A&H

Almost there

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
@Kes @GraemeS ... please see how a proper 'discussion' should take place - view the cup final thread with myself and @Brian Hamilton :rolleyes:

I think 'being parallel' is fine (without taking the term parallel literally guys! lol) because he is facing the field of play? doesn't say that he should face the field directly in front of him straight on does it?

lets me sensible team!
 
richard ramjane said:
yup, i appreciate that and in fact theres a lot of clumsy looking, nay downright ugly, throws that i dont penalise because of my appreciation of that fact.
in that clip though it does look like Casillas drops the ball once it gets in front of his face, which is why i would agree with the ref on that occasion
Click to expand...

You know what? I'll concede that one because I think you're right - it does appear to be more of a drop than a "throw." However, anything which displays even the hint of forward motion (which that example clearly does) can't really be classified as having been "dropped". Here we see the ridiculous ambiguity of it all and why the Law should have been amended at the last opportunity to clearly state what is and isn't acceptable. :)
 
RegalRef said:
There definitely needs to be a 'handbag' emoticon on here.

Please @Ross?
Click to expand...

I must say I find it all rather laughable. I've scoured the thread from start to finish, and not one example of "handbags" or of Graeme and I being "uncivil" to each other can I find. This forum is the most polite and "well behaved" one I have ever been on. :confused:
 
GraemeS said:
Working on the assumption that me and 99% of the footballing world are right and releasing a throw in front of the face is a foul throw.
Click to expand...
So could you define what "throws the ball from behind and over the head" means for the 1%?
 
McTavish said:
So could you define what "throws the ball from behind and over the head" means for the 1%?
Click to expand...

Just remember that this is the shiny new law, not the dull tarnished old one which uses the word "deliver" instead of "throw".

Drastically alters the mechanics of the simple throw in....as now it would appear that you have to release the ball behind the head in order to be compliant????
 
Padfoot said:
Just remember that this is the shiny new law, not the dull tarnished old one which uses the word "deliver" instead of "throw".

Drastically alters the mechanics of the simple throw in....as now it would appear that you have to release the ball behind the head in order to be compliant????
Click to expand...

My point entirely. The word "release" however, is not used, therefore you can't stipulate that it is.
 
Padfoot said:
Just remember that this is the shiny new law, not the dull tarnished old one which uses the word "deliver" instead of "throw".

Drastically alters the mechanics of the simple throw in....as now it would appear that you have to release the ball behind the head in order to be compliant????
Click to expand...
And for the sake of balance/continuing this argument, I feel obliged to point out that it's perfectly logical to consider "delivered" and "released" as synonyms in this context.
 
For me, the criteria are: player takes throw roughly from where the ball went out; are both feet on the ground, on or behind the line, at the point of release; did the throwing action start from behind the head, and was the ball thrown? It doesn't matter how ugly the throw is otherwise, and as I have often said to players/teams/managers etc, just because it is an ugly throw, doesn't mean it's a foul throw.

Look, under the new LotG, the ball doesn't even have to move forwards any more at kick-off. Let's not get too worked up as to whether a ball was released at 90 degrees, or 95 degrees from the horizontal during a throw-in.
 
xPositor said:
For me, the criteria are: player takes throw roughly from where the ball went out; are both feet on the ground, on or behind the line, at the point of release; did the throwing action start from behind the head, and was the ball thrown? It doesn't matter how ugly the throw is otherwise, and as I have often said to players/teams/managers etc, just because it is an ugly throw, doesn't mean it's a foul throw.

Look, under the new LotG, the ball doesn't even have to move forwards any more at kick-off. Let's not get too worked up as to whether a ball was released at 90 degrees, or 95 degrees from the horizontal during a throw-in.
Click to expand...

Yep agree with all that - keep it simple eg no "synonyms" in ANY context!
 
xPositor said:
For me, the criteria are: player takes throw roughly from where the ball went out; are both feet on the ground, on or behind the line, at the point of release; did the throwing action start from behind the head, and was the ball thrown? It doesn't matter how ugly the throw is otherwise, and as I have often said to players/teams/managers etc, just because it is an ugly throw, doesn't mean it's a foul throw.

