RefLive

throw in into goal

Discussion in 'Laws of the game' started by pankaye, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. pankaye

    pankaye Active Member Level 6 Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    43
    County FA/Organisation:
    Shropshire/Army
    I saw this on a facebook page and wanted to hear people thoughts on this.

    Can somebody help me with these Throw in questions? Thanks!
    1. Attacking team throw in, the defending team keeper touch the ball with hand and the ball enters the goal.
    2. Defending team throw in, the defending team keeper touch the ball with hand and the ball enters the goal.
    What’s the proper restart for each of them?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RefLive Advertisement RefLive

    RefLive
  4. Ciley Myrus

    Ciley Myrus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    171
  5. HarryD

    HarryD Well-Known Member Level 5 Referee

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    114
    County FA/Organisation:
    Essex
    1) The correct restart is a kick off
    2) Provided you play a good advantage after the defending GK has touched the ball with his hand, the restart is also a kick off.

    What @Ciley Myrus said - just answering the question ;)
     
  6. Ciley Myrus

    Ciley Myrus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    171
    Am pretty sure there is a clip of Craig Gordon then of Hearts, realising a throw was going to bounce over him and very impressively not touching the ball and allowing it to go in his goal, I think most keepers would have tried to get a touch to it to save it (and thus conceding a goal) but he was aware of this risk and pulled out his attempted save altogether
     
  7. HarryD

    HarryD Well-Known Member Level 5 Referee

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    114
    County FA/Organisation:
    Essex
    Credit to him for actually knowing the LOTG - unlike the vast majority of players/pundits these days!
     
    alexgr likes this.
  8. Ciley Myrus

    Ciley Myrus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    171
    Indeed, very much quick thinking too as natural reaction would have been to try get a hand to it
     
  9. SLI39

    SLI39 Active Member Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    45
    County FA/Organisation:
    Berks and Bucks
    Goal in both situations; the second example is, so far as I understand, one in which the new advantage rule can be applied, being beneficial to the non-offending team. I don't really want to resurrect the goal-kick discussion, which David Elleray's intervention succinctly resolved, but did anyone ever clarify whether the second case would be a goal if the thrower touched the ball twice before it entered his own goal, rather than the goalkeeper?
     
  10. one

    one Well-Known Member Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    156
    Just a couple of tachnicalities:
    There is no 'new' advantage law.
    The thrower can be the goalkeeper.

    In either case assuming the throw in was taken correctly a goal is awarded.

    Must play advanyage in the second case.
    Also must play advantage in the first case if the goalkeeper is outside his PA.
    .
     
  11. bester

    bester Well-Known Member Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    110
    "A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in:" I hope you remember what directly means from that David Elleray goal kick discussion!
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  12. Andrew.Rainsbury

    Andrew.Rainsbury Rainbow74 Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    3
    County FA/Organisation:
    Kent
    woah! where did the penalty kick come from?
    2 legitimate goals - as stated above, as long as there is contact - award the goal.
     
  13. bester

    bester Well-Known Member Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    110
    Multi-quote malfunction. Was in response to Sli39's specific scenario if the second touch happened to be handling by an outfield player in his own area.
     
    Andrew.Rainsbury likes this.
  14. CapnBloodbeard

    CapnBloodbeard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    947
    County FA/Organisation:
    Football Federation victoria (Australia)
    There's no new advantage law.....
     
  15. one

    one Well-Known Member Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    156
    If the thrower is the keeper and then touches with his hand, a goal can not be awarded. The only unlikely possibility i can think of in the second case when a goal can not be awarded (and advantage not applied)
    If the touch was outside the PA then its a DFK restart else a IFK restart from where he touched it.
     
  16. santa sangria

    santa sangria Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    300
    I can think of a scenario where it's not advantage and goal: if the GK takes the throw and then the GK touches the ball again before it enters the field of play and then the the ball enters the goal then it's a retake of the throw ;)
     
  17. Peter Grove

    Peter Grove Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    392
    County FA/Organisation:
    Retired
    Yes, but what about the situation where invisible space aliens deflect the ball as it's on its way into the net (well, you started it).:p
     
  18. SLI39

    SLI39 Active Member Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    45
    County FA/Organisation:
    Berks and Bucks
    Ok, I backtrack on 'new', but can you confirm whether the advantage law has always been able to cover the second scenario in the OP for the entire length of its existence? I seem to recall that a number of members believed, with prior justification, that advantage could not be applied for second-touch offences.

    Moreover, I found the David Elleray discussion very enlightening. I checked back, and indeed the crucial phrase from him is 'second player'. So a player who throws the ball to himself and takes any number of touches before thumping the ball into his own net (no other touch) has scored directly from the throw--much the same for corners and free-kicks--and thus incurs whichever is more advantageous to the opposition: a corner or IFK (or yes, if handled in the opposition penalty area, a penalty). A goal is incorrect in law. It's basically the IFK rule, and you could never argue a goal was valid if a player dribbled an IFK into the opponent's goal.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  19. Peter Grove

    Peter Grove Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    392
    County FA/Organisation:
    Retired
    Actually, I think I know what you mean about the 'new' advantage law. There was the recent subtle change in wording from:
    to:
    And yes, it had been argued by some that under the old wording, advantage could not be applied to a double-touch offence because such an offence was not committed against the opposing team, just against the Laws. I'm not sure that was actually the intent of the old wording, I think it was just a slightly clumsy form of wording that left itself open to that interpretation. Anyway, the new form of wording makes it clear that advantage is applicable whether the offence was committed directly against the opponents or not.
     
    SLI39 likes this.

Share This Page