The Ref Stop

Throw ins during Palace Vs Arsenal

S

SLI39

Well-Known Member
I think some confusion has arisen in the football podcast world about when a throw-in should be awarded to the opponent. It is something I have seen more in Europe than in the Premier League, I admit, but the last sentence of law 15 confirms its correctness in law.
Simon Hooper cautioned Timber for delaying the restart and I am not sure how play was resumed. In the same game, Lewis-Skelly was penalised by having to give up the throw, presumably for taking too many yards.
Is there a difference?
 
The Ref Stop
SLI39 said:
I think some confusion has arisen in the football podcast world about when a throw-in should be awarded to the opponent. It is something I have seen more in Europe than in the Premier League, I admit, but the last sentence of law 15 confirms its correctness in law.
Simon Hooper cautioned Timber for delaying the restart and I am not sure how play was resumed. In the same game, Lewis-Skelly was penalised by having to give up the throw, presumably for taking too many yards.
Is there a difference?
Click to expand...
Yes. Delaying the restart of play is a caution and no change to restart.
Not taking the throw in in the right place is a foul throw and the punishment is the throw in is awarded to the opposition.
 
JamesL said:
Yes. Delaying the restart of play is a caution and no change to restart.
Not taking the throw in in the right place is a foul throw and the punishment is the throw in is awarded to the opposition.
Click to expand...
Thank you; I had suspected that the booking resets everything and is considered part of misconduct, not a foul throw. However, for the discourse merchants to know or even endeavour to understand that subtlety would be a day for flying pigs.
 
I’d prefer a law change that delaying the restart on TI/CK/CK turns the restart over to the other team. We’d see a lot less ridiculously long GK routines if that was in the referee’s arsenal,.
 
socal lurker said:
I’d prefer a law change that delaying the restart on TI/CK/CK turns the restart over to the other team. We’d see a lot less ridiculously long GK routines if that was in the referee’s arsenal,.
Click to expand...
I’d love to see that happen, but I doubt it would be enforced if it was brought in. Similar to the goalkeeper holding onto the ball……
 
Runner Ref said:
I’d love to see that happen, but I doubt it would be enforced if it was brought in. Similar to the goalkeeper holding onto the ball……
Click to expand...
I think it might—a CK is much less game changing and difficult to manage than an IFK in the PA. But it would be more meaning than the caution to the GK, especially when no one will give the second caution for the same offense.
 
socal lurker said:
I think it might—a CK is much less game changing and difficult to manage than an IFK in the PA. But it would be more meaning than the caution to the GK, especially when no one will give the second caution for the same offense.
Click to expand...
It may well do, but I just can’t see it happening. As with everything, it would need to be pushed from the top down. And in reality, they’d stick to it for a few weeks, probably too strictly, then forget it ever existed.
 
Runner Ref said:
It may well do, but I just can’t see it happening. As with everything, it would need to be pushed from the top down. And in reality, they’d stick to it for a few weeks, probably too strictly, then forget it ever existed.
Click to expand...
Definitely possible, but I’d still like to see it tried. It is not super draconian, but a it is punishment t that fits the crime. Many of the things thatndon’t last or don’t get enforced are things where the punishment is too harsh. The GK offfenses in general are an example—that IFK near the goal is very harsh for what is (often) a technical violation. (Or the super stupid idea that IFAB had that cautioning GKs for leaving the line on PKs would stop it—that had zero effect, as having to give the caution simply made it less likely that it would be called. It was using VAR to monitor that changed the behavior, yet we still have the pointless caution for bad timing (though softened into meaninglessness, apparently because IFAB didn’t wNt to admit it was a super stupid idea from the very start).)
 
socal lurker said:
Definitely possible, but I’d still like to see it tried. It is not super draconian, but a it is punishment t that fits the crime. Many of the things thatndon’t last or don’t get enforced are things where the punishment is too harsh. The GK offfenses in general are an example—that IFK near the goal is very harsh for what is (often) a technical violation. (Or the super stupid idea that IFAB had that cautioning GKs for leaving the line on PKs would stop it—that had zero effect, as having to give the caution simply made it less likely that it would be called. It was using VAR to monitor that changed the behavior, yet we still have the pointless caution for bad timing (though softened into meaninglessness, apparently because IFAB didn’t wNt to admit it was a super stupid idea from the very start).)
Click to expand...
Cautioning players when X amount of players was very simple and not draconian, but after Jared Gillet did it in the first week, we’ve barely seen it.

As I say, I’d love for them to deal with the goalkeeper time wasting, and your idea could help that. I just don’t see it being enforced at the other levels, thus making it realistic for further down
 
JamesL said:
Yes. Delaying the restart of play is a caution and no change to restart.
Not taking the throw in in the right place is a foul throw and the punishment is the throw in is awarded to the opposition.
Click to expand...
Why don't we (or elite refs) just award a foul throw when players march 10 yards down the pitch, then ? Surely, that would be a much better way of stopping the cheating if the top referees did this rather than asking players to move back to the correct spot ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top