Ref4Me

Newcastle Arsenal

The Referee Store

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
his front foot shields his back foot, which may have been lifted. Shrug. Not something I’d call, but may have been technically proper.

Maybe we have to add improper throws to the things VAR looks at.:p
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
Is this release not in front of his head rather than from behind the head?84A7E749-2192-4683-9614-7A129270EA47.png
 

Ref_Dad

New Member
Meanwhile, I couldn't concentrate on the throw-in as I was too distracted by the fact that both Newcastle players in the clip were wearing the number 4 shirt. I even went to watch the full highlights to work out what was going on before realising my mistake. I can't 'unsee' it even now - Fortunately no cards for Newcastle in the game - every other yellow would be a 2nd yellow/red for number 4 for me! 🤣
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
Nothing about where it is released from in law. Just that It needs to be thrown from behind and over the head.
But surely the ball isn’t “thrown” until it’s released?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Surprised to see this hasn't been brought up already.

Is it really a foul throw by Tavares? Facing the field? Check. Behind the line? Check. Ball coming from behind and over the head? Check.

It definitely looked awkward, but I just don't see it as a foul throw.

Not a foul throw for me. Also not helpful to be given as one at this level 🤦
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
But surely the ball isn’t “thrown” until it’s released?
Most throws are released after the ball passes the head. While a “spike” has often been considered not thrown from over the head, this wasn’t a straight down spike. I think it is more likely that the call (assuming it was indeed an improper throw) was the R (rightly or wrongly) calling the lifted foot than anything about the hands/release.

Do we know it was actually called a bad throw, and not correcting for wrong direction or the ball entered and left the field?
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
Trying to word this without sounding like a footballer, but this sort of decision needs consistency from the referee. If it’s a foul throw then fine, but how many times a game do we see this exact method? You can’t just be giving one
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
Level 5 Referee
Is this release not in front of his head rather than from behind the head?View attachment 5681

You sound more like a player than a referee with that question @Will_A (No offence intended). Like James has said, it's a player myth that the ball has to be released by a certain point. It doesn't. Just because it might look a bit crap doesn't mean it's not compliant with Law 15. 😉
Seeing referees penalise perfectly legal throws like this one (especially top class officials) really grips my 5hit!! 🙄
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
You sound more like a player than a referee with that question @Will_A (No offence intended). Like James has said, it's a player myth that the ball has to be released by a certain point. It doesn't. Just because it might look a bit crap doesn't mean it's not compliant with Law 15. 😉
Seeing referees penalise perfectly legal throws like this one (especially top class officials) really grips my 5hit!! 🙄
Surely though there is a limit to this? Ok the good book isn’t entirely clear (shock horror) but theoretically based on the conversation in this thread, a player could continue to hold the ball all the way down to their knees and drop it a foot in front of them.
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
You sound more like a player than a referee with that question @Will_A (No offence intended). Like James has said, it's a player myth that the ball has to be released by a certain point. It doesn't. Just because it might look a bit crap doesn't mean it's not compliant with Law 15. 😉
Seeing referees penalise perfectly legal throws like this one (especially top class officials) really grips my 5hit!! 🙄
Probably cos I was a player for over 15 years! 😂😂

My point is that if the point of release isn’t important then theoretically a player could launch the ball directly at the floor in front of them provided the throwing motion started “behind and above the head”.

The general expectation on a Saturday afternoon would be for this be a foul throw. Over such a trivial restart I’m going with ‘what football expects’
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
The general expectation on a Saturday afternoon would be for this be a foul throw. Over such a trivial restart I’m going with ‘what football expects’
I'd go the other way.
It is a trivial restart. It is but a means of putting the ball back into play.
So where no advantage is gained, the ball is thrown from behind and over the head, why make a big thing and give the ball to the opposition, in what is an advanced area of the pitch for them.

I just don't see a foul throw here in any case but even if it was it is so borderline and trifling I wouldn't really want to call it anyway.

A foul throw generally for me has to be bloody awful before I start turning possession over.

If I ever get asked by ARs, and it does happen, what about foul throw a my stock answer is we don't give them and I am semi serious as well
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
I'd go the other way.
It is a trivial restart. It is but a means of putting the ball back into play.
So where no advantage is gained, the ball is thrown from behind and over the head, why make a big thing and give the ball to the opposition, in what is an advanced area of the pitch for them.

I just don't see a foul throw here in any case but even if it was it is so borderline and trifling I wouldn't really want to call it anyway.

A foul throw generally for me has to be bloody awful before I start turning possession over.

If I ever get asked by ARs, and it does happen, what about foul throw a my stock answer is we don't give them and I am semi serious as well
I semi agree, if this happens in a game and nobody appeals then crack on.
If the appeals are there and the expectation on the day is to penalise then I will.

I’m not convinced on the interpretation though, as stated above, theoretically we could have a situation where a player started their throwing motion from above and behind their head and releases it so late that they virtually drop it 2 yards away.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
Level 5 Referee
Surely though there is a limit to this? Ok the good book isn’t entirely clear (shock horror) but theoretically based on the conversation in this thread, a player could continue to hold the ball all the way down to their knees and drop it a foot in front of them.

In which case it wouldn't realistically be a "throw". I know what you mean though.
For me though, a throw in is simply a means of getting the ball back into play, almost immediately after which, the team taking it usually concedes possession, so unless it clearly contravenes the 3 main tenets of Law 15, I wave appeals away and it's play on. 🙂👍
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Generally the AR will watch the feet and the referee the arms, so if the AR signalled it I suspect it will have been for a lifted foot.
 

PaulB

New Member
Level 5 Referee
Law 15 says that "at the moment of delivering the ball, the player must ....... throw the ball ... from behind and over the head....."

I take "the moment of delivering the ball" to mean the moment at which the ball is released. After all, the previous part of the law refers to the position of the feet and I think we would all agree that this only applies at the point of release.

In that case the law means that the point of release of the ball must both behind and over the head. That is very difficult to judge but where release is in front of the head the initial trajectory of the ball will be downwards which is easier to detect and usually leads to opposition shouts for a foul throw.

At Prem level most throws are correctly taken and for me this one really stuck out. So no problem with it being given. They are pros and they should know the laws!

I
 

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
In that case the law means that the point of release of the ball must both behind and over the head.
I was actually going to say something about this wording, but only to say that if read literally, the law could be said to describe something which is physically impossible. "Behind the head" and "over the head" describe two different locations so they can't both be the required release point.

I actually think the law is using a sort of shorthand where certain words are implied, or have to be understood.

For me, what the law is most probably (and most logically) supposed to mean is that the player must "throw the ball with both hands, [starting] from behind [the head] and [continuing] over the head, [before releasing it] ..."
 
Top