Throw in (one handed)

[ladbroke8745]

Um... No.

I've been around referees that hold this view like you seem to do, and this is a horrible viewpoint to be taking. I've had referees and referees officers say that I would have to dispense with disability aids (hearing aids, cochlear implants) and so on because by the LOTG it is against the rules.

Fortunately, the IFAB disagree with them and point to the spirit of the game, I know a lot of people dislike that line but tough luck. That's what the spirit of the game exists to do, to give wiggle room for whatever reason - such as allowing myself to be an official on the pitch to the best of my capabilities.

With the scenario in question, I'm in agreement with @RustyRef that it should be judged on the method of the throw - if he can get a one-armed throw going 25 yards and it's not akin to a goalkeeper throw then it should absolutely be permitted.



Just because he's disabled and has a stronger arm than what might be expected from able-bodied persons is not justification enough to exclude him from partaking in the game, or taking the throws. In fact, if you do it based on this alone you are directly discriminating against him on the basis of his disability. Shame on you.

You dissected my post to support a response not even close to my posts intention.
Shame on you.

I was agreeing with @RustyRef in that it is judged on the method of the throw and threw in (excuse the pun) a manner as described ie not like a keeper throw.
I have not mentioned anything about disability aids. So not sure where you got that from, or why you brought it up. I accept players who wear hearing aids, I accept players who wear glasses and even goggles akin to what Edgar Davids wore. But these have nothing to do with a person with one arm throwing the ball illegally.

I even mentioned examples in a previous post you have clearly ignored.

This has been my point all along, even on Facebook.
For a 12-13 year old lad, a throw 5-6 yards is good. 25 yards is unheard of. It's not even common in open age.
For this young lad to get it that far the only explanation is he is throwing it like a keeper would over arm. The ref suggested the ball went behind his head. I can't see it being in a similar fashion to two handed one as the ball would fall out his hand. And if he does out it behind his head and has his hand flat to stop that then he has absolutely no momentum in his throw to throw it 25 yards. The only logical way it can be thrown is then over arm keeper style throw. And that is a huge advantage.

I genuinely believe, regardless of his arms strength, that to put a ball behind his head and throw it in the exact same method an able bodied would throw the ball he would not be getting it 25 yards, as described by the referee on that Facebook post I read earlier today.
The only way that distance can be covered by anyone realistically, whatever the age, is if it is thrown over arm. Yes that is going from behind the head but its not in the spirit of the game, which you mention in regards to the hearing aids etc.
Would you realistically be happy to let a team get away with that throw in?

I assume as you deleted the rest of my post you didn't have any argument with what I said?

 

[QuaverRef]

You dissected my post to support a response not even close to my posts intention.
Shame on you.

I was agreeing with @RustyRef in that it is judged on the method of the throw and threw in (excuse the pun) a manner as described ie not like a keeper throw.
I have not mentioned anything about disability aids. So not sure where you got that from, or why you brought it up. I accept players who wear hearing aids, I accept players who wear glasses and even goggles akin to what Edgar Davids wore. But these have nothing to do with a person with one arm throwing the ball illegally.

I even mentioned examples in a previous post you have clearly ignored.



I genuinely believe, regardless of his arms strength, that to put a ball behind his head and throw it in the exact same method an able bodied would throw the ball he would not be getting it 25 yards, as described by the referee on that Facebook post I read earlier today.
The only way that distance can be covered by anyone realistically, whatever the age, is if it is thrown over arm. Yes that is going from behind the head but its not in the spirit of the game, which you mention in regards to the hearing aids etc.
Would you realistically be happy to let a team get away with that throw in?

I assume as you deleted the rest of my post you didn't have any argument with what I said?

You made no mention to his technique in the original post. The only point you made was that he had one arm and couldn’t adhere to the use of two as in the LOTG. Now mentioning the technique of an over arm goalkeeping throw is changing the scenario.

