Sunderland Norwich - foul throw before third goal

[SM]

Just watching goals on Sunday - norwichs third goal?

Ball on the right wing, under the nose of the AR. goes out of play and the Norwich player picks it up, quick throw and some great passing and movement from Norwich and it ends in a simple tap in.

However, the throw in clearly shows the Norwich player walking - one foot clearly off the floor when he throws the ball in.

Difficult one for the AR as he was focussed on the offside line, but for me he has missed a foul throw.

 

[Jacko]

I don't think we should be giving them. Looked okay to me.

 

[santa sangria]

You don't think we should be giving foul throws? Or it wasn't a foul throw?

If it is a foul throw and you see it you should be giving it.
The problem comes if you are AR and you think your ref does not want to give foul throws - where do you draw the line?
When AR I now ask my ref before the game - do you want me to look for foul throws, do you want me to flag every one or not? In the end we are a team and I will AR as my ref wants me to.
But I think it is a ridiculous situation where a lot of refs and ARs are willing to let foul throws go that can immediately lead to goals. Not applying the LOTG to blatant infringements can only lead to a world of pain!

 

[Jacko]

Only give a foul throw if it looks bad. At the end of the day all it is is a way of getting the ball back into play. Letting the players play and the spectators spectate.

I probably give on average 1-2 foul throws a season. Usually when everyone is laughing at how poor the throw in was.

 

[Chris Smith]

Why in the first place is the AR looking at the offside position, he should be watching the throw-in as we all know there is no offside offence with a throw-in. No goal simple. The AR did not carry out his duty correctly at this point.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

At the end of the day all it is is a way of getting the ball back into play. Letting the players play

I hear that said a lot. What does that actually mean?
Those 2 sentences can be used to justify absolutely anything you want it to. Ultimately they're completely meaningless. Players are obligated to perform in a certain manner in accordance with Law 15. 'Letting the players play' - haven't we defined the result of the match allowing a blatant offence to occur? That's not really 'letting the players play'.

Just a comment that's been bugging me.

 

[Jacko]

I hear that said a lot. What does that actually mean?
Those 2 sentences can be used to justify absolutely anything you want it to. Ultimately they're completely meaningless. Players are obligated to perform in a certain manner in accordance with Law 15. 'Letting the players play' - haven't we defined the result of the match allowing a blatant offence to occur? That's not really 'letting the players play'.

Just a comment that's been bugging me.

Have you even seen the throw in?