Foul Throw

[spuddy1878]

One of my games on Sunday one side were moaning that one of the opposition players throw inns were illegal, obviously when someone mentions it you tend to have a closer look.

Anyway lad had a long throw and i watched him closely and after he released the ball his foot did come off the floor, i said nothing wrong as it was after the release, obviously they go and score from one of his throws.

Correct in law though ?

 

[one]

Yes, so long as both feet are on the ground 'at the moment of delivering the ball' and obviously complies with other TI requirements too.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Am not up on the history of it, but I dont get why throws even exist, a kick in would be fine

Yes of course things have to adhere to the book but if something looks like a throw, smells like a throw and tastes like a throw, am playing on

Am (for better or worse) style of ref who likes games to flow, wont penalise for every bit of contact and will give the teams every chamce to play

If that means selective vision on a dodgy throw so be it.

Ditto deep defensive fk and ball might still be wobbling, I play on.

If am awarding a foul throw, its cos the guy has Olympic hammer threw it and it would be bordering on criminal to let it go.

 

[spuddy1878]

Same with a moving ball, this for me could easily be removed from the LOTG, as long as its from the right spot does it matter if its moving.

 

[one]

Same with a moving ball, this for me could easily be removed from the LOTG, as long as its from the right spot does it matter if its moving.

It would make it easy to abuse lack of "stationary" requirement in the laws. Kicking againt a deliberate rolling ball, bouncing the ball and kicking it on hlaf volley or dropkicks are some examples to get more distance or make the kick more effective.

Much better to leave the laws as is and leave it to referee when considered trifling (slightly moving for a goal kick for example).

 

[socal lurker]

One of my games on Sunday one side were moaning that one of the opposition players throw inns were illegal, obviously when someone mentions it you tend to have a closer look.

Anyway lad had a long throw and i watched him closely and after he released the ball his foot did come off the floor, i said nothing wrong as it was after the release, obviously they go and score from one of his throws.

Correct in law though ?

Nope. Once a player takes a throw-in, the player must spend the rest of the game with his feet planted to the ground! Kinda like once there is a throw-in, there is no offside for the rest of the game!

Seriously, dead on correct. I actually think a lot of the called improper throw-ins at lower levels are refs demanding more than the laws do.

 

[spuddy1878]

It would make it easy to abuse lack of "stationary" requirement in the laws. Kicking againt a deliberate rolling ball, bouncing the ball and kicking it on glad volley or dropkicks are some examples to get more distance or make the kick more effective.

Much better to leave the laws as is and leave it to referee when considered trifling (slightly moving for a goal kick).

I didn’t mean you can pick it up and bounce it, it still must be your first and only touch and ball is in play !

 

[socal lurker]

Same with a moving ball, this for me could easily be removed from the LOTG, as long as its from the right spot does it matter if its moving.

Disagree. Part of the reason for stationary is fro the mild ceremonial nature of signalling the kick is being taken. I don't think it should be changed. I'm not troubled if referees find trifling a slight movement of the ball in the defensive part of the field when it doesn't matter, but I would always pull back a quick kick that is starting an attack if the ball is moving--the defending team has very few rights on a FK, but the right to not have the attacking team gain an advantage from taking the kick improperly is one of them.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If, mainly an adult game, I get a shout of "foul throw ref", and its not an Olympic hammer style throw yet one am fine with, I tend to quickly snap back
"what was wrong with it"?

am still to have anyone come back with what was actual wrong, other than, "it was a foul throw"

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Disagree. Part of the reason for stationary is fro the mild ceremonial nature of signalling the kick is being taken. I don't think it should be changed. I'm not troubled if referees find trifling a slight movement of the ball in the defensive part of the field when it doesn't matter, but I would always pull back a quick kick that is starting an attack if the ball is moving--the defending team has very few rights on a FK, but the right to not have the attacking team gain an advantage from taking the kick improperly is one of them.

Defensive and the ball still wobbling a bit, playing on
Midfield, ball still wobbling a bit, am wary of it and will allow play to go, esp if they kick it back the way, but if I sense the other team are going to go ape, or its going to cause me a problem, then prob err on side of caution and retake it.
Attacking, as above poster, zero chance am allowing a moving ball, far too much chance of it ending up in net and all hell breaking loose.

 

[Kes]

I actually think a lot of the called improper throw-ins at lower levels are refs demanding more than the laws do.

Totally.

Some of the "foul throw ref!!" calls I get during games, not only irritate me, but make it fairly clear that the players who shout for it are:

a. basing it on their experiences of previous referees giving foul throws because it "looks ugly"

and/or

b. completely unaware of how simple and uncomplicated Law 15 actually is.

My take on it (as with one or two other things) is the same as the wee man above.
A throw in is simply a means of getting the ball back into play. So long as it comes from behind and over the head, I don't care how crap or "girly" it looks. Play on!!

 

[one]

My usual response is "it was an ugly throw not a foul throw" keeps both sides happy.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

A former member of another place, God rest his soul, will be turning and chuckling in his grave reading this...... 'No such thing as a foul throw' he'd say!!! and he'd be right!!!

 

[alexgr]

My usual response is "it was an ugly throw not a foul throw" keeps both sides happy.

Yeah I really like this. I used to say ‘it looks bad but it’s technically right’ but realised I don’t like how the word ‘technically’ comes across. I meant by the letter of the law, but it often comes across to players as a bit of a weak answer

 

[AlexF]

I go simple, like @one -- "ugly but legal".

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I go simple, like @one -- "ugly but legal".

Who is? @one?

 

[one]

I go simple, like @one -- "ugly but legal".

Yeah I have always been ugly but only became legal after I turned 18

 

[cwyeary]

I still maintain that 99.9% of the time, the foot comes up after the ball is released. Try it at home. You'd pretty much fall on your face if you released a long throw while only on one foot.

 

[RefIADad]

I have to see an obviously foul throw before calling it.

Case in point from last night's game. Player has a dodgy throw where he might have paused with the ball at the top of his head before releasing it. Since it was a short throw, I let it go and talked with the player to "make the throw-in a little easier for me to rule a good throw-in." Player agrees, and then 90 seconds later does the same thing but in a more obvious manner. I ruled it a foul throw.

For me, I want the players to get the ball back into play and get on with it. If it's borderline, I normally let it go. As long as the players and coaches see I'm calling things consistently, they are generally OK with it.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I saw the first given Incorrectly taken throw today at Bramall Lane this season. Schoolboy stuff!