I had it in my head that we had a player with one arm throwing a ball far using the method of a normal throw and I couldn’t work out why everyone was being so critical. This is all starting to make more sense now ... it’s amazing when information can do to a story

 

[ladbroke8745]

Sorry mate.

I guess I should have made it much more clearer but thought the one arm throw was enough to say its not in law.

I understand the thoughts about inclusion etc but when its getting to the point of potentially exploiting the kindness of relaxing I think its where I draw the line.

I did explain a bit more in future posts following my OP but I appreciate it was not a clear post to start with.

 

[one]

So when the law says the throw must be taken with 2 hands, with ball behind the head, and this is not adhered to, you would let it go just because the thrower has 1 arm?

The only way I can possibly see a 13 year old throw it that far is over arm throw like a keeper.

Absolutely allow him to take a throw in with one arm. You adapt the law for someone with disability. However you only adapt the "two hands" clause. The ball must still be thrown from behind and over his head. Now if this guy can throw 25 yard with one hand doing that, my logic tells me he would do the same with two hands so no 'unfair' dispensation is given to him.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Except, surely, if they are throwing it over arm at a huge disadvantage to the opposition.

That is completely different to how a throw in is to be taken.

And I would assume that the paragraph you have highlighted states in general rather than to a specific type of game. Would you think then that an able bodied person can play in the disabled game as that to me would be attractive and enjoyable for me.

 

[QuaverRef]

And I would assume that the paragraph you have highlighted states in general rather than to a specific type of game. Would you think then that an able bodied person can play in the disabled game as that to me would be attractive and enjoyable for me.

I think we are going down a dangerous path here ...

 

[ladbroke8745]

I think we are going down a dangerous path here ...

I get what you are saying but it has to be fun and fair for all right?
He is using his disability to his and his teams advantage. By not being able to throw the ball as per the lotg, he is taking a throw in the only way he can. His team are hugely benefiting from it.
Surely a disabled team would hugely benefit from an able bodied player who would find that game attractive to them.

Surely if you are going to play that paragraph, it has to be fair for all.
The reason that there is a disabled game, with its own adapted rules/laws, is so that every one can enjoy the game in their own bodies whilst adhering to the rules.

Would this player play in goal?
I highly doubt it.

 

[one]

Except, surely, if they are throwing it over arm at a huge disadvantage to the opposition.

Lets not confuse this with cricket . Nothing in law about "over arm" or underarm throw. Even for a non-disabled person. The ball must be "from behind and over the head". That is all you have to worry about.

Now if the throw you are saying is how I imagine it is, it will not be over the head and incorrectly taken.

 

[QuaverRef]

I get what you are saying but it has to be fun and fair for all right?
He is using his disability to his and his teams advantage. By not being able to throw the ball as per the lotg, he is taking a throw in the only way he can. His team are hugely benefiting from it.
Surely a disabled team would hugely benefit from an able bodied player who would find that game attractive to them.

Surely if you are going to play that paragraph, it has to be fair for all.
The reason that there is a disabled game, with its own adapted rules/laws, is so that every one can enjoy the game in their own bodies whilst adhering to the rules.

Would this player play in goal?
I highly doubt it.

I’m not sure where you’re coming from here. The Liklihood is at this age he just wants to play football with his friends. This isn’t a case of ‘hes Got one arm, sign him up to take throw ins’. You wouldn’t play in a disabled game for reasons we don’t really need to explain

 

[Ciley Myrus]

View attachment 2894

Absolutely allow him to take a throw in with one arm. You adapt the law for someone with disability. However you only adapt the "two hands" clause. The ball must still be thrown from behind and over his head. Now if this guy can throw 25 yard with one hand doing that, my logic tells me he would do the same with two hands so no 'unfair' dispensation is given to him.

totally not. by your rational any top flight player who had the disability stated in the post can do the illegal throw, in the name of conforming to your quoted extract from the lotg.

the part of the book you have quoted is not relevant here, someones sexual orientation does not prohibit or hinder their ability or inability to take a legal throw in!!
And where pray tell are you getting the guideline to chose what part of the throw process you can adapt and what parts you cant??

