Did not think this is correct, as the ball is not in play when a restart is not taken correctly.
IFAB says advantage can be played from incorrectly taken throw-in?
- Thread starter CaptainsPlease
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
I think this is slightly different to a retake of the restart due to incorrectly taken restart as it is a situation where the taking of the restart is an offence in itself rather than just being incorrectly taken. (and hence if we're not playing advantage, we will award a foul throw as opposed to getting the offending team to retake).
Much in the same way that if a team offends during the taking of a penalty kick, we restart with an IDFK as opposed to a retake. Struggling to think off the top of my head of any possible offences during the taking of another restart which don't result in the retake being first correctly taken and then the offence being committed after (i.e. double touch), but if the actual taking of the restart is an offence in it's own right, then we can play advanatge - makes sense to me?
Fully aware I may have just typed a load of utter nonsense, I'm just typing things as they enter my brain.
Much in the same way that if a team offends during the taking of a penalty kick, we restart with an IDFK as opposed to a retake. Struggling to think off the top of my head of any possible offences during the taking of another restart which don't result in the retake being first correctly taken and then the offence being committed after (i.e. double touch), but if the actual taking of the restart is an offence in it's own right, then we can play advanatge - makes sense to me?
Fully aware I may have just typed a load of utter nonsense, I'm just typing things as they enter my brain.
one
RefChat Addict
Wow.
Technically the ball is in play when it enters the FOP. No other condition. The law don't mention "and the throw in is taken correctly" for it to be in play.
However the law is clear if the TI is not taken correctly, it is then taken by the other team. I don't see this opening it up to playing advantage.
Technically the ball is in play when it enters the FOP. No other condition. The law don't mention "and the throw in is taken correctly" for it to be in play.
However the law is clear if the TI is not taken correctly, it is then taken by the other team. I don't see this opening it up to playing advantage.
one
RefChat Addict
The point in there is no offence committed to play and advantage from. You can only play advantage from an offence.
In kick off if opponents are clearly on in the other half, we can ignore due to trifling or no impact, but we don't play advantage, because there is no offence.
But that isn't an offence in taking and the correct outcome is a retake. The difference with a throw in is that the incorrect throw in is (in my opinion) considered an offence.
Can't remember the last time I gave a foul throw tbh!Didn’t see it, play on
one
RefChat Addict
I honestly initially thought you were joking. Every 'leave it' or 'backpass' or 'hands in the back' should be an offence too then.
If you look at the history of this forum the term 'foul throw' is frowned at by most referees. Because... it not a foul.
The law is full of deviations to norm (latest being 8second violation is a corner kick restart) It's like me saying if it is an offence and the ball is in play why is it not a free kick? Its the wrong argument to use.
Reversing the direction of a restart doesn't happen in law because of an offence when the ball is not in play.
When the only commonality between the two is a breach of the procedure, why is your opinion that one is an offence and the other isn't?
Similarly if a player slips and ends up taking a FK with their knee, it not an offence.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
When the US joined the rest of the world in accepting that "advantage" was not limited to Law 12 offense, there were detailed examples in official papers, which I understand they worked with IFAB/FIFA on to be sure they were consistent. It was crystal clear that at a TI offense was something to which advantage could not be applied. We should keep an eye on this one to see if is corrected. (It has no practical effect on any decision I'll make in the real world--I'm only calling a TI infraction if it's really bad, and if it meets that criteria, I'm not waiting to see where the ball lands.)
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
We actually had a discussion about this back in 2017. The consensus back then seemed to be that advantage could not be applied to an incorrectly taken throw-in. Admittedly, I was one of the ones saying it was not allowed but I was far from alone.
https://refchat.co.uk/threads/advantage-from-a-throw-in.10636
https://refchat.co.uk/threads/advantage-from-a-throw-in.10636
The Law always stated ** If the throw-in is not taken in line with the correct procedure, it shall be retaken by the opposing team.**
The old Q&As stated ** After an incorrectly taken throw-in, the ball goes directly to an opponent. Is play allowed to continue by applying the advantage clause? No. A player of the opposing team retakes the throw-in.**
The current wording is
**For any other offence, the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team.** which confirms the way it always was.
So there is no possibility of advantage according to what's written and IFABs answer is not in line with Law15
Alternatively just not see it and play on which is a different answer
The old Q&As stated ** After an incorrectly taken throw-in, the ball goes directly to an opponent. Is play allowed to continue by applying the advantage clause? No. A player of the opposing team retakes the throw-in.**
The current wording is
**For any other offence, the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team.** which confirms the way it always was.
So there is no possibility of advantage according to what's written and IFABs answer is not in line with Law15
Alternatively just not see it and play on which is a different answer
I mean I was being a little tongue in cheek referring to it as a foul throw as I know it isn't called that in law. I'm just saying if we consider the act of throwing the ball incorrectly as an offence, then it changes everything, and that would be in line with incorrectly taking a penalty kick which is also an offence.
one
RefChat Addict
Strictly or more accurately holistically speaking this is not true.
Some indiscrations in the produce are specifically and explicitly made offences because of the criticality of the restart. However there are other ones that are not. The examples that already made are if the ball is rolling or 'kicked' by knee, or kicked before referee signalling.
This is an offence punishable by a caution anyway is it not? I believe in law a free kick is, so surely a penalty kick would be also?
But I take the rest of your point on board.
(Don't ask me where in law this is, because I've never found it, but it was a question on a law exam and a colleague found something somewhere to suggest it's a caution)
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
Can someone write to ifab with this scenario and ask for a decision.
A player takes a throw in one handed, basketball full court long throw style, into to opponent's PA. The ball is clear on the full with a long shot by a defender which end in the goal on the other end. What is the decision?
I think the OP ifab statement is an ill thought answer to a question with no regards to the consequence it will have in other scenarios.
A player takes a throw in one handed, basketball full court long throw style, into to opponent's PA. The ball is clear on the full with a long shot by a defender which end in the goal on the other end. What is the decision?
I think the OP ifab statement is an ill thought answer to a question with no regards to the consequence it will have in other scenarios.
one
RefChat Addict
As far as I know it is not a mandatory caution. But referee can fit anything into one of the mandatory cautions if they want (like delayingvthe restart)
This could have been if the taker doesn't take it after the signal. The law says the referee "may take disciplinary action". It was recently discussed.
This was an FA released LOTG test, and the question revolved around a player taking the free kick prior to the whistle. The correct answer was that the player should be cautioned.
It was something (from memory) along the lines of a 'a player is clearly told to wait for the whistle before taking a free kick, and then as the referee starts marking out the required distance and before giving the signal, the free kick is taken and goes in the goal - what is the correct outcome?'
The answer given was 'Disallow the goal, retake the free kick and caution the player that took it early.'
What the colleague found wasn't that section, it was something that says if a player takes a free kick before the whistle after being told it must be after the whistle, the player must be cautioned.