A&H

Injured Player

P

piptree93

New Member
During a stoppage in play for a throw-in an injured player needed treatment and was asked to leave the field by the referee. When the ball was finally retrieved the injured player recovered and took the throw-in. Surely he should not have been entitled to take the throw and should only have been allowed to re-enter the field of play once play had been restarted and he had received permission to come back on by the referee?
 
The Referee Store
Maybe not, but if the referee is being assessed/observed for promotion from Level 6 to Level 5 it's pretty important to me.
 
I'm not so sure - the player is allowed to return once the referee has given permission but I don't see why technically, he is precluded from taking a throw-in once that permission is given. Substitutes can't do this because they're not a player until they enter the field but an injured player is still a player. Having said that, it's probably better just to tell him him to put one foot into the field of play before taking the throw anyway, just for the avoidance of any doubt.
 
Peter Grove said:
I'm not so sure - the player is allowed to return once the referee has given permission but I don't see why technically, he is precluded from taking a throw-in once that permission is given. Substitutes can't do this because they're not a player until they enter the field but an injured player is still a player. Having said that, it's probably better just to tell him him to put one foot into the field of play before taking the throw anyway, just for the avoidance of any doubt.
Click to expand...
It might just be convention, but we don't typically see injured players invited back onto the pitch until a few seconds after play has restarted? I'm not sure on this, but presumably you wouldn't let an injured player come back on in order to take a free kick and restart the game?
 
The referee can not allow the player to return to the field of play (putting one foot into the field of play implies returning) until play has restarted. This is not convention, it is in law 5.

Allowing them to take the throw in defeats the purpose of asking them to leave the field in the first place (excluding them from the game) although technically there is nothing in law against it.
 
one said:
Allowing them to take the throw in defeats the purpose of asking them to leave the field in the first place (excluding them from the game) although technically there is nothing in law against it.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with the conclusion there is technically nothing against it. Not everything in the law is crisply written. I think it is abundantly clear from the SOTG and an understanding of the game that a TI must be taken by a player eligible to be on the field at that time.
 
one said:
The referee can not allow the player to return to the field of play (putting one foot into the field of play implies returning) until play has restarted. This is not convention, it is in law 5.

Allowing them to take the throw in defeats the purpose of asking them to leave the field in the first place (excluding them from the game) although technically there is nothing in law against it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, thought that was the case but didn't have my LOTG with me at the time of writing, so I hedged!
 
socal lurker said:
I'd disagree with the conclusion there is technically nothing against it. Not everything in the law is crisply written. I think it is abundantly clear from the SOTG and an understanding of the game that a TI must be taken by a player eligible to be on the field at that time.
Click to expand...
Hence the word ''technically" . I thinks we have agreed several times in the past that there are many many cases when what the law says is not what the law means.
 
Sorry, missed the bit about the throw-in being the restart immediately after the injury. I thought it was a later restart. If play had not already restarted, then I believe the injured player should not be allowed to take the throw-in and return to play at that time, as play had not already restarted as the law requires.
 
I'm sure they changed the laws regarding whether a substitute could take a throw as their first act in the game.

Perhaps the ref got confused.
 
zarathustra said:
I'm sure they changed the laws regarding whether a substitute could take a throw as their first act in the game.

Perhaps the ref got confused.
Click to expand...

What change? I don't believe that has ever been prohibited. The substitute simply needs to enter the field (i.e. a foot on the line) to complete the sub process by entering the field to become a player.
 
socal lurker said:
What change? I don't believe that has ever been prohibited. The substitute simply needs to enter the field (i.e. a foot on the line) to complete the sub process by entering the field to become a player.
Click to expand...

I thought they removed the requirement for a sub to enter the field of play before being able to take the restart, i.e. a throw in.
 
Yes, that does allow a player who is coming on as a substitute to take a throw-in - but only with the clear proviso that they enter the field of play first.

As has been mentioned, that need only be by putting a single foot on the field of play but it still has to be done. The substitute can't remain outside the field, take a throw-in and then come on afterwards.
 
Peter Grove said:
Yes, that does allow a player who is coming on as a substitute to take a throw-in - but only with the clear proviso that they enter the field of play first.

As has been mentioned, that need only be by putting a single foot on the field of play but it still has to be done. The substitute can't remain outside the field, take a throw-in and then come on afterwards.
Click to expand...
Taking a throw-in can be done with one or both feet on the touchline.
If a player has not yet released the ball, have they made the throw-in?
If no, then stepping into the line as part of the throwing action would be entering the field - if yes, when does "taking the throw-in" start from?
 
Nij said:
Taking a throw-in can be done with one or both feet on the touchline.
If a player has not yet released the ball, have they made the throw-in?
If no, then stepping into the line as part of the throwing action would be entering the field - if yes, when does "taking the throw-in" start from?
Click to expand...
Accurate point but I think overcomplicating things. Letting a sub take a throw in the hope / expectation that he manages to put at least one foot on the line in the throwing process is asking for trouble. When he takes it with both feet behind the line and you then whistle to stop play it's just going to royally confuse everyone! Do the typical sub procedure as outlined and then let him take as many throws as his heart desires :)
 
Russell Jones said:
Accurate point but I think overcomplicating things. Letting a sub take a throw in the hope / expectation that he manages to put at least one foot on the line in the throwing process is asking for trouble. When he takes it with both feet behind the line and you then whistle to stop play it's just going to royally confuse everyone! Do the typical sub procedure as outlined and then let him take as many throws as his heart desires :)
Click to expand...
I'm not asking what the best process is - that should be obvious - make the substitution unambiguous and then allow play to be restarted.
I'm asking whether it is believed this would be a(n in)correct decision, and where the decision is justified, in LOTG.
Especially since the choice has impacts on other areas, like any regular throw-in, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top