A&H

Everton v Arsenal

P

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Been said before I know, but the ignorance of the laws always amazes me.

MOTD2 last night Mark Chapman says that there was talk about the throw in leading to Everton's goal being illegal. He said 'We've looked at the laws and apparently as long as part of each foot is touching the line then the throw is legal'

Ian Wright 'Oh really, Ok'

Duncan Fletcher 'OK, I never knew that':eek:
 
The Referee Store
I want my 90 minutes back, this was a very poor game of football to watch, Everton deserved it but they’re both miles off the top 2 skills wise!
 
I'm assuming they thought it was illegal for stepping onto the pitch when throwing?
 
RobOda said:
I don't see how it is 'poorly written', it's as clear as day:
Click to expand...


I can sort of see where the poorly written comes from. The 2nd part of the statement COULD be taken to mean that no part of the foot can be on fop, when read with the first part.

However, the Everton player, and any other player has certainly fulfilled the criteria of the first part, so good to go.

Watch this wording being changed now, into something most people think it means!:rolleyes:
 
Yeap. My Optus sports commentator implied the goal should have been disallowed because Digne's foot was over the line when he took the throw in. Here is a better quality pic. That is why we have referees refereeing the game and not commentators.

1554732504896.png
 
Funny how these days no one knows the LOTG besides us referees yet were the ones getting thrown under the bus!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
Was there any other infringement? Did rear foot stay planted? Do we have a picture At the point the ball is released?
 
JamesL said:
Was there any other infringement? Did rear foot stay planted? Do we have a picture At the point the ball is released?
Click to expand...
No, yes (within expectations) and yes (unless you call it kneeling , which would be just as ridicules).

1554773507244.png

1554773595666.png
 
PinnerPaul said:
The 2nd part of the statement COULD be taken to mean that no part of the foot can be on fop, when read with the first part.
Click to expand...
No, it couldn't. The law is perfectly clear, both grammatically and logically. As long as part of each foot is either on the touchline, or on the ground outside the touchline, the foot positioning is legal. There is no way to read it as meaning that no part of the foot can be on the field of play.
 
IslandReferee said:
Funny how these days no one knows the LOTG besides us referees yet were the ones getting thrown under the bus!
Click to expand...

The problem here is that somebody is claiming that PGMOL have agreed it's an incorrectly taken throw. I don't believe that. We've got six or seven random referees in this thread who all know this law. There's no way PGMOL could get that wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
I'd be massively surprised this would be given as a foul throw by the PGMOL, and even so, wouldn't this be considered trifling seeing we don't even seem to punish encroachment anymore when it is considered trifling?
 
No. Trifling for PK encroachment is considered so because of, let's just say "football expectations". There is no trifling expectations in throw in. Just like there is none in offside or ball out of play. It only has to be an inch (or even a millimetre if you are sure of it) over the line and it's a foul throw, or ball is out of play.
 
one said:
No. Trifling for PK encroachment is considered so because of, let's just say "football expectations". There is no trifling expectations in throw in. Just like there is none in offside or ball out of play. It only has to be an inch (or even a millimetre if you are sure of it) over the line and it's a foul throw, or ball is out of play.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with this assertion. I don't remember ever seeing a section of the LOTG that lists things we're allowed to let slide vs things you're not. In the absence of this list, I don't see why any given referee shouldn't be entitled to make their own judgement calls regarding what is or isn't trifling?
 
GraemeS said:
Not sure I agree with this assertion. I don't remember ever seeing a section of the LOTG that lists things we're allowed to let slide vs things you're not. In the absence of this list, I don't see why any given referee shouldn't be entitled to make their own judgement calls regarding what is or isn't trifling?
Click to expand...
And would the ball crossing the goal line, between the posts and under the cross bar, by a couple of inches only would be one of those things that the referee can decide to ignore or not I suppose?

There are things that are not up for trifling consideration. I'll leave this one as it could escalate very quickly.
 
one said:
And would the ball crossing the goal line, between the posts and under the cross bar, by a couple of inches only would be one of those things that the referee can decide to ignore or not I suppose?

There are things that are not up for trifling consideration. I'll leave this one as it could escalate very quickly.
Click to expand...
So the plan now is post-by-post to create the exhaustive list of what is trifling and what isn't? The point it, it's up to the ref to decide.

Any ref worth his salt will know that a goal line decision is not a great time to ignore a trifling difference and I'd be very strongly advising against using that as part of the reason to award or deny a goal. But once you introduce the concept of "trifling offences", you either than have to exhaustively define where that concept can and cannot be applied, or trust your ref's to judge when it's appropriate to apply it. IFAB have chosen to go with option 2, so I'm of the opinion that arguing when the law does/doesn't allow offences to be judged trifling is pointless!
 
one said:
No. Trifling for PK encroachment is considered so because of, let's just say "football expectations". There is no trifling expectations in throw in. Just like there is none in offside or ball out of play. It only has to be an inch (or even a millimetre if you are sure of it) over the line and it's a foul throw, or ball is out of play.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree about no trifling expectations on TIs. But I'd agree that being all the way on the filed is not a part of the TI that I would expect trifling to be applied to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top