a free kick is ever awarded it’s usually against the attacker who is just trying to get to the ball.
Look at any referees guide, the FA put out one, and you will see the rule explained. It works just how I expressed it. It only applies if the defender is not within playing distance of the ball (some guides say 3 feet). That is why the defender shepherds the ball to the line rather than just standing in the way of his opponent. The other player is free to make an attempt to get the ball. If the ball is within playing distance the player is deemed to be playing the ball.