Look, under the new LotG, the ball doesn't even have to move forwards any more at kick-off. Let's not get too worked up as to whether a ball was released at 90 degrees, or 95 degrees from the horizontal during a throw-in.
Click to expand...
you mean , take it that the law was phrased with the assumption that we are rational human beings, and able to apply a modicum of common sense to it... yeah i like that :)
 
Padfoot said:
Just remember that this is the shiny new law, not the dull tarnished old one which uses the word "deliver" instead of "throw".

Drastically alters the mechanics of the simple throw in....as now it would appear that you have to release the ball behind the head in order to be compliant????
Click to expand...

You could interpret it like that, but I think this phrasing stipulates that the action must begin behind the head (difference between '[start] from' and '[release] from') and finish anywhere on the imaginary elliptical arc whose highest point is the top of the head and lowest point is the bottom of the feet. However, I would add that the lower the ball it is released, the more likely it becomes a drop rather than a throw.
Furthermore, I will admit that I have probably given foul throws because, instinctively, I feel it is incorrect when it is actually just on the unusual side of legal. The majority given for hand offences are when the action doesn't start behind the head. I recall also penalising a throw-in where the hands propelled the ball unevenly, thus effectively using only one hand. However, perhaps this is too pedantic, too.
As for feet considerations, I bet some teams don't realise both feet can be well inside the line as long as the heel is touching the paint!
 
GraemeS said:
I gave what I thought was a pretty obvious foul throw in a match, mentioned it on here in passing and then it all seemed to go a bit mad.....
Click to expand...
Actually, the reason why it all went 'a bit mad' is that many refs, myself included, get mind numbingly bored with the frequency of appeals from players for foul throws. When the throws being questioned have in fact just been slightly unusual / ugly. And we can only surmise that the reason players appeal so much is because other referees penalise such throws, thus perpetuating the problem. And there's no escaping it .. because it's by far the most common restart in every single game. So, the sooner we can all agree (thus giving players their much sought after 'consistency') the better for all concerned ,,,,
 
F**s sake, I'm sick of this discussion now.

Complain to my assessor who didn't comment on my decision to give this foul throw and the players on the pitch who argued less than any other decision I gave. Complain to your local FA who train new referees and don't discuss this in the way you seem to have decided is appropriate. Complain to the FA for not publicly criticising it's referees for giving foul throws you disagree with. And finally FIFA and those who write the laws while you're at it. Just stop moaning at me for following the same convention that 99% of other referees in the world go along with.

At the very least, accept that you're the ones with the novel interpretation of this law! I for one am comfortable with the decision I gave and will continue to apply the same consistent standards until an actual qualified and appointed assessor tells me otherwise. Got a problem with that? Couldn't care less any more.
 
GraemeS said:
F**s sake, I'm sick of this discussion now.

Complain to my assessor who didn't comment on my decision to give this foul throw and the players on the pitch who argued less than any other decision I gave. Complain to your local FA who train new referees and don't discuss this in the way you seem to have decided is appropriate. Complain to the FA for not publicly criticising it's referees for giving foul throws you disagree with. And finally FIFA and those who write the laws while you're at it. Just stop moaning at me for following the same convention that 99% of other referees in the world go along with.

At the very least, accept that you're the ones with the novel interpretation of this law! I for one am comfortable with the decision I gave and will continue to apply the same consistent standards until an actual qualified and appointed assessor tells me otherwise. Got a problem with that? Couldn't care less any more.
Click to expand...

This is ironic really.

You've all been discussing this now for like 4 pages of this thread and 75 posts, and still haven't got anywhere other than you started. :p:eek::D:cool::confused:
 
GraemeS said:
F**s sake, I'm sick of this discussion now.

Complain to my assessor who didn't comment on my decision to give this foul throw and the players on the pitch who argued less than any other decision I gave. Complain to your local FA who train new referees and don't discuss this in the way you seem to have decided is appropriate. Complain to the FA for not publicly criticising it's referees for giving foul throws you disagree with. And finally FIFA and those who write the laws while you're at it. Just stop moaning at me for following the same convention that 99% of other referees in the world go along with.

At the very least, accept that you're the ones with the novel interpretation of this law! I for one am comfortable with the decision I gave and will continue to apply the same consistent standards until an actual qualified and appointed assessor tells me otherwise. Got a problem with that? Couldn't care less any more.
Click to expand...
**looks for hand grenade emoticon**

You're wrong

**runs for cover**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top