Serge Aurier incorrectly-taken throw?

[Peter Grove]

In terms of the mechanics of a throw-in, the law simply says the player must have part of each foot on the ground on or outside the touchline and throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head. That's it - those are all the requirements for the physical act itself.

I know that Aurier has incorrectly-taken a number of throw-ins recently, where at least in the ones I saw, his back foot was clearly off the ground, so no arguments there. But based on the requirements set down in the law, what has he done wrong here?

 

[one]

Surely we are not saying he is not facing the field of play. I can't see anything wrong with it.

Given that we don't see where the ball left the FOP, I assume the location of the throw is not an issue.

Having not seen the game, I assume he is actually a player and if he was substituted in, it was done correctly (he entered the FOP) before taking the TI.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Well if he was a sub who hadn't stepped on the field, it's not a 'foul throw' - it'd be a retake by the team. Of course you'd also be proactive and intervene before he took the throw.
I can't see anything the slightest bit questionable about this TI.
I'd also assume it isn't location - because he took the TI quite slowly thus the ref had enough time to tell him to move back.

 

[Russell Jones]

Absolutely nothing wrong with this at all and will likely just increase the quantity and volume of 'requests' we get for foul throws in all our games over the next week or two ...

 

[Peter Grove]

Just to clarify those two points, the throw was taken from the right place and he was not a substitute, he'd been on since the start of the game.

I hate to say this but I think what we may have here is a case of confirmation bias.

 

[GraemeS]

I guess the fact that he's bent at the hips as he throws it does at least raise the question of where "above the head" begins and ends? But I agree with the consensus here, even with the slightly weird bending, I'd still let this go happily.

 

[one]

I guess the fact that he's bent at the hips as he throws it does at least raise the question of where "above the head" begins and ends? But I agree with the consensus here, even with the slightly weird bending, I'd still let this go happily.

If you pick on that to make the TI incorrect then 99.9% of my TIs are incorrect because they are not taken from where the ball left the FOP.

This has got me really curious now

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Just to clarify those two points, the throw was taken from the right place and he was not a substitute, he'd been on since the start of the game.

I hate to say this but I think what we may have here is a case of confirmation bias.

How do you figure this is confirmation bias???

 

[alexgr]

How do you figure this is confirmation bias???

I guess the point he is getting at is that Aurier has done a string of foul throws so the ref expects there to be. Not quite confirmation bias but a similar idea

 

[JD1]

I think his mechanical technique has duped the official into thinking his release was not correct.

 

[santa sangria]

My take is that it looks a bit like he throws from in front of his forehead, almost basketball push style. At least it might have seemed so.

The guy has a very awkward style. I don't think this one is incorrect but for 50 grand a week he/it is a liability.

I can't believe throw ins are not taught more thoroughly in youth football. So many opportunities per game...

 

[Peter Grove]

I guess the point he is getting at is that Aurier has done a string of foul throws so the ref expects there to be. Not quite confirmation bias but a similar idea

No, that would make it exactly confirmation bias, as I understand the definition of it.

According to Scott Plous in The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (1993), confirmation bias is "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheseses."

It looks to me as if the referee may well have had a preconceived notion that Aurier constantly takes throw-ins incorrectly and so has interpreted this throw-in a way that confirms his pre-existing belief.

 

[alexgr]

No, that would make it exactly confirmation bias, as I understand the definition of it.

According to Scott Plous in The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (1993), confirmation bias is "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheseses."

It looks to me as if the referee may well have had a preconceived notion that Aurier constantly takes throw-ins incorrectly and so has interpreted this throw-in a way that confirms his pre-existing belief.

Yeah, you're right on the definition - it's essentially fitting the facts into the theory rather than creating a theory from the facts, as it were. We're getting into semantics here but agree on the broad point ahah

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

no, this would be prejudice, or even simply bias - using preconceived notions or ideas to pass unfair judgement.
confirmation bias is when, for instance, you see a young driver so it feeds into your pre-existing conclusion that all young people are hoons. You're selecting this fact, and ignoring the 10 other young people you passed that morning driving responsibly, to 'confirm' your belief.
Like how people say 'bad things happen in threes'. They clearly don't, but people ignore the times they don't and the one time they do to confirm their bias.

 

[SLI39]

As soon as I learnt about confirmation bias, I started seeing it everywhere. But in all seriousness, I think both are examples of confirmation bias. The only difference is that one error derives from the extrapolation of general to specific, the other that of specific to general.