The Ref Stop

Throw in played by teammate out of bounds

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Ref Stop
CapnBloodbeard said:
The law is quite black and white on this. Not sure where the confusion lies santa?
Click to expand...
The ball being played by another player before entering the FoP is not covered as far as I can see. This is different from goalkicks where this is covered.

I hear you all "know" it's a retake but... No one has answered this thread and quoted the law yet. ;)

(Peter quoted a bit but for me it just highlighted that a throw in entering the FoP is not the same as "correctly" which is not clearly defined. And that retake "offences" are not listed as per the GK law)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Well, yes, the law has been quoted. What law would you quote to indicate it could potentially be a throw to the other team?
Which part of Law 15 has been violated?
 
santa sangria said:
There is no definition of what is "correctly".
There is a list of "At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must:" that includes face the FoP etc. but it doesn't say that these are the things that constitute "correctly". In fact it clearly omits to say that.
Click to expand...
There are several laws that contain a procedure. None of them say that they are the correct procedure. So if you think the IFAB has given us a bunch of procedures that are incorrect then you may as well just throw the Law book away.

Alternatively, you could choose to believe that the procedures given in the laws are in fact, the correct procedures. I know which option I would choose.

santa sangria said:
So, with my rose tinted spectacles I say EDIT there was an offence as the ball was played by a player of the same team before it entered the field of play, therefore I am going with the final clause of Law 15 that states "For any other offence the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team."
Click to expand...
Once again, there is no offence here. Playing a ball which is off the field (and therefore while the ball is not in play) is not an offence.
 
Peter Grove said:
Once again, there is no offence here. Playing a ball which is off the field (and therefore while the ball is not in play) is not an offence.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good answer. Fair enough. There is no offence. I accept that.

And I appreciate your comments Peter.

I don't see though how a throw can still be "correct" if the taker, or her teammate, stops the throw in entering the FoP?
 
Hi
The best way to imagine this is that there is an imaginary wall of water on the pitch side of the touch line. Once the ball is * wet* by breaking that plane of water after release from the throwers hand it is in play. If the ball crosses out again over the plane then it is throw the other way. If the ball does not get *wet* by breaking the plane of water then it is not in play and it cannot be played by any other player while NOT in play. Only a ball in play can be played by a player. It is a retake.
For me the easy decision is that if the thrower is close to the line then more than likely the plane has been broken at the point of the throw so it gets turned over unless it is so obvious that it did not enter that is where the player is stood well back from the line and the throw was no where near the line and never crossed the plane. I also think that players are so consumed by down the line that they should not get the benefit of any doubt. I just give it the other way and funny how the next few throws are never as tight to the line.
It would be a good law change that if a TI is not put into play that it is deemed an incorrectly taken TI and turned over every single time. There would be less tight line throws with such a law.
 
Goldfish said:
Hi
The best way to imagine this is that there is an imaginary wall of water on the pitch side of the touch line. Once the ball is * wet* by breaking that plane of water after release from the throwers hand it is in play. If the ball crosses out again over the plane then it is throw the other way. If the ball does not get *wet* by breaking the plane of water then it is not in play and it cannot be played by any other player while NOT in play. Only a ball in play can be played by a player. It is a retake.
For me the easy decision is that if the thrower is close to the line then more than likely the plane has been broken at the point of the throw so it gets turned over unless it is so obvious that it did not enter that is where the player is stood well back from the line and the throw was no where near the line and never crossed the plane. I also think that players are so consumed by down the line that they should not get the benefit of any doubt. I just give it the other way and funny how the next few throws are never as tight to the line.
It would be a good law change that if a TI is not put into play that it is deemed an incorrectly taken TI and turned over every single time. There would be less tight line throws with such a law.
Click to expand...
Is that why you are called goldfish because you referee using imaginary water lol
 
Isn't the important bit here the fact that the ball, from a throw in, should enter the field of play from where it left it.

how you view the deliberacy of the scenario will dictate who gets to take the rethrow
 
Paul March said:
Isn't the important bit here the fact that the ball, from a throw in, should enter the field of play from where it left it.

how you view the deliberacy of the scenario will dictate who gets to take the rethrow
Click to expand...
(I like the logic, but the law doesn't say the ball has to enter where it left the FoP. It says the thrower has to throw the ball from where it left the FoP.)

Could you clarify a bit, please?

Are you saying if a teammate of the thrower, off the FoP, volleys the throw onto the FoP, but the ball enters the FoP let's say 15 yards away from where it originally left the FoP, then it is a throw to the opposition? But if the teammate volleys and it enters from the right place, it is a retake?
 
I think i understand santa's point. Imagine if the law did not have the bit about the ball touching the ground before entering the FOP after a correct TI. If it did happen, since no offence has been committed, the obvious outcome would have been play on. But the law has specifically included it to ensure its a retake.
In his case the law does not have any bit about the ball touching a team mate before entering the FOP. Had it been there the outcome could have been possibly different to the obvious retake.
 
one said:
I think i understand santa's point. Imagine if the law did not have the bit about the ball touching the ground before entering the FOP after a correct TI. If it did happen, since no offence has been committed, the obvious outcome would have been play on. But the law has specifically included it to ensure its a retake.
In his case the law does not have any bit about the ball touching a team mate before entering the FOP. Had it been there the outcome could have been possibly different to the obvious retake.
Click to expand...

A ball that is not in play can't be played.

A ball that goes out of play, cant be played normally, a restart is taken as per the LOTG dependent on how/where it went out of play.

Dropped ball, ball is not in play until it touches the floor, if its played before, retake.

Goals kick. Ball is not in play until it leaves PA. If the ball is played before, or goes out of play, or goal scored in teams goal. Retake.

