throw in into goal

pankaye

Active Member
#1
I saw this on a facebook page and wanted to hear people thoughts on this.

Can somebody help me with these Throw in questions? Thanks!
1. Attacking team throw in, the defending team keeper touch the ball with hand and the ball enters the goal.
2. Defending team throw in, the defending team keeper touch the ball with hand and the ball enters the goal.
What’s the proper restart for each of them?
 

HarryD

Well-Known Member
#3
1) The correct restart is a kick off
2) Provided you play a good advantage after the defending GK has touched the ball with his hand, the restart is also a kick off.

What @Ciley Myrus said - just answering the question ;)
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#4
Am pretty sure there is a clip of Craig Gordon then of Hearts, realising a throw was going to bounce over him and very impressively not touching the ball and allowing it to go in his goal, I think most keepers would have tried to get a touch to it to save it (and thus conceding a goal) but he was aware of this risk and pulled out his attempted save altogether
 

SLI39

Well-Known Member
#7
Goal in both situations; the second example is, so far as I understand, one in which the new advantage rule can be applied, being beneficial to the non-offending team. I don't really want to resurrect the goal-kick discussion, which David Elleray's intervention succinctly resolved, but did anyone ever clarify whether the second case would be a goal if the thrower touched the ball twice before it entered his own goal, rather than the goalkeeper?
 

one

Well-Known Member
#8
Goal in both situations; the second example is, so far as I understand, one in which the new advantage rule can be applied, being beneficial to the non-offending team. I don't really want to resurrect the goal-kick discussion, which David Elleray's intervention succinctly resolved, but did anyone ever clarify whether the second case would be a goal if the thrower touched the ball twice before it entered his own goal, rather than the goalkeeper?
Just a couple of tachnicalities:
There is no 'new' advantage law.
The thrower can be the goalkeeper.

In either case assuming the throw in was taken correctly a goal is awarded.

Must play advanyage in the second case.
Also must play advantage in the first case if the goalkeeper is outside his PA.
.
 

bester

Well-Known Member
#9
Goal in both situations; the second example is, so far as I understand, one in which the new advantage rule can be applied, being beneficial to the non-offending team. I don't really want to resurrect the goal-kick discussion, which David Elleray's intervention succinctly resolved, but did anyone ever clarify whether the second case would be a goal if the thrower touched the ball twice before it entered his own goal, rather than the goalkeeper?
"A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in:" I hope you remember what directly means from that David Elleray goal kick discussion!
 
Last edited:
#10
A goal can't be scored directly from a throw-in so it needs to touch another player. You can give the penalty kick.


"A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in:" I hope you remember what directly means from that David Elleray goal kick discussion!
woah! where did the penalty kick come from?
2 legitimate goals - as stated above, as long as there is contact - award the goal.
 

one

Well-Known Member
#13
If the thrower is the keeper and then touches with his hand, a goal can not be awarded. The only unlikely possibility i can think of in the second case when a goal can not be awarded (and advantage not applied)
If the touch was outside the PA then its a DFK restart else a IFK restart from where he touched it.
 

santa sangria

Well-Known Member
#14
I saw this on a facebook page and wanted to hear people thoughts on this.

Can somebody help me with these Throw in questions? Thanks!
1. Attacking team throw in, the defending team keeper touch the ball with hand and the ball enters the goal.
2. Defending team throw in, the defending team keeper touch the ball with hand and the ball enters the goal.
What’s the proper restart for each of them?
I can think of a scenario where it's not advantage and goal: if the GK takes the throw and then the GK touches the ball again before it enters the field of play and then the the ball enters the goal then it's a retake of the throw ;)
 

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#15
I can think of a scenario where it's not advantage and goal: if the GK takes the throw and then the GK touches the ball again before it enters the field of play and then the the ball enters the goal then it's a retake of the throw ;)
Yes, but what about the situation where invisible space aliens deflect the ball as it's on its way into the net (well, you started it).:p
 

SLI39

Well-Known Member
#16
Ok, I backtrack on 'new', but can you confirm whether the advantage law has always been able to cover the second scenario in the OP for the entire length of its existence? I seem to recall that a number of members believed, with prior justification, that advantage could not be applied for second-touch offences.

Moreover, I found the David Elleray discussion very enlightening. I checked back, and indeed the crucial phrase from him is 'second player'. So a player who throws the ball to himself and takes any number of touches before thumping the ball into his own net (no other touch) has scored directly from the throw--much the same for corners and free-kicks--and thus incurs whichever is more advantageous to the opposition: a corner or IFK (or yes, if handled in the opposition penalty area, a penalty). A goal is incorrect in law. It's basically the IFK rule, and you could never argue a goal was valid if a player dribbled an IFK into the opponent's goal.
 
Last edited:

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#17
Actually, I think I know what you mean about the 'new' advantage law. There was the recent subtle change in wording from:
allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit
to:
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit
And yes, it had been argued by some that under the old wording, advantage could not be applied to a double-touch offence because such an offence was not committed against the opposing team, just against the Laws. I'm not sure that was actually the intent of the old wording, I think it was just a slightly clumsy form of wording that left itself open to that interpretation. Anyway, the new form of wording makes it clear that advantage is applicable whether the offence was committed directly against the opponents or not.