Search results

I realise that and that is perhaps of significant reason why it seems to get overlooked so often - because it's 'only' a throw-in (and doesn't warrant VAR (at the moment?...)).

Yes correct. I do imply the law is incorrectly implied and throw-ins are sometimes awarded before a ball is out of play.

Although just for the record, I did say in the OP only touchline/throw-ins...

I agree - nice one. There's one...

I'm going to sign off now - no doubt to great applause - but would like to suggest that a reason I feel this rule isn't clinically applied more often is due to the fact that if a decision was ever given that a ball is still in play when it was actually out, looks far worse of a decision on the...

Gabriel, I realised before I joined up this morning that this might cause a bit of a heated discussion. But that's exactly why I did it because it's infuriated me for a long time. It is very apparent that in your response you are proud and highly professional and my intention is not to offend...

...however, I strongly suspect that for this particular rule "...There are some subjective rules that have wiggle room in terms of how strictly they are applied..." and it's being wrongly applied more often than it should be.

I put wrong answer. Problem with forum posts stacking up. Ignore last post. Anyway, no offence intended. Just watch the next game and see if you see any examples. They will be there

I've just asked someone who's done a 'tennis', and he says the reason they don't use Hawkeye on clay is because movement of the clay to any side of the impact mark can distort a 'visible' impact point mark. Thanks for that one, anyway :)

Try reading it again.

I've just read about 'Hawkeye'. You may be correct in that tennis analogy. Just read about it. I think Hawkeye measures the impact point of the ball. But can anyone say that in football they have ever assumed that the 'impact point' of the ball constitutes a 'whole' as in 'wholly' crossing a line?

I disagree. That is in-play in both.

But being clinical, daylight, or 'a gap' is exactly what you'd see between ball and line if you were to view it from a position directly above the ball. Ok, watch the next game of football closely. Watch how many times a throw-in is awarded at times we can CLEARLY see there is absolutely zero...

I'm talking touchline/throw-in only. We've all seen the way footballers have recently discovered where they can get away with placing the ball for a corner...

I'm not in any way questioning a ref's superior knowledge of the finer details of the rules. It's just that it hardly ever seems to be implemented correctly even though they know.

Nope. I'm not a ref but simply emptying my years of frustration at never seeing it ruled correctly. If VAR was involved more for throw-ins, and hence, causing play to slow down more often because of it, perhaps we'd see a change in views? Put more simply, why don't linesmen allow daylight to be...

It's been buggin me a very long time... :)

See the tennis ball analogy attached. Imagine if the ball is further over to the left but still has no daylight (as viewed from a position directly above), between right edge of the ball and left edge of the line, in tennis, the ball is still in play, but in football, hardly EVER.

hmmm. Perhaps a linesman needs to answer this as a pitch ref is almost never in a position to accurately gauge this decision?