Old Throw in Law

#21
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??
You don't think following the thrower up and down the line to stand right on the line is an attempt to block the thrower???
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, Maybe I'm blind!
#22
It would be a referee's judgement call but potentially, under the old law he could still have been considered guilty of unfairly impeding the thrower.
I thought a player had the right to stand wherever he wanted?? Maybe he was just being a bellend and the ref got sick of his antics???
 
Last edited:
#23
I thought a player had the right to stand wherever he wanted?? Maybe he was just being a bellend and the ref got sick of his antics???
Did you miss the part that he was following the thrower up and down the line? Pick a spot and stand in it, sure. Stop the thrower going around you and you're blocking it.
I'm genuinely surprised that you're sounding like a player here....
 
#25
Must HAVE. You don't abbreviate it to must'f
You're also engaging in a strawman. I never said you had to stand still. But following the thrower up and down the field to stand right on the line is blocking it.

Same as a player half a step outside the PA walking back and forth to ensure he's in front of the keeper releasing the ball.
 

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#27
I thought a player had the right to stand wherever he wanted??
A player had (and has) the right to stand where they want during normal play. However in certain specified situations (basically, all dead ball restarts) they do not. Even under the old law, a player was not allowed to unfairly distract or impede the thrower. Following a player up and down the line while "stand[ing] directly in a defenders face" to prevent the throw from being taken sure sounds like unfairly distracting and impeding the thrower to me.

The full wording from the old law (before the 2 yards provision was brought in) was:
If an opponent unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower: he is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and shown the yellow card
 
Last edited:

SLI39

Well-Known Member
#28
Thanks for quoting the old law verbatim. I think it's another example of where the laws have improved so as to indicate how one not only punishes, but also restarts from, such offences. I think they could go further in clarifying whether the ball has effectively come into play when a player commits misconduct from a set piece.
 

AlexF

Well-Known Member
#29
Thanks for quoting the old law verbatim. I think it's another example of where the laws have improved so as to indicate how one not only punishes, but also restarts from, such offences. I think they could go further in clarifying whether the ball has effectively come into play when a player commits misconduct from a set piece.
I think that they clarified it really well (bold is mine):

An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded.
When is a throw-in taken? Well, when the procedure in the first portion of Law 15 is met (ie, two hands, feet on ground, etc, and ball comes into play). How do I get that? Based on the consistent language used thoughout that Law.

So... if the throw-in has been taken (ie, the ball comes into play), then award the IFK.
 

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#30
And at other set pieces it's pretty clear and straightforward too, the ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves (slight exception for a penalty where it must move forward).
 

SLI39

Well-Known Member
#31
Thanks, it is nice to be enlightened by people who don't tie themselves in knots where the LOTG are concerned! I hope I didn't appear dim, but I was probably guilty of over-thinking the throw-in law and ended up questioning the concept, across the board, that misconduct does not necessarily invalidate procedure.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, Maybe I'm blind!
#32
So, it also says something about punishing the more serious offence.... Throwing a ball in someones mush isn't a violent act then, or is the play acting by the opponent taking the rap for it all??
 

AlexF

Well-Known Member
#33
I was probably guilty of over-thinking the throw-in law and ended up questioning the concept
I was in a course this weekend, and at least half of the participants (at any given time) were guilty of over-thinking something to do with what they were dealing with.

It's a natural thing to start reading things too deeply, to start questioning things that are correct, etc.
 

SLI39

Well-Known Member
#34
So, it also says something about punishing the more serious offence.... Throwing a ball in someones mush isn't a violent act then, or is the play acting by the opponent taking the rap for it all??
These aren't simultaneous offences, though, so both should be punished. Indeed, the second is a violent act and warrants a red card. But the moment the ball comes into play and an opponent was guilty of unsporting behaviour, it's an indirect free kick and caution.
 
#35
I disagree there - like blocking a FK, the offence occurred while the ball was out of play.
It becomes a question of whether you're going to apply the strict letter of the law and retake the TI, or whether you want to do what makes sense and award the DFK. But if you award the DFK then perhaps you can no longer card the player who got smashed in the face with the ball.

Of course, had the referee been proactive, this wouldn't have happened. But sometimes things happen too quickly.
 

one

Well-Known Member
#36
I disagree there - like blocking a FK, the offence occurred while the ball was out of play.
It becomes a question of whether you're going to apply the strict letter of the law and retake the TI, or whether you want to do what makes sense and award the DFK. But if you award the DFK then perhaps you can no longer card the player who got smashed in the face with the ball.

Of course, had the referee been proactive, this wouldn't have happened. But sometimes things happen too quickly.
I may be misreading your intent there but the strict letter of the law asks for a IFK and not a retake. In fact the law is very clear here and you don't really have any other choice.
An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded.
 

SLI39

Well-Known Member
#37
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.
A month late, but yes, I was wrong here. Penal offences against a team-mate were added to DFK restarts in 2016/17.