The Ref Stop

Bizarre throw in technique

richard ramjane said:
it's like the debate over the sri-lankan bowlers' actions ..... looked dodgy but were within their particular rules.
You'd need proper up close video footage of this guys technique to analyse whether it was within our laws or not and allow him to continue (or not) as the case may be.
Click to expand...
Quite simple no...trying to circumvent the laws...we all acknowledge that the throw should be taken from a standing position in orer to complete it properly.

AlexF said:
And as he sits up, the head moves forward to be in front of the ball. Therefore... behind! :D
Click to expand...
Don't think so!
 
The Ref Stop
Nothing wrong with it, fully complies with the laws as written, it's no wonder we get compared to traffic wardens! Not one thing has been offered yet to sway me from saying Play On....
 
I'm not convinced his feet are on the ground at the exact moment the ball is thrown, I think it's released in front of his head and I think every other player on the pitch and every supporter in the ground is expecting that to be called as a foul throw.

Any one of those is a good enough reason for me to agree with the referee's decision here.
A Freethinker said:
Quite simple no...trying to circumvent the laws...we all acknowledge that the throw should be taken from a standing position in orer to complete it properly.

Don't think so!
Click to expand...
"Circumventing the laws" is only relevant when it comes to passing the ball back to the goalkeeper, you can't apply that elsewhere. The closest you can come is general USB, but if you want to apply that logic to disallow this, you have to card the player which seems extreme.
 
Was he facing the pitch! Yes, Was it delivered from behind his head, absolutely yes, what more do you need to see, all this clearly happens!!!
 
No chance. I've freeze framed it and at the point of releasing the ball it isn't from behind his head, it is over his head. And rather than facing the field of play, he is actually facing his maker in the cloud ....

.. which is probably where referees risk going if they allow this as it will cause a riot if it leads to a goal ..!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Was he facing the pitch! Yes, Was it delivered from behind his head, absolutely yes, what more do you need to see, all this clearly happens!!!
Click to expand...
I don't think you've adjusted your frame of reference correctly to account for the bizarre angles involved. My interpretation of releasing the ball above his head involves releasing it above the "crown" of his head. Because of the angle of his body, the point of release is essentially in front of his face and actually roughly vertical from where his knees are, making it an illegal throw in my book. Actually very similar to the standard "downwards" foul throw I'm sure we've all seen fairly often, but obviously the different angle of his body means it goes forwards.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that this is probably the main "benefit" of this type of throw - by warping the point of release, you can generate much more momentum that you would be able to by having the release the ball further back. I suspect that if he were to release the ball above his head during this kind of motion, it might well go a long way vertically, but not actually make it very far onto the pitch.
 
GraemeS said:
But this guy took a throw his way and it ended up on the field? The point I'm making is that "he's facing the sky" is a overly-pedantic justification for disallowing the goal, as a normal thrower could easily not be "facing" the field of play if he's simply looking straight ahead.

This guy took the throw, it went in the direction he was facing and it ended up on the pitch. You're arguing that the throw should be disallowed because he's facing the sky - and I'm suggesting that logic makes it a foul throw if a player was to take a thrown "normally", but looking directly upwards as he did so!

There are lots of reasons to call this as a foul throw (including common sense and match control!), but I don't think the "facing the pitch" line of the laws is one of them.
Click to expand...

You have some really weird logic.

If you're lying on the ground are you facing something in front of you? Absolutely not.

We're not talking about head position, but torso position. You can't take a TI and have it end up on the field without facing the field if you're standing. It's not pedantic - it's written into Law 15. Look it up.

Spirit of the game here. When you're looking at something that you know is wrong and against how something is supposed to occur, you look at how it fits into the LOTG. Doesn't make sense to be finding odd interpretations to try and bend the laws to make something like this fit - if anything referees should be going the other way.

fortunately that's only 1 of 2 objective reasons to disallow it, given the ball never goes behind his head.

