The Ref Stop

Old Throw in Law

Sheffields Finest

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
Level 7 Referee
I was in a pub today and watching the Leicester game on BT, got into some discussions about handball etc all good fun and they were impressed i knew my stuff. A bloke then asked me a situation from a few years ago that i shall share.. It goes back to the time when you didn't have to stand 2m from a thrower...knobby striker decides to stand directly in a defenders face taking a throw, as he tries to take it he follows him down the line etc. This continues for a while before the defender throws the ball hard at the defenders face and connects..... Now, we all should know the outcome, however have a guess what the referee gave.?????
 
The Ref Stop
By the current laws, it should be a red card for the thrower (if excessive force was used, as I infer) and yellow card for the opponent (failing to respect required distance). Restart is an indirect free-kick to thrower's team. An example would be Sanchez against Leicester last season (Mike Jones was refereeing). I think the old law had this scenario as disciplinary action and retaken throw, but not 100% certain.

Funnily enough, I had a weird throw-in incident this weekend. Two players from the same team were having a bit of an argument. The thrower churlishly threw the ball at his team-mate, whereupon it rebounded to the opponent. I thought it was a legal throw (not reckless/excessive) and so let play continue (the attacking team almost scored). However, if I had deemed it violent conduct, would I have been obliged to dismiss the thrower and give an IFK to the opposition? Technically the ball would have come onto the field, or would it be a foul throw?
 
Even under the 'old' throw-in law there was still a caution for a player who "unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower." It didn't specify how play should be restarted but assuming the ball had come into play and the referee stopped play to issue the caution, you would have restarted with an IFK whereas if you had cautioned the player before the throw was taken, you would continue with the throw.

However it sounds like there'd be a case for a red card for the thrower for striking the opponent with a thrown object with excessive force, based on the description.
 
As an addendum, I should say that the yellow card is incurred for USP, not failing to respect required distance.

However, there is nothing, it seems to me, in the amended LOTG which justifies an IFK/DFK restart for a throw that was taken recklessly etc. The clause pertaining to any other infringement (throw-in taken by opposing team) should be used in a scenario involving one's own team or against an opponent.
I am happy to be enlightened!
 
SLI39 said:
However, there is nothing, it seems to me, in the amended LOTG which justifies an IFK/DFK restart for a throw that was taken recklessly etc.
Click to expand...
I would say there is. Law 15 says that:
If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, intentionally throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but neither in a careless nor a reckless manner nor using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.
Click to expand...
From this statement it can be clearly inferred that if the ball is thrown at an opponent carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force then the referee does not allow play to continue. Since the throw itself was correctly taken and play is now ongoing, Law 12 would apply as follows:
If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against [...] an opponent – indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grove said:
I would say there is. Law 15 says that:

From this statement it can be clearly inferred that if the ball is thrown at an opponent carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force then the referee does not allow play to continue. Since the throw itself was correctly taken and play is now ongoing, Law 12 would apply as follows:
Click to expand...

Hmm, this is an interesting one. I see your point. I think I remember having a conversation on here with a referee who argued that, in such a case, the throw-in had not been successfully completed (I will try and find a reference later), although admittedly that would suggest a retake as the logical restart.

'The referee allows play to continue' certainly hints that disciplinary action should follow a deviation from the accepted procedure, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to invoke law 12? I would prefer if the laws made this clear, as I would have no qualms about applying a similar rule to the clause involving 'thrown objects', but I am yet to be shown a clear vindication of that in the text. For me a retake for the opponent after dealing with the offence would not be incorrect in law.
 
SLI39 said:
For me a retake for the opponent after dealing with the offence would not be incorrect in law.
Click to expand...
For me it would be. In words of the Law 15 extract given above, we have a situation which posits "a player [...] correctly taking a throw-in" and the ball already having entered the field of play. In these circumstances the throw-in has been completed and the ball is now in play which (as far as I can tell) means Law 12 is indeed applicable.
 
Thanks for the insight about reading the laws in a linear way. I shall defer to experience here, unless new information should come to light. I hadn't considered the idea that a throw-in taken carelessly/recklessly etc. could constitute correct procedure, but you make a persuasive argument. In that sense the ball is in play and has occurred on the field, so a DFK restart is perfectly plausible.

I am now wondering what sort of offence the 'any other infringement' clause is intended for.
 
So, in the case of a free kick that is kicked at a player/official/coach, how are we restarting in each scenario if this is deemed to have been undertaken in a careless or reckless manner? Sorry for opening a can of worms here!
 
SLI39 said:
So, in the case of a free kick that is kicked at a player/official/coach, how are we restarting in each scenario if this is deemed to have been undertaken in a careless or reckless manner? Sorry for opening a can of worms here!
Click to expand...

Surely the restart would be a throw in (assuming the official struck is in or around the technical area) and a caution/dismissal etc. The ball would be in play, no? My gut says that doesn't sound quite right though, I seem to want to expect a DFK from the boundary line where the ball left the FOP perhaps?
 
Thanks, I believe you're right about the boundary line DFK according to law 12 (see attachment). Where I was a little confused is whether the ball is actually in play when someone commits violent conduct from a throw-in or set piece. Peter has convinced me that this is the case, so the DFK restarts apply.

Against one's own team, this becomes an IFK.
 

Attachments

  • wp_ss_20170925_0001.png
    wp_ss_20170925_0001.png
    129.1 KB · Views: 2
I'm confused, if there wasn't a set required distance before what has the blooded nose player done wrong??
Ive seen a few in Youtube where they do that flip throw and someone gets it in the kisser but this predates the 2-metre rule so what was the requirement back then??
 
AlexF said:
Out of curiosity, where do you see indirect free kick in this section?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I may have misspoken, as that was my understanding from previous laws. Has 'against a team-mate' been added to DFK offences? Intuitively that doesn't sound right, and the omission of it from the section made me want to say IFK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top