Incorrectly taken throw in

[Peter Grove]

It would be very difficult to argue that the law allows for a flipped-around TI when the restart for a ball that never enters the FOP is a retake.

Please look again at @CapnBloodbeard's earlier post on this. Up until 2015-16, the law was clear on the fact that in this situation, the throw goes to the opponents and based on the "Details of all Law changes" in the 2016-17 edition, there was no change to the meaning of Law 15 in this regard (despite the slight change in wording which has led to the present confusion).

 

[pankaye]

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.

I agree except i think in this scenairio it will be easier to sell a foul throw than an incorrectly taken throw in

 

[Mintyref]

I can't remember the last time I gave a foul throw, plenty of 'take it again it didn't come into play's ddcisions

I agree except i think in this scenairio it will be easier to sell a foul throw than an incorrectly taken throw in

Que?.........

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Please look again at @CapnBloodbeard's earlier post on this. Up until 2015-16, the law was clear on the fact that in this situation, the throw goes to the opponents and based on the "Details of all Law changes" in the 2016-17 edition, there was no change to the meaning of Law 15 in this regard (despite the slight change in wording which has led to the present confusion).

I think your point about the new LOTG highlighting all the law changes really settles it - quite clearly, there has not been a law change here.

So a foul throw that doesn't enter the FOP is not a retake. Where not talking about 'how strict should you be on a foul throw' (which I tend to suspect may also vary largely region to region as to what's expected - if I gave foul throws as rarely as some of you seem to I'd cop no end of abuse). We're talking about what to do when there is a FT that doesn't enter the FOP.

And let's not forget that the moment any sliver of the ball is above the line, that's in play. Though that's more relevant if you're standing on the line - hard to spot the 'swerve over the line then back out' if you're just in the middle.

 

[one]

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.

As pointed out earlier even last year, the law wasn't completely clear. There was a conflict of interpretation in a foul throw that touches the ground outside the FOP first.

I am not sure if I can agree with the 'expectations' either. Slightly different scenario but to illustrate the point: The thrower approaches the line with ball in hand. As he takes the ball behind his head, it slips out and falls down behind him. I have no doubt most people would agree with a retake. In fact I wouldn't even call it a retake as there was no throw in in the first place, only an attempt.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Not clear? Last year's law was black and white. It couldn't have been clearer that a foul throw touching the ground outside the FOP is still a foul throw.

And given that the new laws highlight all changes - and this wasn't highlighted as a change, that quite clearly means that any ambiguity in wording is unintentional and that there has been no change.

As for expectations? I'm not sure what you're attempting to demonstrate with that your point as it's not really an issue around here. Trying to avoid muddying the waters with what is or isn't a foul throws - this is about what to do with a foul throw that doesn't enter the FOP.

I don't like discussions around 'players will expect this so do this'. For one, we can disagree. One user here thinks the retake will be easier accepted. I disagree. so, nobody is helped by that discussion. Also, I find it to be a very, very poor argument anyway. Not really relevant in trying to determine what the law states.

 

[one]

@CapnBloodbeard I have no issue with our disagreement on this as I genuinely don't see the clarity that you see in this scenario. But the 'expectation' argument was started by you

To be honest, I have no doubt you'd have people expecting that a foul throw is a foul throw.

I was trying to demonstrate that most people expect my second scenario not to be a foul throw but you would.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

@CapnBloodbeard I have no issue with our disagreement on this as I genuinely don't see the clarity that you see in this scenario. But the 'expectation' argument was started by you


I was trying to demonstrate that most people expect my second scenario not to be a foul throw but you would.

No it wasn't - I was responding to the post directly above the one you quoted

It would be very difficult to argue that the law allows for a flipped-around TI when the restart for a ball that never enters the FOP is a retake.

At least, I interpreted that comment as one about 'selling' the decision. Aside from that I was very deliberately avoiding going down that path

Also, I wouldn't consider your example a foul throw and I can't possibly imagine how you've come to the conclusion that I would.

Also, I'll quote again:-

If the ball touches the ground before entering the field of play, the throw-in is
retaken by the same team from the same position provided that it was taken
in line with the correct procedure. If the throw-in is not taken in line with the
correct procedure, it is retaken by the opposing team.

I can't see how that can possibly be interpreted 2 different ways. If the throw in touches the ground before entering the FOP, it is a retake IF it was taken correctly.

 

[one]

Hmmm... How I came up to the conclusion is that I don't see my second example to be proceduraly any different to the first.

'
The first example did not satisfy point two (foot in the air), the second did not satisfy point three (not thrown over the head). Why would you consider one to be a foul throw and the other not to be?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The 'difference' would be that a throw hasn't even been attempted. In much the same way that if a player grabs the ball and throws it underarm to a teammate, you've not going to call that a throw, are you?

We're just muddying the waters by trying to discuss whether a particular action constitutes a foul throw. This thread is about what to do when we know something is a foul throw. We can at least use our judgement on whether a throw is attempted or not. Dropping the ball as soon as you raise it I wouldn't even consider it to be attempted.

If it helps, argue that there's no 'moment of delivering the ball' in that case, none of the 3 points apply.

 

[one]

I wholly disagree but will eave it as to not 'muddy the waters' It all started when you brought up expectations though

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I wholly disagree but will eave it as to not 'muddy the waters' It all started when you brought up expectations though

I didn't.