The throw in

[Milks101]

Watched a game on Sunday and the following happened: blue correctly took a throw in, the ball didn’t touch any players before leaving he field of play. The crowd suggested it is a retake whilst others suggested it should be a foul throw and awarded to the other team. I’ve had a look at law 15 and it’s ambiguous at least, personal opinion is that it should be retaken. The restart was simply a throw in to the opposition ... please discuss.


Milks

 

[es1]

No retake, but throw in to the opposition from where it went out of play

 

[Big Cat]

If the throw does not re-enter play before the ball bounces, the throw is re-taken

 

[cwyeary]

You make it sound like the ball came into play so then it's a throw to the other team. If it didn't come into play then it's a retake.

 

[Milks101]

You make it sound like the ball came into play so then it's a throw to the other team. If it didn't come into play then it's a retake.

The ball came in to play but didn’t touch another player before leaving the FOP

 

[one]

Watched a game on Sunday and the following happened: blue correctly took a throw in, the ball didn’t touch any players before leaving he field of play. The crowd suggested it is a retake whilst others suggested it should be a foul throw and awarded to the other team. I’ve had a look at law 15 and it’s ambiguous at least, personal opinion is that it should be retaken. The restart was simply a throw in to the opposition ... please discuss.

The ball came in to play but didn’t touch another player before leaving the FOP

I can see why you say the law is ambiguous, but it is not:
"A throw-in is awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when the whole of the ball passes over the touchline, on the ground or in the air.". Note the law doesn't make any distinction about if the touch was when the ball was in play or not.

Had the law said "...awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when it was in play..." then it would would have been a retake.

But as the law stands now, the TI was taken correctly. The ball came into play. At this point its a new phase of play with no prior offences (infringements) to be considered. Then the ball which was in play goes out of play. Its a 'new' throw in regardless of what the last restart was. The ball was last touched by blue (all be it when the ball was out of play), therefore blue's opponent is taking a throw in from where the ball went out of play.

EDIT: Given that you haven't specified where the ball went out of play, it could also be a goal kick or a corner kick to the opponents.

 

[Milks101]

I can see why you say the law is ambiguous, but it is not:
"A throw-in is awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when the whole of the ball passes over the touchline, on the ground or in the air.". Note the law doesn't make any distinction about if the touch was when the ball was in play or not.

Had the law said "...awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when it was in play..." then it would would have been a retake.

But as the law stands now, the TI was taken correctly. The ball came into play. At this point its a new phase of play with no prior offences (infringements) to be considered. Then the ball which was in play goes out of play. Its a 'new' throw in regardless of what the last restart was. The ball was last touched by blue (all be it when the ball was out of play), therefore blue's opponent is taking a throw in from where the ball went out of play.

EDIT: Given that you haven't specified where the ball went out of play, it could also be a goal kick or a corner kick to the opponents.

Surely it would have assumed the ball id in play

 

[one]

Surely it would have assumed the ball id in play

I see you have now changed your post . Clearly I had bothered to read the law as I directly quoted it.

You can have a choice of making that assumption to make the law ambiguous (as you put it) or take it as its written for a clear outcome. I chose the latter.

 

[es1]

this isn't a hard one at all...throw in opposition

 

[Peter Grove]

There was a good example of this yesterday in the FA Cup semi-final. Spurs player (IIRC) took a throw down the line. It bounced in the field of play (a couple of inches inside the line) then went back out of play. A throw-in was awarded to Man Utd where the ball crossed the line again. Perfectly correct decision and nobody, absolutely nobody was expecting anything else.