What Constitutes A "Foul Throw?"

[Michael Byrne]

The ball must come into the FOP from the point where it left, so as long as he throws it back in so that it enters the FOP at the same point that it left then it does not matter how far back he stands. All the Law says is that both feet must be touching the ground, on or behind the line. It does not say how far behind.
However, what almost always happens is that he throws it along the touchline so it re-enters the FOP a long way from where it went out. This is therefore a foul throw, just as if he takes the throw down the line from where it went out of play.
Similarly, if a player stands next to the touchline where the ball went out of play but throws the ball down the line so that it re-enters a long way from where it should come in would also be a foul throw, but much harder to sell unless you were sure where it actually came into play.

I believe you can only be 0.9 metres behind the line at a throw.

 

[Monotone Whistle]

I won't allow a throw-in to be taken from behind a barrier - even if it enters the FOP exactly where it left it

@Alex71 is correct (as always ), but that's because we referee in a league that requires the pitch to be roped off or have a barrier around it, so the player cannot take the throw outside of this boundary. I get this scenario a few times each season, the players tries a quick one from outside the roped off area and I have to call it back and have them retake it.

I believe you can only be 0.9 metres behind the line at a throw.

Not sure where you got that from, but the idea is that the player delivers the throw from the point the ball left the fop (i.e. the player will be standing on the bye line). I tend to let them take it where they want*, provided the ball enters the fop at the right point, they can be 1m back if they want.

* obviously not so far back that they are a) in a different postcode b) throwing the ball over an obstacle c) behind the rope

 

[McTavish]

As with throws down the line that don't make it onto the FOP before bouncing - it's just a re-take, same direction

I would say that unless there is some unusual factor - huge gust of wind for example - that this is a foul throw as the thrower has failed to face the field of play.

 

[frank_ref]

Kind of comical, this thread. Is it really that complicated? I'd say, "you know it when you see it." Read the LOTG. Forget what players and coaches shout, and what you learned in primary school. And don't punish throws purely on the basis of how ugly or different or accidental, for that matter (same goes for people, I suppose).

Can Charlie Jones just write a quick note to confirm he understands you can have some (or even almost all) of one or both feet on the FOP?

The one that gets me - to chuck an extra one in there - is when players take it 10/15 yards behind where it went out, to throw to the goalkeeper, for example. Should be foul throw and turnover. But what I tend to do is try and catch them with a whistle before they have a chance to release.

Cheers!

 

[Kes]

Kind of comical, this thread. Is it really that complicated? I'd say, "you know it when you see it." Read the LOTG. Forget what players and coaches shout, and what you learned in primary school. And don't punish throws purely on the basis of how ugly or different or accidental, for that matter (same goes for people, I suppose).
Agreed.

Can Kes just write a quick note to confirm he understands you can have some (or even almost all) of one or both feet on the FOP?
Cheers!

Why would I want to do that Frank? I think you'll find it was somebody else on here that was confused about that particular bit - not I. Try asking him mate.

I also think that far from being "comical", if nothing else the multitude of different answers and individual interpretations of how Law 15 should/shouldn't be applied shows that this thread is actually quite enlightening and even educational.

 

[Jacko]

I only give "foul throws" when it's expected.

Whats the point in being clever with something which is just getting the ball in play?

 

[SM]

What do you base your judgement of "expected" on @Jacko ?

 

[frank_ref]

Why would I want to do that Frank? I think you'll find it was somebody else on here that was confused about that particular bit - not I. Try asking him mate.

Right on. I'll rescind that on grounds of mistaken identity. Charlie Jones was yon culprit, not your good self.

 

[deusex]

Kind of comical, this thread. Is it really that complicated? I'd say, "you know it when you see it." Read the LOTG. Forget what players and coaches shout, and what you learned in primary school. And don't punish throws purely on the basis of how ugly or different or accidental, for that matter (same goes for people, I suppose).

Are the 2 emboldened bits not contradictions?

 

[frank_ref]

No.

 

[deusex]

I was being polite, what I meant to say was "You have completely contradicted yourself".

 

[frank_ref]

How so? I disagree.

 

[McTavish]

Kind of comical, this thread. Is it really that complicated? I'd say, "you know it when you see it." Read the LOTG.

And yet after three pages I still haven't seen a definitive explanation of what "delivers the ball from behind and over his head" means.

To say "you know it when you see it" is not helpful if you don't know exactly what it looks like and is a contradiction of "Read the LOTG". As previously posted I have read the LOTG and they are not clear.

 

[McTavish]

How so? I disagree.

Because on the one hand you have said:

"you know it when you see it."

So judge throws on what they look like, on the other you have said:

don't punish throws purely on the basis of how ugly or different or accidental, for that matter

So don't judge throws on what they look like.

 

[Kes]

And yet after three pages I still haven't seen a definitive explanation of what "delivers the ball from behind and over his head" .
.

Right again!!
We do however seem to have a myriad of explanations/interpretations as to what people think it doesn't mean! (Which is probably the same thing ).
My point was, and still is that Law 15 is ambiguous because in fact, it's the only law which describes (albeit in very basic detail) the actual technique to be used to execute it.
Basically, just so long as the thrower complies with the points listed in Law 15 - it's not a foul throw - irrespective of however ugly or unorthodox it may look to either referees or players.

 

[frank_ref]

**sigh**

Of course you have to judge it on what it looks like. How else would you judge it? On what it sounds like? On what it smells like?

If the Laws of the Game don't seem clear maybe grab a dictionary and check out the words "head", "behind" and "over". That's what I did. Suddenly everything fell into place.

 

[SM]

Play nice please lads

We, the guardians of the game of football, discuss and debate. Argument and bickering are for players, team officials and the unwashed and mostly uneducated (supporters)

 

[deusex]

**sigh**

Of course you have to judge it on what it looks like. How else would you judge it? On what it sounds like? On what it smells like?

If the Laws of the Game don't seem clear maybe grab a dictionary and check out the words "head", "behind" and "over". That's what I did. Suddenly everything fell into place.

You still digging?
You said "you know it when you see it" which pretty much means penalise anything that looks ugly.
McTavish has called you on this point and you have oversimplified his words to suit your own argument when you knew exactly what he meant.
You then went on to contradict yourself for the second time by urging us to read the LOTG after you have told us "you know it when you see it".
If you did indeed use dictionary to look up those terms I dare say this might go straight over your head.
I tried

 

[McTavish]

**sigh**

Of course you have to judge it on what it looks like. How else would you judge it? On what it sounds like? On what it smells like?

If the Laws of the Game don't seem clear maybe grab a dictionary and check out the words "head", "behind" and "over". That's what I did. Suddenly everything fell into place.

No need to be condescending...most of us are trying to have a measured debate. I for one am genuinely unsure what the law means and am trying to get some clarification .

I know exactly what those three words mean but it's the combination that I'm struggling with. Are you saying that at the point the ball is thrown it has to be both behind and over the head (which would be difficult but is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the law); or that it has to start behind and finish over the head; or that it has to start behind, then go over and where it finishes is unimportant? Or something else?

Is @Padfoot 's waist high throw acceptable and if not, why not?

 

[frank_ref]

It's a good point, McTavish, and I do apologise for underestimating the educational value of this thread (as well as the tongue-in-cheek language, which I see hasn't come across so well). Maybe I can backtrack/change tack and start afresh?

"From behind and over his head..."

You're right that this simple phrase is deceptively complex in interpretation. How to tackle it? How about miming to yourself the various possibilities of throw-in and then asking, "was that from behind and over my head?" If so, go with that. It seems to me there aren't really that many legal options.

Anything that isn't delivered "from behind" isn't legal. Anything that doesn't go "over" isn't legal. And the use of the word "and" in "behind and over" seems to imply one continuous action.

Would the waist high throw satisfy the requirements? Or the Aussies rules 'bounce throw'? I think so, if done skilfully and in one smooth action. But the chances of a player doing this in a game are pretty slim, so not something I'll be losing any sleep over. Cross that bridge in the unlikely event I come to it.

This is from the USSF "Advice to referees on the Laws of the Game":

15.3 PROPERLY TAKEN THROW-IN
Law 15 states that the thrower “delivers the ball from behind and over his head.” This phrase does not mean that the ball must leave the hands from an overhead position. A natural throwing movement starting from behind and over the head will usually result in the ball leaving the hands when they are in front of the vertical plane of the body. The throwing movement must be continued to the point of release. A throw-in directed straight downward (often referred to as a “spike”) has traditionally been regarded as not correctly performed; if, in the opinion of the referee such a throw-in was incorrectly performed, the restart should be awarded to the opposing team. There is no requirement in Law 15 prohibiting spin or rotational movement. Referees must judge the correctness of the throw-in solely on the basis of Law 15.

So they say no to the 'spike throw', though seemingly purely on the basis of tradition. And, confusingly, by offering the possibility that a referee could judge "such a throw-in incorrectly performed", they imply that this type of throw could also be "correctly performed".

Go figure.

Personally, my only question when the inevitable shouts for "foul throw, ref!" cry out is, "was it from behind and then over the head, and in one fluid motion?" When I say, "I know it when I see it" what I mean is, having asked that question, I know when the answer is "no".

Does that clear things up?