Okay, let's try a bit of abba....We were only debating opinions. Are we not allowed to even do that?!! Try putting some ABBA on or something....
This is the main problem with the law as it is written - it doesn't explicitly say that the ball is delivered from above the head, it says that the player "delivers the ball from behind and over his head".The law explicitly states that the ball is delivered from above the head.
This is the main problem with the law as it is written - it doesn't explicitly say that the ball is delivered from above the head, it says that the player "delivers the ball from behind and over his head".
To me this means that the ball must start behind the player's head, must then go over his head and finally be released at some unspecified point but it could just as equally mean a whole number of other things.
Okay, let's try a bit of abba....
Abba had a song called "Kes needs to tone down the drama and behave quite a bit better when requested to do so, or SM will lose his sh!t and throw out a waterfall of warning points like a broken fruit machine", right? Second album maybe? Catchy song title right there.
loving the picture by the way - you are the little dog in that picture mate?
I'm not looking to get back into the argument with someone else, but this is what I was saying before. You're being hyper-literal there and if you apply that hyper-literal logic to the throw as a whole, there's nothing saying the throw has to be a single action, only that at some point the ball must pass over the head - suggesting that any other weird throw/drop/roll could then take place, as long as two hands are used.This is the main problem with the law as it is written - it doesn't explicitly say that the ball is delivered from above the head, it says that the player "delivers the ball from behind and over his head".
To me this means that the ball must start behind the player's head, must then go over his head and finally be released at some unspecified point but it could just as equally mean a whole number of other things.
Oooh, that's weird - think I clicked to update with Kes's last post at some point and it must have posted what I'd written at that point and then let me keep editing....That would appear to be two versions of the same post, posted at different times. How on earth have you managed that @GraemeS ?
Feel free to put in my "in tray"...or as it's more commonly known, my binTo whom do I report Mod Oppression ?
Okay, let's try a bit of abba....
Abba had a song called "Kes needs to tone down the drama and behave quite a bit better when requested to do so, or SM will lose his sh!t and throw out a waterfall of warning points like a broken fruit machine", right? Second album maybe? Catchy song title right there.
My point is that the law as written doesn't explicitly support either of our positions.I'm not looking to get back into the argument with someone else, but this is what I was saying before. You're being hyper-literal there and if you apply that hyper-literal logic to the throw as a whole, there's nothing saying the throw has to be a single action, only that at some point the ball must pass over the head - suggesting that any other weird throw/drop/roll could then take place, as long as two hands are used.
Unless you're willing to accept a drop, a roll, or a shift of grip after the ball has moved over the head, then you have to accept a less-literal interpretation of the laws - which slightly counter-intuitively, leads to more foul throws.
A throw in is merely a way of restarting play, don't get too hung up on it.
As long it comes from behind and over the head, with both hands, and is a throw and not a drop, then it's all good.
Feet are more important than hands.......I'm more likely to give, and expect, a foul throw for a player balancing on one leg than I am for an ugly throwing movement.
it seems that RefChat is in a state of confusion now ...
do we applaud @Padfoot ... does he get awarded a prize for a nailed on answer?
what is now in store? will @RegalRef and @HertsFinest start to answer sensibly