 

[one]

totally not. by your rational any top flight player who had the disability stated in the post can do the illegal throw, in the name of conforming to your quoted extract from the lotg.

the part of the book you have quoted is not relevant here, someones sexual orientation does not prohibit or hinder their ability or inability to take a legal throw in!!

Yo seem to have missed the quoted part about "take part and enjoy their involvement with football". Top flight football is not about participation. Its a business. And since when top flight football has been the guide on how to apply the laws anyways. Dissent, player equipment, goalkeeper encroachments are just a few examples of exactly the opposite

And where pray tell are you getting the guideline to chose what part of the throw process you can adapt and what parts you cant??

Logic and common sense. As SF pointed out in and earlier post, if a player has only one foot, I will adapt the part about both feet on the ground. I'd be interested to know if you would allow a player with one foot take the throw in.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It should

Its nothing like the same. How can anyone promote fair play and equality if (and I know this is far fetched but its the best example I can find), its 0-0 and the only goal comes from his illegal throw?
How on earth is that equal and inclusive and overall, fair?

Its not, its the polar opposite, it would be treating the disabled child differently, and, that is surely NOT the intention of anybody.
The disabled child would get the same allowance on his foul throw, (maybe a touch more) than any other player, that's fairness and being treated equal
Chucking the ball 4 times as far as anybody else in a manner clearly nothing near the required procedure is not equal. Nowhere near.

nobody is saying he cant play. Nobody is saying he cant take the throw, But if he does take the throw it needs to be something along lines as every other player taking a throw on the pitch. That's inclusion.

This.. Obviously his throw mechanics are different - but as long as he is making an effort to replicate a throw and not getting a big advantage then we need to allow it. If he's trying to abuse the situation by hurling it, foul throw and chat to the coach.
I can't believe anybody is actually arguing he shouldn't take the throw rather than find a way to work within the spirit of the laws to be inclusive.
It's just absurd.

 

[Ganajin]

I referee in Australia, and we have a one handed guy who plays in one of our leagues. It was handled extremely well in my opinion. The league sent someone to watch his throwing technique, adjudged it acceptable, and a directive was sent to all referees telling them this fact. At least the poor guy didn't have to put up with every week having a different ref judge him by different standards (as shown in the various posts on this topic here).

 

[one]

It should

This.. Obviously his throw mechanics are different - but as long as he is making an effort to replicate a throw and not getting a big advantage then we need to allow it. If he's trying to abuse the situation by hurling it, foul throw and chat to the coach.
I can't believe anybody is actually arguing he shouldn't take the throw rather than find a way to work within the spirit of the laws to be inclusive.
It's just absurd.

Are we talking the same thing though. There is no way a one handed hurl can come "from behind and over the head". Any hurling of the ball or "over arm" throw would fail at least one of those criteria. A proper "from behind the head and over it" is much harder to get distance using one hand.

I referee in Australia, and we have a one handed guy who plays in one of our leagues. It was handled extremely well in my opinion. The league sent someone to watch his throwing technique, adjudged it acceptable, and a directive was sent to all referees telling them this fact. At least the poor guy didn't have to put up with every week having a different ref judge him by different standards (as shown in the various posts on this topic here).

We follow that process for anyone with a disability that impacts refereeing it. Quite common with deaf players. Surly you don't caution them for delaying the restart if they can't hear the whistle and keep going with the ball

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I "might" be more agreeable should the league or ref association issue a memo re this individual but its not a referee decision...as I prev posted
". The league sent someone to watch his throwing technique, adjudged it acceptable, and a directive was sent to all referees telling them this fact"

over riding factor being its not a moral decision for us as refs to make, if all and sundry concerned knew what he was doing had been cleared by governing bodies then fine, on we go.
Absolutely not fair to judge a referee based on his desire to ensure a fair game for ALL, so am glad someone has posted reality and factual evidence of a sensible solution, rather than us swapping from yes to no from week to week.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Oscar Pistorious spent years successfuly trying to convince sports bodies that he wasn’t gaining an advantage and he had a spring in his step!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Are we talking the same thing though. There is no way a one handed hurl can come "from behind and over the head". Any hurling of the ball or "over arm" throw would fail at least one of those criteria. A proper "from behind the head and over it" is much harder to get distance using one hand.