Throw in, a throw is not in play until it enters FOP. Therefore any attempt to play the ball before it does is a retake.

There are enough examples in the lotg to show that if a ball is played whilst not in play its always retake unless there is any infringement of the retake's procedure.
 
JamesL said:
Throw in, a throw is not in play until it enters FOP. Therefore ANY attempt to play the ball before it does is a retake.
Click to expand...
My capitals;)

Thanks for your post. I think that it is a good answer to Paul's point above (that it doesn't matter where the ball enters the FoP).

But it is this "any" that I have truck with. I'm back with the scenario that the thrower plays the ball before it enters the FoP...

In Law 15.1, the last lonely line is
"The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player." Full stop.

It does not say "...unless the ball has not yet entered the FoP"

In 15.2 the law is clear with:
"If, after the ball is in play, the thrower touches the ball again before it has touched another player an indirect free kick is awarded..."

Surely this omission means something? Surely that line in 15.1 means that it is incorrect procedure for the thrower to touch the ball again after throwing it, even if it has not entered the FoP, so throw to the opposition...?

This is the kind of point @peter has made about the laws before. I also asked the IFAB this.
 
I agree that maybe it could be better worded or the ramifications could be more explicit.

However to answer your point the title of the sections are the answer. 15.1 procedure i.e. this is how it should be done. When looking at 15.1 we should only consider the procedure. In your example the last part of the procedure is a player must not touch the ball again but for that to be applicable all the ealier criteria must have been met i.e. the ball has entered FOP etc.
15.2 offences and sanctions i.e what happens when is not done as per procedure.
 
I think we're encouraged to use common sense in some situations - the example I was given back on my course was when a player picks the ball up for a throw in, changes their mind and then rolls/throws it underarm towards a teammate to take (either on or off the FOP). Technically, if it enters the FOP then that's an illegally-taken throw in and should be a throw to the opposition, but we would always use our common sense and let it carry on.

I think this is a similar situation. If the ball hasn't entered the FOP, the common sense answer is that the throw in hasn't actually occurred. The fact the laws don't explicitly state that is indeed an oversight, but I think it's a logical inference - all the laws quoted above assume the ball has been put into play in some manner or other and then work backwards from there to discover if that manner was legal. Therefore, if the ball doesn't enter the FOP, there hasn't been a throw in and the question of whether the throw was legal or not is moot.

I've actually talked myself round here! In the precise situation described in the OP, I think the above logic allows us to treat the throw down the line as irrelevant. The question therefore becomes, do we want to penalise someone for kicking the ball onto the FOP instead of catching it and throwing it? And this for me is a judgement call - I would call it back and get the throw retaken personally, but I think a literal interpretation of the law would suggest that this is an illegal restart, doesn't meet the procedure for a properly taken throw and therefore, by the letter of the law, kicking the ball onto the pitch should be treated as a foul throw.

As I say though, I'd still go retake personally!
 
JamesL said:
I agree that maybe it could be better worded or the ramifications could be more explicit.

However to answer your point the title of the sections are the answer. 15.1 procedure i.e. this is how it should be done. When looking at 15.1 we should only consider the procedure. In your example the last part of the procedure is a player must not touch the ball again but for that to be applicable all the ealier criteria must have been met i.e. the ball has entered FOP etc.
15.2 offences and sanctions i.e what happens when is not done as per procedure.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks for this, good point.
 
GraemeS said:
I think we're encouraged to use common sense in some situations - the example I was given back on my course was when a player picks the ball up for a throw in, changes their mind and then rolls/throws it underarm towards a teammate to take (either on or off the FOP). Technically, if it enters the FOP then that's an illegally-taken throw in and should be a throw to the opposition, but we would always use our common sense and let it carry on.

I think this is a similar situation. If the ball hasn't entered the FOP, the common sense answer is that the throw in hasn't actually occurred. The fact the laws don't explicitly state that is indeed an oversight, but I think it's a logical inference - all the laws quoted above assume the ball has been put into play in some manner or other and then work backwards from there to discover if that manner was legal. Therefore, if the ball doesn't enter the FOP, there hasn't been a throw in and the question of whether the throw was legal or not is moot.

I've actually talked myself round here! In the precise situation described in the OP, I think the above logic allows us to treat the throw down the line as irrelevant. The question therefore becomes, do we want to penalise someone for kicking the ball onto the FOP instead of catching it and throwing it? And this for me is a judgement call - I would call it back and get the throw retaken personally, but I think a literal interpretation of the law would suggest that this is an illegal restart, doesn't meet the procedure for a properly taken throw and therefore, by the letter of the law, kicking the ball onto the pitch should be treated as a foul throw.

As I say though, I'd still go retake personally!
Click to expand...
Ha!
Your third paragraph is where my head is at still. Seems to me a massive advantage for the throwing team if they are allowed to play the ball before it enters the FoP and get a retake. Surely an illegal restart, incorrect throw...
 
How is it an advantage?
Touching the ball before it enters the FOP is not an illegal restart. The 2nd player doesn't mean the first player has delivered the ball incorrectly.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
How is it an advantage?
Touching the ball before it enters the FOP is not an illegal restart. The 2nd player doesn't mean the first player has delivered the ball incorrectly.
Click to expand...
Two bites of the cherry is a big advantage (you know I mean benefit, right?) for the throwing team, isn't it?
 
How is it 2 bites of the cherry? If the teammate touched it before it went in odds are it wasn't going in anyway.
It's not a shot on goal. If anything they're giving the defence more chance to prepare.
The 2nd player touching the ball is simply something that happened between the throw being correctly taken and the ball entering play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top