Incorrectly taken throw in
- Thread starter one
- Start date
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Incorrect - check Law 15.
Not so sure Capn.
The law states:
If the ball touches the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position. If the throw-in is not taken correctly it is retaken by the opposing team.
So in the OP's example the ball has touched the ground before entering the FOP so by law that's a retake. However, the throw-in has not been correctly taken so should switch to the other team...so both outcomes are valid in law.
It could be argued that the "foot-up" happens before the ball hits the ground and so that should take precedence but I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I would read it as both of those points co-exist. That is, that for a TI to be retaken for not entering the FOP, it must be otherwise taken correctly.
After all, 'taking' the TI is a different part to the ball consequently entering the FOP.
After all, 'taking' the TI is a different part to the ball consequently entering the FOP.
Possibly, but my point is that it is not quite as straightforward as "incorrect - read the law".
FWIW - I am with Minty on this...
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
It was the 2015/6 version that actually stated it explicitly - didn't notice that slight change.
given that the new laws aren't clearly making a change (I can see how you could argue the wording could be taken either way), I think the only logical solution is to continue to apply what was previously stated explicitly - that is, that a 'foul throw' is a 'foul throw' regardless of whether the ball goes in.
I don't think I'm the wrong trying to use semantics here
given that the new laws aren't clearly making a change (I can see how you could argue the wording could be taken either way), I think the only logical solution is to continue to apply what was previously stated explicitly - that is, that a 'foul throw' is a 'foul throw' regardless of whether the ball goes in.
I don't think I'm the wrong trying to use semantics here
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
Since law 15 is not awfully clear on this, how about using law 8?
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I think the question only arises because of the current wording. The law says in one sentence that if the ball does not enter the field, the throw is retaken by the same team. The very next sentence says that if the throw is incorrectly taken, the throw is awarded to the opposing team. It does not make a clear statement on what happens if the throw is both incorrectly taken and does not enter the field.
However in addition to @CapnBloodbeard's point about the way the previous edition was worded, in the 2006 Q&A (the last year that FIFA published the Q&A's) there was also an answer that said it was only when a throw was both correctly taken and did not enter the field, that the throw should be retaken. Although again, this did not explicitly address the question of an incorrectly-taken throw-in that doesn't enter the field, the implication was that in the latter situation a retake by the same team was not indicated and so the only other alternative is to award the throw to the opposing team. It's also the case that the recent change in wording was not listed in the 'Details of all Law changes' section, so it seems it was not intended as a change in meaning.
However in addition to @CapnBloodbeard's point about the way the previous edition was worded, in the 2006 Q&A (the last year that FIFA published the Q&A's) there was also an answer that said it was only when a throw was both correctly taken and did not enter the field, that the throw should be retaken. Although again, this did not explicitly address the question of an incorrectly-taken throw-in that doesn't enter the field, the implication was that in the latter situation a retake by the same team was not indicated and so the only other alternative is to award the throw to the opposing team. It's also the case that the recent change in wording was not listed in the 'Details of all Law changes' section, so it seems it was not intended as a change in meaning.
one
RefChat Addict
Here is my two bits worth.
All that is clear is that its all unclear.
One would assume for a throw 'in' to be complete the ball should go 'in' the FOP. If it doesn't go in, then its only an attempt not a throw in, correctly taken or not.
Either way this new addition to law 8 (The Start and Restart of Play) should mean its a retake.
"If an infringement occurs when the ball is not in play this does not change how play is restarted."
All that is clear is that its all unclear.
One would assume for a throw 'in' to be complete the ball should go 'in' the FOP. If it doesn't go in, then its only an attempt not a throw in, correctly taken or not.
Either way this new addition to law 8 (The Start and Restart of Play) should mean its a retake.
"If an infringement occurs when the ball is not in play this does not change how play is restarted."
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Except that wasn't true before and it isn't true now. At a penalty kick, the law says that "If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs" and goes on to list five examples of offences where the restart is changed to an indirect free kick.
In fact, up until 2016, this specific part of Law 15 was frequently quoted as another exception to that general rule and as myself and @CapnBloodbeard have said, there is nothing to indicate that the intent of the law was supposed to have changed.
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Except last year that assumption clearly didn't hold true. So why would we think that the intent of the law is any different?
If you're going to try to apply that here then by that logic any 'foul throw' is a retake. As is any breach at a PK ;-)
That's not a new law - just a clarification; the content of that law point was already written into the laws. And that's overridden by specific scenarios such as at a TI or PK.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I can see the day when the throw in as we know it is scraped and its simply "returned into play by hand"
Guys you are all arguing based on just one paragraph. Later in the Law after talking about IFK for a double touch, or DFK for a handling after a TI, we find the simple statement:
"For any other infringement of this Law the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team."
Hence the paragraph in question deals with the TI that does not enter the FOP and ONLY applies to a TI that does not enter the FOP (because that's how paragraphs work).
"For any other infringement of this Law the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team."
Hence the paragraph in question deals with the TI that does not enter the FOP and ONLY applies to a TI that does not enter the FOP (because that's how paragraphs work).
Another convert to the view that a throw in is a simple method of restarting play. Don't over think it, just get on with it.
Lets go back to The Sheffield Rules in 1858... It was simple back then, just ask Minty, a fresh faced Level 9! 
Law 10.....A ball in touch is dead, consequently the side that touches it down must bring it to the edge of the touch and throw it straight out from touch..... SIMPLES!!!
Law 10.....A ball in touch is dead, consequently the side that touches it down must bring it to the edge of the touch and throw it straight out from touch..... SIMPLES!!!
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
That's a completely meaningless statement and doesn't provide an argument either side here.
Last year's laws were black and white on this and there's been no clear change this year. If knowing what the laws are constitutes over thinking then I fear for the state of refereeing today
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Why would it be difficult to argue when last year, that's what the law was (and it's only based on some potentially vague wording that you can argue it isn't still the case, and only if you're isolating this year's laws from previous year's).
To be honest, I have no doubt you'd have people expecting that a foul throw is a foul throw.
To be honest, I have no doubt you'd have people expecting that a foul throw is a foul throw.
Last edited: