RefSix

Throwing a ball at a player from the throw in

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#23
You can agree or not. Fortunately facts don't care if you agree with them. Read Law 12. Striking is clearly CRUEF. Striking isn't inherently done when not challenging for the ball.

Even FIFA have always held the position that throwing the ball into an opponent might be fine, it might be a yellow, or it might be red. Not sure what the argument is about here.


Yeah, and once upon a time a ball needed to roll its circumference at a free kick.
I'm a bit confused now. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? :confused:
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#25
You can agree or not. Fortunately facts don't care if you agree with them. Read Law 12. Striking is clearly CRUEF. Striking isn't inherently done when not challenging for the ball.

Even FIFA have always held the position that throwing the ball into an opponent might be fine, it might be a yellow, or it might be red. Not sure what the argument is about here.


Yeah, and once upon a time a ball needed to roll its circumference at a free kick.


The op refers to a possible violent conduct, to which, in a vain effort to get inside the head of the law makers, I referred to previous wording, to gain insight to the history of violent conduct
Your helpful reply has nothing to do with the op or my post
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#27
When? I just had a quick scan through my historical versions of the Laws of the Game and was unable to find a time when this was so.

Could you enlighten us as to when it used to be the case?

Sadly you and I cannot have been present on the same coaching classes and also sadly I am not responsible for what was taught, when it was taught, or indeed responsible for the standardised misconduct report in Scotland certainly from 1990 to around 2005
If i can dig out my reference material I will.
 
#28
The op refers to a possible violent conduct, to which, in a vain effort to get inside the head of the law makers, I referred to previous wording, to gain insight to the history of violent conduct
Your helpful reply has nothing to do with the op or my post
Your so-called history has nothing to do with the OP or the post. 'Striking' can be a DFK only. If it wasn't in the past, that's completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to confuse the matter.
 
#33
'Striking' can be a DFK only. If it wasn't in the past, that's completely irrelevant.
Although to be clear, it always was possible for striking to be only a DFK (or at least ever since it was first referenced in the Laws).

The first time striking was mentioned in the Laws of the Game as far as I can tell, was in 1938 when the Laws were completely rewritten (and for the first time, organized into the 17 Laws in the order we have today) by Stanley Rous.

At that time, the law said:
IMG_20180714_094430.png
 
#34
Fine sentiments Ryan but how do you judge a force to be excessive? That’s very very subjective! The Saunders one was thrown with a force, it’s a very poorly worded statement.
If it is not a part of the game, then it is by definition excessive. The question one must ask is: how much force is normal and necessary for the circumstance. In the case of throwing something at an opponent, the answer is none. It is never acceptable to throw something at an opponent outside of what is normal in a game.

However, in the case of OP, I do not believe that a foul has been committed at all. A throw-in is a part of the game, and that it should hit another player is not really outside of the reasonable scope of expectations.
 
#35
If it is not a part of the game, then it is by definition excessive. The question one must ask is: how much force is normal and necessary for the circumstance. In the case of throwing something at an opponent, the answer is none. It is never acceptable to throw something at an opponent outside of what is normal in a game.

However, in the case of OP, I do not believe that a foul has been committed at all. A throw-in is a part of the game, and that it should hit another player is not really outside of the reasonable scope of expectations.
Whether it's outside the reasonable scope of expectations is hardly the point though, is it? The main consideration is surely the fact that the law specifically allows for a player to take a throw-in by intentionally throwing the ball at an opponent. So long as it's done in a way that is not careless, reckless or using excessive force, the law says it's OK.

Edit: However, checking the OP, it talks about the throw being done in an 'aggressive' manner - that rather makes it sounds as if it could easily have been done recklessly or using excessive force, which would mean it is an offence.
 
Last edited:

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#36
If it is not a part of the game, then it is by definition excessive. The question one must ask is: how much force is normal and necessary for the circumstance. In the case of throwing something at an opponent, the answer is none. It is never acceptable to throw something at an opponent outside of what is normal in a game.

However, in the case of OP, I do not believe that a foul has been committed at all. A throw-in is a part of the game, and that it should hit another player is not really outside of the reasonable scope of expectations.
You were sending off for it earlier, :p now its in reasonable scope?? What do you really mean!!! :blackeye:
 
#39
If the level of force makes the throw-in a foul, then it is because it exceeds the necessary use of force. Otherwise, it would always be a foul to throw the ball in and hit an opponent.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#40
If the level of force makes the throw-in a foul, then it is because it exceeds the necessary use of force. Otherwise, it would always be a foul to throw the ball in and hit an opponent.
I am with @CapnBloodbeard here. A caution is an option. Your logic is flawed. Lotg state that
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force
and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
Basically, for it to be considered excessive force it has to endanger player safety.

Its like saying if a player pushes a player in the chest that the force used is excessive on account of he shouldnt have pushed him in the first place - or a careless foul when the ball is significantly out of playing distance automatically makes it "excessive". Whilst every day use of the word it is correct we must refer to what the lotg mean as opposed to the everyday meaning.
 
Top