Almost there
- Thread starter Brian Hamilton
- Start date
- Status
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Case in point here...
Come on then - what's wrong with "releasing" it at chest level. Exactly what part of Law 15 is that non compliant with?
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I take that to mean the action of releasing the ball has to begin behind their head, and continue over their head.
It doesn't say the ball can't be released in front of their face or chest.
However, there is a point when it stops being a "throw" and becomes more of a "drop", and I'm not sure why you'd want to do this
It doesn't say the ball can't be released in front of their face or chest.
However, there is a point when it stops being a "throw" and becomes more of a "drop", and I'm not sure why you'd want to do this
Kes
I'll Decide ...
"Deliver from" and "release" are two completely different words/terms, and only one of them is mentioned in Law 15. You won't find "release" in there anywhere.
Think about what you've just written Graeme - really??!!
The fact is you got it wrong - which is my point entirely and (I guess) one of the reasons my original thread ran to so many pages. Referees, players and coaches have been making this crap up around the throw-in for years it seems and the chance to re-write the Law and stop this daft multi-faceted interpretation of what's right/wrong has been lost yet again for the foreseeable future.
If the thrower complies with all the points of Law 15 regarding position of throw on the field, faces the field of play, feet placement correct and (two-handed) he delivers the ball from behind and over his head (note the absence of any indication on where it has to be released in the text
) then you are simply wrong to call it a "foul throw".The player can let go of the ball from wherever the eff he likes. If he can't, then Law 15 needs to state that and as a referee, you have a duty to ensure that Law 15 is complied with - not accepted culture, practice or opinion.
YorkshireReferee
Well-Known Member
Ah the foul throw
It's so simple but yet so irritating at games
I've lost count of the times I've shouted 'it might look wrong but it doesn't necessarily mean it is'
I've adapted a rolling of the wrists that accompanies a shout of 'over his head that's fine lads play on'
But it's getting to the same levels as 'IN THE BACK REF' every time a player so much as raises his arm this season
That one irritates me. Just because the hand is touching his back, does not mean whatsoever that any sort of force is been applied against the player in front of him. Literally, the slightest of a raised hand and you hear "in the back ref".
So just to clarify, you're telling me that as long as he goes through the "moving the ball from behind to over the head" movement, he can then go on to do whatever he wants? After all, there's nothing in law 15 stating that it must be a single movement - so by your reading, he can move the ball over his head, adjust his grip and then chest pass (a la basketball) it or drop it, or roll it, as long as he uses both hands?"Deliver from" and "release" are two completely different words/terms, and only one of them is mentioned in Law 15. You won't find "release" in there anywhere.
Think about what you've just written Graeme - really??!!
The fact is you got it wrong - which is my point entirely and (I guess) one of the reasons my original thread ran to so many pages. Referees, players and coaches have been making this crap up around the throw-in for years it seems and the chance to re-write the Law and stop this daft multi-faceted interpretation of what's right/wrong has been lost yet again for the foreseeable future.
If the thrower complies with all the points of Law 15 regarding position of throw on the field, faces the field of play, feet placement correct and (two-handed) he delivers the ball from behind and over his head (note the absence of any indication on where it has to be released in the text
The player can let go of the ball from wherever the eff he likes. If he can't, then Law 15 needs to state that and as a referee, you have a duty to ensure that Law 15 is complied with - not accepted culture, practice or opinion.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
You're making stuff up again mate.
Stop trying to attach a "that's how it should be done" picture to it and read nothing more than what Law 15 actually says. So long as it's a "throw" (which suggests one movement
) and all the other stated criteria are met ie the ball comes from behind and over the head - then any other requirements are simply sh** you've made up yourself based (no doubt) on preconceptions fed to you by other players/coaches and referees..... At the end of the day, we can't just make it up as we go along based on popular consensus of opinion.
If you're going to blow for a "foul throw" and as per the LOTG, award the throw to the other team, then you've got to be able to prove/explain what part of Law 15 the thrower failed to comply with mate. If you can't - then you're wrong. Simple as.....
You accuse me of making stuff up and then come up with the phrase I've highlighted above? So again, just to clarify - you're allowed to infer that "throw = one movement", but I'm not allowed to infer that "release the ball" is a synonym for "deliver the ball"?You're making stuff up again mate.
Stop trying to attach a "that's how it should be done" picture to it and read nothing more than what Law 15 actually says. So long as it's a "throw" (which suggests one movement
At the end of the day, we can't just make it up as we go along based on popular consensus of opinion.
If you're going to blow for a "foul throw" and as per the LOTG, award the throw to the other team, then you've got to be able to prove/explain what part of Law 15 the thrower failed to comply with mate. If you can't - then you're wrong. Simple as.....
If release = deliver, then I've absolutely proven why I was right to give a foul throw. And if not, then yes, we'll resort to a super-strict interpretation of the laws and my initial question has to be right: surely anything is legal as long as the ceremonial process of moving the ball over the head is carried out and then two hands are used to deliver the ball onto the pitch? There's no explicit "single movement" requirement in law 15 after all...
You can't use detailed rules lawyering to suggest I'm wrong and then make up interpretations when it suits your argument later on.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
That's not what I've done at all. Release isn't deliver and never will be.
Anyway, case closed Graeme. You've given a foul throw for an imagined violation of Law 15 which doesn't exist haven't you? That's all I'm saying. Instead of trying to turn it into a tit for tat thing just admit that you were wrong. I've had to myself on more than one thread on here in the past mate.
As I said before, if you can show what he failed to comply with in Law 15, then you're right to give a foul throw. But you can't.
Glad to have been of service......
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
The Post Office delivers the mail (start to finish) but the postman releases your promotion letter through your door .
Annoyingly, I think @Kes is technically right on this issue (he's certainly given it more thought than any right minded person would ever do). It just gets difficult when there is such a strong convention at play, reinforced by the occasional decision on the telly, which gives people the idea that the Laws suggest when the ball must be released. Maybe @Peter Grove would like to write to his mate David (Elleray) again to clear this up??
.Annoyingly, I think @Kes is technically right on this issue (he's certainly given it more thought than any right minded person would ever do
). It just gets difficult when there is such a strong convention at play, reinforced by the occasional decision on the telly, which gives people the idea that the Laws suggest when the ball must be released. Maybe @Peter Grove would like to write to his mate David (Elleray) again to clear this up??
Kes
I'll Decide ...
The Post Office delivers the mail (start to finish) but the postman releases your promotion letter through your door
Annoyingly, I think @Kes is technically right on this issue (he's certainly given it more thought than any right minded person would ever do
You wouldn't believe the long nights awake Russell!
I did at one point consider suggesting to @Peter Grove exactly as you've said, but I'm guessing if Elleray and Co actually knew or cared - they'd have done it at the last amendment.....
"Foul Throw Ref!!" Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
It's far from case closed, I don't quite know why you feel qualified to smugly declare it so.That's not what I've done at all. Release isn't deliver and never will be.
Anyway, case closed Graeme. You've given a foul throw for an imagined violation of Law 15 which doesn't exist haven't you? That's all I'm saying. Instead of trying to turn it into a tit for tat thing just admit that you were wrong. I've had to myself on more than one thread on here in the past mate.
As I said before, if you can show what he failed to comply with in Law 15, then you're right to give a foul throw. But you can't.
Glad to have been of service......
Explain to me why you're allowed to infer a logical, context-relevant meaning (that has been reinforced by convention) to the word "throw", but I'm not allowed to infer a logical, context-relevant meaning (that has been reinforced by convention) to the word "deliver"? The law explicitly states that the ball is delivered from above the head - if it could also be delivered from in front of the face, why does the law not explicitly state this as an option?
Anyway, I was assessed on this match, so I'm looking forward to seeing if the assessor's report criticizes my decision to give a foul throw there too.
HertsFinest
Next Weeks Ref
Kes
I'll Decide ...
I rather think that trying to point out the obvious to you my friend is like trying to post jelly.
You may interpret my words as "smug" but actually, they're nothing more than a glib statement of fact. You've simply played on words and twisted the issue sideways in order to defend a decision you made which Law 15 clearly shows you to have been wrong. That's about as complicated as it gets for me Graeme.
I'm almost 100% sure that your assessor won't criticise or even be aware of why you gave a "foul throw" - which is actually the crux of the whole matter and what I've been referring to in my posts on this subject so far. Carry on getting it wrong mate - I'm now done with trying to explain it to you. .....
Hope your assessment went well by the way.
- Status