Why you'd be trying to 'lawyer' this to find an excuse to permit something that everybody at the field knows is wrong is beyond me.

AlexF said:
And as he sits up, the head moves forward to be in front of the ball. Therefore... behind! :D
Click to expand...
No, he lifts the ball as he lifts his head, then his head goes back down as he throws the ball. And of course that's only 1 of 2 objective reasons.

While the 2006 Q&A doesn't have any standing, nothing relevant has actually changed in the laws since then so I think it's reasonable to still consider what's in there.
 
A Freethinker said:
.we all acknowledge that the throw should be taken from a standing position in orer to complete it properly.
Click to expand...

i think the continuing nature of this debate would demonstrate otherwise...

in all honesty, however, i'd probably be giving this as a foul throw and i wouldnt expect anyone to complain. The element for me here is that from where the ref is you just dont know if he can tell if its from behind and over the head or not. We are looking at it from side on, slowing it down etc and still cant decide. During a match are you going to really sacrifice position to watch the movement of the throwing action, for that of your drop zone?
If the lawmakers tell me that this particular type of throw is ok then i'll happily play on.
I was watching the IPL last night down at the squash club and Malinga was playing, and the amount of debate that still goes on about his bowling action is still very much evident.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Was he facing the pitch! Yes, Was it delivered from behind his head, absolutely yes, what more do you need to see, all this clearly happens!!!
Click to expand...
You're clearly watching a different video to everybody else.....Lying down is not facing the pitch. Ball lifts with the head so not possible to go behind.

And in something like this, why are you looking for reasons to disallow it? Wise referee understands that everybody knows this is wrong so would prefer to find reasons to disallow it - and it's a lot easier to find those than reasons to allow it!!!
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
You have some really weird logic.

If you're lying on the ground are you facing something in front of you? Absolutely not.

We're not talking about head position, but torso position. You can't take a TI and have it end up on the field without facing the field if you're standing. It's not pedantic - it's written into Law 15. Look it up.

Spirit of the game here. When you're looking at something that you know is wrong and against how something is supposed to occur, you look at how it fits into the LOTG. Doesn't make sense to be finding odd interpretations to try and bend the laws to make something like this fit - if anything referees should be going the other way.

fortunately that's only 1 of 2 objective reasons to disallow it, given the ball never goes behind his head.

Why you'd be trying to 'lawyer' this to find an excuse to permit something that everybody at the field knows is wrong is beyond me.


No, he lifts the ball as he lifts his head, then his head goes back down as he throws the ball. And of course that's only 1 of 2 objective reasons.

While the 2006 Q&A doesn't have any standing, nothing relevant has actually changed in the laws since then so I think it's reasonable to still consider what's in there.
Click to expand...
I think you're either mixing me up with someone else or misinterpreting my argument. I'd be disallowing this and I think you've got at least 3 good reasons to do so. I just don't think "facing the field of play" is one of them.

His body is far closer to facing the field of play than facing away from it. And he's not exactly lying on the ground - at various points in the throw, he goes through a sit-up-like motion and his torso is definitely pointing pitch-wards.
 
richard ramjane said:
i think the continuing nature of this debate would demonstrate otherwise...

in all honesty, however, i'd probably be giving this as a foul throw and i wouldnt expect anyone to complain. The element for me here is that from where the ref is you just dont know if he can tell if its from behind and over the head or not. We are looking at it from side on, slowing it down etc and still cant decide. During a match are you going to really sacrifice position to watch the movement of the throwing action, for that of your drop zone?
If the lawmakers tell me that this particular type of throw is ok then i'll happily play on.
I was watching the IPL last night down at the squash club and Malinga was playing, and the amount of debate that still goes on about his bowling action is still very much evident.
Click to expand...

^ this...as i posted earlier. This debate is actually happening over slow mow replay - nice practice for us future VARs...but the reality is most of us would call this foul in a game because we would assume all boxes aren't ticked and we wouldn't have a single complaint on the field about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top