The Ref Stop

What Constitutes A "Foul Throw?"

personally, i'd say if its one continuous movement, with both hands, from behind the head in an arc over the top of the head, to the point of release then its not a foul throw ( assuming foot position and point of delivery was also correct ) if the players release point is around waist height then so be it... difficult i'd say to execute in practice, but technically nothing wrong with it in my eyes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
The Ref Stop
richard ramjane said:
personally, i'd say if its one continuous movement, with both hands, from behind the head in an arc over the top of the head, to the point of release then its not a foul throw ( assuming foot position and point of delivery was also correct ) if the players release point is around waist height then so be it... difficult i'd say to execute in practice, but technically nothing wrong with it in my eyes
Click to expand...

Good luck with that one mate!! :D

Again, Law 15 mentions nothing about "one continuous movement" - that's just something else that seems to have materialised and evolved into a "requirement" over time. :eek:

It's high time we all marched on St George's Park bearing placards. ;) :D
 
my thought process for the continuous bit is based on, (and i'm sure theres instances where this isnt 100 percent the case) the fact that if the movement is not continous then its basically a series of movements , not sure if thats explained very well, but then at the point of realease the last movement, inevitably (due to the short distance from the back of the head to the front) would start from in front of the head

sorry i dont think ive been too eloquent with that description :)
 
richard ramjane said:
my thought process for the continuous bit is based on, (and i'm sure theres instances where this isnt 100 percent the case) the fact that if the movement is not continous then its basically a series of movements , not sure if thats explained very well, but then at the point of realease the last movement, inevitably (due to the short distance from the back of the head to the front) would start from in front of the head

sorry i dont think ive been too eloquent with that description :)
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean.
At the end of the day, it's a "throw". A series of seperate movements whether beginning from behind the head or not is more than one "throw".

I'd say.... ;) :D
 
Charlie Jones said:
or just do whats been working for the last 100+ years and don't explain laws to them?

they play the game so should know how to play etc ... we are referees not coaches
Click to expand...

You're so right: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why mess with perfection? We wouldn't want to risk disturbing the current harmonious climate.
 
The part of the law specifying must have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground immediately behind the touchline causes confusion.
I was running the line in a match earlier this season when player took throw in with both heels on touchline with rest of feet on pitch. Cue subs and coaches from other team shouting for foul throw. When I told them it was OK they did not believe me.
They looked it up on phones and were reading it to me whilst match was going on and this convinced them I was wrong. I tried to tell them key word was or not and and player was compliant with first part. They just not grasp what the wording was telling them and it would be helpful if law was rewritten to state OK if feet on pitch as long as part of each fooot on touchline or behind.
I have even had an experienced ref lining for me who have flagged for foul throw because part of one foot on pitch with rest o foot on touchline and behind and was convinced these are foul throws and nothing me or the other AR could say to convince him he was wrong.
 
happy whistler said:
The part of the law specifying must have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground immediately behind the touchline causes confusion.
I was running the line in a match earlier this season when player took throw in with both heels on touchline with rest of feet on pitch. Cue subs and coaches from other team shouting for foul throw. When I told them it was OK they did not believe me.
They looked it up on phones and were reading it to me whilst match was going on and this convinced them I was wrong. I tried to tell them key word was or not and and player was compliant with first part. They just not grasp what the wording was telling them and it would be helpful if law was rewritten to state OK if feet on pitch as long as part of each fooot on touchline or behind.
Click to expand...

Law 15 is fairly straightforward regarding foot position for me.
It's not your fault that some coaches are too thick to understand plain English mate. ;) :)
 
happy whistler said:
The part of the law specifying must have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground immediately behind the touchline causes confusion.
I was running the line in a match earlier this season when player took throw in with both heels on touchline with rest of feet on pitch. Cue subs and coaches from other team shouting for foul throw. When I told them it was OK they did not believe me.
They looked it up on phones and were reading it to me whilst match was going on and this convinced them I was wrong. I tried to tell them key word was or not and and player was compliant with first part. They just not grasp what the wording was telling them and it would be helpful if law was rewritten to state OK if feet on pitch as long as part of each fooot on touchline or behind.
I have even had an experienced ref lining for me who have flagged for foul throw because part of one foot on pitch with rest o foot on touchline and behind and was convinced these are foul throws and nothing me or the other AR could say to convince him he was wrong.
Click to expand...
Rarely worth getting into a discussion on the LOTG while the ball is in play, the ignorance of players, managers, spectators is astonishing, but not worth discussing.
I had one today, high foot by a defender in the box, clear dangerous play, I blew and gave an IDFK in the box, the attacking team were convinced it should be a penalty, they tried to tell me I was wrong, I just tell them to get on with the free kick.
They scored the winning goal from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top