CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Careless, Reckless or Using Excessive ForceI'm lost at that bit?
Careless, Reckless or Using Excessive ForceI'm lost at that bit?
You can agree or not. Fortunately facts don't care if you agree with them. Read Law 12. Striking is clearly CRUEF. Striking isn't inherently done when not challenging for the ball.
Even FIFA have always held the position that throwing the ball into an opponent might be fine, it might be a yellow, or it might be red. Not sure what the argument is about here.
Yeah, and once upon a time a ball needed to roll its circumference at a free kick.
He is disagreeing to agree. And that's not to be confused with agreeing to disagree.I'm a bit confused now. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
You can agree or not. Fortunately facts don't care if you agree with them. Read Law 12. Striking is clearly CRUEF. Striking isn't inherently done when not challenging for the ball.
Even FIFA have always held the position that throwing the ball into an opponent might be fine, it might be a yellow, or it might be red. Not sure what the argument is about here.
Yeah, and once upon a time a ball needed to roll its circumference at a free kick.
When? I just had a quick scan through my historical versions of the Laws of the Game and was unable to find a time when this was so.I know times change, but the wording for vc used to be, strikes or attempts to strike
When? I just had a quick scan through my historical versions of the Laws of the Game and was unable to find a time when this was so.
Could you enlighten us as to when it used to be the case?
Your so-called history has nothing to do with the OP or the post. 'Striking' can be a DFK only. If it wasn't in the past, that's completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to confuse the matter.The op refers to a possible violent conduct, to which, in a vain effort to get inside the head of the law makers, I referred to previous wording, to gain insight to the history of violent conduct
Your helpful reply has nothing to do with the op or my post
He is disagreeing to agree. And that's not to be confused with agreeing to disagree.
To agree or disagree, that is the question!So .... should I just agree then?
No it isn'tTo agree or disagree, that is the question!
Although to be clear, it always was possible for striking to be only a DFK (or at least ever since it was first referenced in the Laws).'Striking' can be a DFK only. If it wasn't in the past, that's completely irrelevant.
Fine sentiments Ryan but how do you judge a force to be excessive? That’s very very subjective! The Saunders one was thrown with a force, it’s a very poorly worded statement.
Whether it's outside the reasonable scope of expectations is hardly the point though, is it? The main consideration is surely the fact that the law specifically allows for a player to take a throw-in by intentionally throwing the ball at an opponent. So long as it's done in a way that is not careless, reckless or using excessive force, the law says it's OK.If it is not a part of the game, then it is by definition excessive. The question one must ask is: how much force is normal and necessary for the circumstance. In the case of throwing something at an opponent, the answer is none. It is never acceptable to throw something at an opponent outside of what is normal in a game.
However, in the case of OP, I do not believe that a foul has been committed at all. A throw-in is a part of the game, and that it should hit another player is not really outside of the reasonable scope of expectations.
If it is not a part of the game, then it is by definition excessive. The question one must ask is: how much force is normal and necessary for the circumstance. In the case of throwing something at an opponent, the answer is none. It is never acceptable to throw something at an opponent outside of what is normal in a game.
However, in the case of OP, I do not believe that a foul has been committed at all. A throw-in is a part of the game, and that it should hit another player is not really outside of the reasonable scope of expectations.
You were sending off for it earlier, now its in reasonable scope?? What do you really mean!!!
I don't agree there. It can be the level of force which differentiates it from fair to foul play. A caution is definitely an option.I said if it is a foul, then it is also excessive force. I do not believe it is a foul.
I am with @CapnBloodbeard here. A caution is an option. Your logic is flawed. Lotg state thatIf the level of force makes the throw-in a foul, then it is because it exceeds the necessary use of force. Otherwise, it would always be a foul to throw the ball in and hit an opponent.