Foul Throws

[GraemeS]

Haven't given a foul throw in ages, gave 3 in one match yesterday - one for a late/in front of face release, one for lifting the back foot and the third for a player starting in the right place then jogging 20m down the line with the ball above his head before throwing. The last one particularly amused me because the thrower then complained that the opponent was going too far down the line with the reversed throw - no, that's the problem, the throw should have been taken from there in the first place!

Basically had two FB's on one team who didn't know how to throw properly (a lot of them were borderline even outside the two I did give) and the other side who'd clearly got in the habit of stealing yards at a throw (I'd already warned the RB he was pushing his luck before the LB got pinged for moving too far).

Any hints for dealing with just bad throwers? As discussed on here recently, it's only supposed to be a generic restart, I didn't really want to get too involved in it - but when they're so bad that every throw is being greeted with a chorus of appeals, is there anything that can be done other than pinging the really bad ones and using the classic "ugly but legal" line on the borderline ones?

 

[JamesL]

I don't really understand the first one.... Was the ball delivered from behind and over the head? The law makes no mention of the point the ball is to be released by so I don't understand how a release can be late.

2nd one, was there an opportunity to ignore it and have a word in passing about keeping feet on the floor and you'll be watching the next one very closely? Unless his foot is raised egregiously and all the world can see it of course call it if you have to but if we set the player up, less complaints when we do have to call it. Easier to do as an AR of course as we are usually stood right with the thrower or he'll be back down our way shortly.

3rd one, could you have intervened at 10 yards and pushed him back to the correct point. A trick I use is the first few throws in the game, I pip the whistle as they approach the correct point and say from there please. After 1 or 2 I don't need to pip the whistle as the player is looking at me for the confirmation already. Another trick can be to say start from there so you aren't pinning them to a specific location but I guess that might have caused a problem in your scenario.

Can you tell I am not really a fan of foul throws.

And for the last bit, no not really. Other than to quote the law as to the reasons it was a legal throw.

 

[GraemeS]

You're happy with a release in front of the face that projects the ball 45 degrees downwards? Each to their own, but a) "the ball must be thrown from behind and over the head" - ie. not in front of the head and b) everyone in the world thinks of this as a foul throw. Like you, I don't really like calling foul throws so I'm prepared to be pretty lenient on how far forward qualifies as "over" the head, but with everyone who could see calling for it, the NAR flagging* and it being generally terrible looking, I felt it had to be given.

2nd - he'd had his warnings and he'd had 2 or 3 throws in a row that had gotten big shouts from the opposing benches that he was generally directly in front of. Same thrower as 1 - he was either taking running throws and lifting his back foot, or standing throws and projecting them downwards. Could only ignore or say "that's borderline" so many times....

It's really hard to describe quite how weird the 3rd was. Imagine the usual stealing of 2-3 yards on the run-up that we're all used to when a ball is being thrown down the line...except it just kept going for 20 yards! I was a little too caught off guard to intervene immediately, but also knew that he had been trying to waste time to hold a 2-1 lead and felt that reversing the throw was quicker and fairer on the opponents rather than stopping him and giving him the chance to slowly walk 10 yards back. Maybe not something I'd normally do, but given we were already calling foul throws this game, it felt like it made sense in the moment!


*In reality, the AR was actually flagging because he was on the pitch, but I didn't realise this at the time and so sold it based on an illegal release.

 

[JamesL]

You're happy with a release in front of the face that projects the ball 45 degrees downwards?

Yes, if the ball is "thrown from behind and over the head." As I said, the laws make no mention of where it is to be released, or at what trajectory.

a) "the ball must be thrown from behind and over the head"

As a simultaneous action, from behind and over the head is probably very difficult as literally written.
This is describing the motion of which the ball is to be delivered in my opinion.

b) everyone in the world thinks of this as a foul throw.

Not everyone.
The world believes what it is conditioned to believe. The world still shouts obstruction. The world believes you have to put a name on it. The world believes that it any part of the foot is beyond the line it's a foul throw. The world believes lots of untruths, mainly conditioned through what they see given, whether that be right or wrong.

