Throw ins - just a couple of things

[bloovee]

No, it proves that since the law was written, and referees and players knew what it meant (release the ball when over the head), it's begun to be
interpreted differently. (Put it this way - you'd struggle to find any old LOAF with illustrations showing a throw-in with the ball released after it's been "over the head".) Apart from changing "deliver" to "throw", the method of throwing has not changed from "over the head". I can think of at least one other instance where how things were always understood has changed without the wording of the law changing (and the law left open to interpretation).

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

2023 law "Throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play"
1973 law "Throw the ball with both hands from behind and over his head from the point where it left the field of play"
How far back were you going?

 

[Peter Grove]

Whilst we are on the exciting topic of throw ins.

So many calls for foul throws these days.

Lots of limp throws - is there any more detailed guidance in the IFAB regarding what is a foul throw and not.

There is detailed guidance on what is not an improperly-taken throw-in (aka 'foul throw') as follows:

At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must:

stand facing the field of play

have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline

throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play

Conversely, if these procedural details are not complied with, then the throw has been improperly taken.

 

[Peter Grove]

Put it this way - you'd struggle to find any old LOAF with illustrations showing a throw-in with the ball released after it's been "over the head"

When was there a LotG version issued with illustrations showing a throw-in? I'm not aware of such an animal.

 

[bloovee]

When was there a LotG version issued with illustrations showing a throw-in? I'm not aware of such an animal.

1997. Page 41.

 

[bloovee]

2023 law "Throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play"
1973 law "Throw the ball with both hands from behind and over his head from the point where it left the field of play"
How far back were you going?

Before 1973! "The thrower shall use both hands and shall deliver the ball from over his head" (Referee's Chart, 1963 edition.)

 

[bloovee]

There is detailed guidance on what is not an improperly-taken throw-in (aka 'foul throw') as follows:



Conversely, if these procedural details are not complied with, then the throw has been improperly taken.

I think that's the issue - at one time everyone knew what was an incorrectly taken throw * but then players and referees starting messing around asking what it literally meant, and now the law which once was universally understood is not now precise enough to answer that question: when should the thrower let go of the ball?

* I think no longer with us but in memory of the poster on another forum who constantly berated us for saying "foul throw".

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Before 1973! "The thrower shall use both hands and shall deliver the ball from over his head" (Referee's Chart, 1963 edition.)

In essence, the same as now, so not sure why law from 60 years ago is quoted. The 1963 version does not specify a release point. There were arguments way back about a delivery which was really dropping the ball into play, nothing changes.
Referees make the subjective decision, the thrower moans, no-one remembers the throw afterwards, move on.

 

[one]

at one time everyone knew what was an incorrectly taken throw * but then players and referees starting messing around asking what it literally meant, and now the law which once was universally understood is not now precise enough to answer that question: when should the thrower let go of the ball?

But isn't this the case for just about every law? Handball, offside, 'foul tackle', you name it. And the reason is simple, at around the same time, football turned into more of a business than sport and decisions' financial consequences were far bigger. So more precise definitions were needed rather than just what everyone knew. The problem is the ppl who wrote the laws weren't skilled enough to deal with this. They still aren't. I don't like it but it is what it is.

 

[one]

* I think no longer with us but in memory of the poster on another forum who constantly berated us for saying "foul throw".

For me it's about the expectations that when in a referee forum, use referee terminology. In apposed to fan/player terminology. I'd much rather hear 'the penalty area' rather than 'the box', or AR rather than linesman (even thou linesman was a 'refereeing term' at one point). And the reason is that it gives me, and likely others, the impression of neural viewpoint instead of a often biased fan/player viewpoint.

 

[bloovee]

But isn't this the case for just about every law? Handball, offside, 'foul tackle', you name it. And the reason is simple, at around the same time, football turned into more of a business than sport and decisions' financial consequences were far bigger. So more precise definitions were needed rather than just what everyone knew. The problem is the ppl who wrote the laws weren't skilled enough to deal with this. They still aren't. I don't like it but it is what it is.

I think they often did deal with it and just added "IFAB decisions" to the laws. Or expanded it to a Q and A where the A was to be taken as law (but could change then change back again). What really changed was some associations started deliberately tinkering with interpretations (hello USAAF).

And I surmise that in some cases the members of IFAB don't agree amongst themselves so their decision is to leave the law ambiguous.

 

[Pembroke]

I got what the OP was. I made the slam example as the opposite extreme end that one might say it compliment with law but no one would agree it's a good throw. Where is the middle ground though? And when is that legal line crossed. There is not single factor that determines this and the grey areas will always be debated. But at the end of the the referee on the day makes the call and as long as it is not definitively wrong in law we just have to accept it.

My U16 teams game was off, so no foul throws or otherwise this week.

I enquired about throws because I want to make an improvement in my knowledge (coach/ref), but also in my teams perfomance. My understanding is correct, and refs are making very very frequent errors at grass roots levels around what is a foul throw.