We follow that process for anyone with a disability that impacts refereeing it. Quite common with deaf players. Surly you don't caution them for delaying the restart if they can't hear the whistle and keep going with the ball

I posted that already, a deaf player would get allowance for something like that, yes, but if in doing so he wipes out the gk on a 1 on 1 through ball? (which if a non deaf player did they would be getting a card).... now what!!
we cant paint by numbers for every possible scenario in a game.

 

[one]

I posted that already, a deaf player would get allowance for something like that, yes, but if in doing so he wipes out the gk on a 1 on 1 through ball? (which if a non deaf player did they would be getting a card).... now what!!
we cant paint by numbers for every possible scenario in a game.

You are willing to give allowance to a deaf player even though according to law he delayed the restart, but no allowance for a one arm player because according to law he has to use two hands to throw. That doesn't seem consistent to me.

In your scenario for the deaf player, as would with a one arm player, I would only give allowance for deafness. If his "wiping out of the keeper" is reckless he still gets a yellow, if its UEF, he is sent of. I would repoer it as VC but the league can change it to SFP if they want to.

The point is, give allowance for the disability only, no more (for fairness). For one arm, he can still use one arm/hand, but still has to do everything else including from behind and over the head.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

You are willing to give allowance to a deaf player even though according to law he delayed the restart, but no allowance for a one arm player because according to law he has to use two hands to throw. That doesn't seem consistent to me.

In your scenario for the deaf player, as would with a one arm player, I would only give allowance for deafness. If his "wiping out of the keeper" is reckless he still gets a yellow, if its UEF, he is sent of. I would repoer it as VC but the league can change it to SFP if they want to.

The point is, give allowance for the disability only, no more (for fairness). For one arm, he can still use one arm/hand, but still has to do everything else including from behind and over the head.

I have said since post one on this, am more than ok with an allowance on the throw
Am not ok with him throwing it olympic hammer style. I would need his throw to be at least effort at a legal throw. I have typed this in a lot of my posts on this.

 

[JamesL]

I need to disagree entirely with the above. The LOTG tell you clearly what can and cant be modified.
"the taking of the throw" is not one of them.
Why should I cop the flak next week for adhering to the good book itself. Being a referee is not a moral choice, if it was, I would help a team who is losing heavy to score a goal, or chalk off a few dodgy offside ones to help out.
am not permitted to do so though. am appointed to ensure fair play to the best of my ability
To allow someone in one team to do something so far removed from the LOTG that its not fair, would be me failing as a match official. (note there is a difference between match official, and person in everyday life)

to actively promote one team to have an advantage over the other, whether its u13 or u23, is cheating. There is no other word for it.

if the above was factual then there would be no Olympics/Paralympics, there would simply be an even playing field for all
as it is, there is not, so, things get levelled out in the interest of fairness

nobody is excluding anyone, nobody is denying the chance to play, nobody is saying even don't throw the ball
what they are saying is, it has to be thrown along the same lines as the other shy takers....that's inclusion/equality and that's treating everybody the same

Completely wrong... these views sound like something from the dark ages.
I suggest you ask your employer, providing you aren't retired, if you could perhaps go on an equality and diversity training day to learn the true meaning of it in todays society.
Its about making reasonable adjustments to ensure that a person who has a disability has an equal opportunity as a person who does not have a disability.
If the throw in is taken in accordance with lotg, with the exception of two hands then equality and diversity would mean that you should make a reasonable adjustment for that person and their disability.
Like Rusty says, if he follows the procedure then allow it... if he is over arming it like a keeper then you need to step in and say no, it should be taken like X (insert requirements less two hands.)