 

[socal lurker]

Whether the spiked throw is proper or not has been a long term debate that, so far as I know, IFAB has never clarified. The defunct US Advice to Referees had some mealy-mouthed language that a throw straight down, a spike, has traditionally been viewed as not proper, but then says if the Referee thinks it was improper to aware the TI to the other team.

Any player spiking the ball is at risk that a referee will take that traditional view just as @GraemeS did. For me, as long as the ball starts behind the head and is a fluid motion, I'm not calling it. (I don't see any advantage to be gamed by that stupid kind of throw and have much bigger fish to fry than that.) But until I see something official rejecting that traditional view, I'm also not going to fault a referee who considers it improper.

 

[GraemeS]

Yes, if the ball is "thrown from behind and over the head." As I said, the laws make no mention of where it is to be released, or at what trajectory.

If the law wanted to allow balls to be thrown from in front of the head, that language could be included. It isn't, so it's not unreasonable to infer that it shouldn't be allowed.

Unlike @socal lurker, I do think there is a clear advantage to spiking a throw: a target teammate 2-3m away can control a spiked throw with their foot - a method of control that players will be very comfortable with and that results in the ball being in a playable position extremely quickly. First-touch passes are also possible.
Wheras a non-spiked throw from that distance will arrive at the receiving player further up their body and will typically have to be headed away or controlled on the chest or thigh - a harder form of control and also one that leaves a much longer window between first touch and the ball being in a playable position, meaning more time for an opponent to nick in and steal the ball.

Agree with the general principal that we don't really want to be calling these if we can help it, so give as much leeway as you possibly can. But I do think disallowing the spike is in the lawbook (and arguably for good reason), as there is a specific point where the process is described and it specifically doesn't say that releasing from in front of the head is permissible.

 

[JamesL]

If the law wanted to allow balls to be thrown from in front of the head, that language could be included. It isn't, so it's not unreasonable to infer that it shouldn't be allowed.

Unlike @socal lurker, I do think there is a clear advantage to spiking a throw: a target teammate 2-3m away can control a spiked throw with their foot - a method of control that players will be very comfortable with and that results in the ball being in a playable position extremely quickly. First-touch passes are also possible.
Wheras a non-spiked throw from that distance will arrive at the receiving player further up their body and will typically have to be headed away or controlled on the chest or thigh - a harder form of control and also one that leaves a much longer window between first touch and the ball being in a playable position, meaning more time for an opponent to nick in and steal the ball.

Agree with the general principal that we don't really want to be calling these if we can help it, so give as much leeway as you possibly can. But I do think disallowing the spike is in the lawbook (and arguably for good reason), as there is a specific point where the process is described and it specifically doesn't say that releasing from in front of the head is permissible.

Spiking refers to trajectory, which is not in law either.
And it's perfectly possible to deliver a ball to a players foot from 2-3 yards all you do is use less power.
If we go with the premise that any ball that is not released behind the head is a foul throw then 99% of throws are foul throws. If you throw anything the natural motion is a release from beyond the body, be that under arm, over arm, or from behind and over the head.
Take a Rory Delap throw for example, they'd all be foul throws as the ball is in his hands beyond the head.

Have found some USSF guidance which I think I is what Socal Lurker talks about albeit very old and the language has changed a little bit now, not a FIFA or IFAB source so feel free to disregard but it articulates very well how I understand and apply the throw in procedure.
"15.3 PROPERLY TAKEN THROW-IN
A throw-in must be performed while the thrower is facing the field, but the ball may be thrown into the field in any direction. 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"

 

[GraemeS]

I think you're deliberately being a little obtuse if you're claiming you don't see the advantage in throwing a ball directly at a teammates foot vs either throwing it at their chest or floating it vaguely towards their foot. There's a reason this tends to happen when teammates are being tightly marked and the throwing team benefits from getting it down and away from an easily challengeable area quickly. But anyway, that's moving away from "is it allowed?" to "should it be allowed?", so isn't really the point.