It is something that has an impact on young players. I have had players not wanting to take throws ins because the refs are wrong, not because of their technique. That has damaged player confidence in games.

 

[socal lurker]

When my son played GK, he got called for leaving the PA on punts. (He didn’t.) I told him to stop getting close and giving the ref the chance to make that mistake, as he wasn’t gaining anything from it.

if a certain kind of throw is getting called improper in your area, it doesn’t really matter if the refs are right or wrong. Teach your kids to throw in a way that the refs aren’t making the mistake (if, in fact, they are).

 

[bloovee]

When my son played GK, he got called for leaving the PA on punts. (He didn’t.) I told him to stop getting close and giving the ref the chance to make that mistake, as he wasn’t gaining anything from it.

if a certain kind of throw is getting called improper in your area, it doesn’t really matter if the refs are right or wrong. Teach your kids to throw in a way that the refs aren’t making the mistake (if, in fact, they are).

So you don't ask the ref (after the game) why he was penalising it? And if he doesn't know the law, wouldn't you tell him? (On the GK leaving the area.)

I'd have thought it was easier to teach the ref than teach kids to take account of a ref who doesn't know the law.

True, if no-one here knows what's a foul throw that's harder - because we don't know when it's a mistake because "it's just a way of getting the ball back in play".

I mean, we don't even know how long six seconds is.

 

[GraemeS]

So you don't ask the ref (after the game) why he was penalising it? And if he doesn't know the law, wouldn't you tell him? (On the GK leaving the area.)

This is so backwards. I can tell you from here why the ref penalised Socal's son for handling the ball outside the PA - because he thought he was handling the ball outside the PA. That's not a law issue, that's a simple subjective judgement from the ref's position.

I genuinely can't believe a ref suggesting that random parents (as he would have appeared) should be approaching referees after the game to tell them their subjective decisions are wrong. That's exactly what parents should not be doing, because it's that kind of low-level "you're wrong and here's why" that grinds referees down and starts to make them wonder why they do it.

 

[bloovee]

This is so backwards. I can tell you from here why the ref penalised Socal's son for handling the ball outside the PA - because he thought he was handling the ball outside the PA. That's not a law issue, that's a simple subjective judgement from the ref's position.

I genuinely can't believe a ref suggesting that random parents (as he would have appeared) should be approaching referees after the game to tell them their subjective decisions are wrong. That's exactly what parents should not be doing, because it's that kind of low-level "you're wrong and here's why" that grinds referees down and starts to make them wonder why they do it.

I'm sure Social Lurker has the necessary skills to approach a fellow referee and make it seem like helpful professional development.

 

[GraemeS]

I'm sure Social Lurker has the necessary skills to approach a fellow referee and make it seem like helpful professional development.

Really? Do you often take helpful professional development from random people walking up to you on the pitch after a game?

I'm sure Socal is a lovely person. But anyone who feels the need to approach me and tell me why I was wrong to give a decision against "their" team is part of the problem, not the solution. And I'd hope most experienced referees would realise that form of feedback is unlikely to be productive.

 

[socal lurker]

I was the coach, but when I’m coaching, I‘m focused on my team. And as a coach I have much better things to do after a game than put on my ref instructor hat. But I think you really miss the point. Coaching isn’t about being right about the LOTG or the arks decision. It’s about putting your team in the best position to be successful, and teaching your players skills to be successful In the future. One of those skills is adapting to referees. If referees are incorrectly calling minor contact a foul, it doesn’t help to whine about it—smart players adjust their level of contact. This really isn’t that different.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I think that's the issue - at one time everyone knew what was an incorrectly taken throw * but then players and referees starting messing around asking what it literally meant, and now the law which once was universally understood is not now precise enough to answer that question: when should the thrower let go of the ball?

* I think no longer with us but in memory of the poster on another forum who constantly berated us for saying "foul throw".

He did indeed, I remember him. He also used to ask EVERYONE who started a thread about a specific grassroots match incident, the age of the players - he did it without fail. Sadly you are correct, he passed away some years ago now.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I was the coach, but when I’m coaching, I‘m focused on my team. And as a coach I have much better things to do after a game than put on my ref instructor hat. But I think you really miss the point. Coaching isn’t about being right about the LOTG or the arks decision. It’s about putting your team in the best position to be successful, and teaching your players skills to be successful In the future. One of those skills is adapting to referees. If referees are incorrectly calling minor contact a foul, it doesn’t help to whine about it—smart players adjust their level of contact. This really isn’t that different.

I think that's a really good point and applies to so many aspects of the LOTG. The obvious one is Dissent and OFFINABUS, its obvious from the many many discussions on here about both subjects that there is not a universally accepted 'bar' for either offence at any level.

If one referee allows swearing but the next one tells your players not to, then as a coach you would be mad to tell them to ignore the 2nd ref and carry on swearing!