There's a difference between a ball being "in front of the head" by virtue of breaking the vertical plane of the face, and in "front of the head" by breaking the horizontal plane of the top of the head. Your Rory Delap throws might do the former, but crucially, go nowhere near the latter. And I'd happily argue that "behind and over the head" allows for the ball to be held behind the head or anywhere over the horizontal plane of the head, but specifically doesn't include the area in front of the face - which is what happens when the ball is "spiked" and is what the guidance your post refers to as "traditionally not correctly performed". So even in the guidance that's being quoted to try and disprove me, it still specifically says a referee can judge this type of throw to be incorrectly performed...

The throw law is generally quite problematic. The fact that you only need part of your foot on the line, yet the line is also part of the pitch creates the scenario where you can take an otherwise perfectly "legal" throw while also simultaneously committing a handball offence. But no one would ever flag for that because like it or not, expectations do play a part in implementation of laws and every referee accepts that when it suits them. It needs a re-write - it's a low priority because it's rarely an important restart, but it's also for that reason that it's been allowed to drift so long.

 

[socal lurker]

The throw law is generally quite problematic.

I think it is far more problematic in theory than in real world application.

Given IFAB’s success rate in correcting things, I’d prefer they leave it alone.

 

[JamesL]

I think you're deliberately being a little obtuse if you're claiming you don't see the advantage in throwing a ball directly at a teammates foot vs either throwing it at their chest or floating it vaguely towards their foot. There's a reason this tends to happen when teammates are being tightly marked and the throwing team benefits from getting it down and away from an easily challengeable area quickly. But anyway, that's moving away from "is it allowed?" to "should it be allowed?", so isn't really the point.

It's entirely possible to do what you are suggesting is a foul throw with a legal throw.

There's a difference between a ball being "in front of the head" by virtue of breaking the vertical plane of the face, and in "front of the head" by breaking the horizontal plane of the top of the head. Your Rory Delap throws might do the former, but crucially, go nowhere near the latter. And I'd happily argue that "behind and over the head" allows for the ball to be held behind the head or anywhere over the horizontal plane of the head, but specifically doesn't include the area in front of the face - which is what happens when the ball is "spiked" and is what the guidance your post refers to as "traditionally not correctly performed". So even in the guidance that's being quoted to try and disprove me, it still specifically says a referee can judge this type of throw to be incorrectly performed...

Show me where in the laws it makes a distinction between the horizontal/vertical planes of the anatomy.

I'm not trying to disprove you, really. I didn't realise it was about who is right and who is wrong. It's always in the opinion of the referee, you asked the forum for an opinion, I'm giving you mine. This is an open forum and I am just as entitled to hold an opposing opinion/interpretation that's different to yours. If you feel you need to prove me wrong then so be it.

You are entitled to your opinion and your own interpretations. Ours obviously differ. I specifically said disregard what you will bit this is how I understand it and apply it and the reason I shared it was to articulate better than I can myself.

I get the whole downward spiking thing that is often called as a foul throw because the player usually doesn't start the throw from behind the head. Doesn't make any variation of spiking as a foul throw.

 

[GraemeS]

It's entirely possible to do what you are suggesting is a foul throw with a legal throw.

Not without having the receiving player move further away or significantly reducing the speed the ball moves - both of which are undesirable because they make it easier for an opponent to intercept. Or of course, significantly expanding the scope of what we consider legal - if the ref is never going to penalise for it then of course it's possible to do without giving away a foul throw.

Show me where in the laws it makes a distinction between the horizontal/vertical planes of the anatomy.

You brought this point up, I was trying to engage in your terms! "Take a Rory Delap throw for example, they'd all be foul throws as the ball is in his hands beyond the head." I'm telling you it's legal up until the point it's no longer above the head, you're the one trying to suggest the vertical plane is important!

I'm not trying to disprove you, really. I didn't realise it was about who is right and who is wrong. It's always in the opinion of the referee, you asked the forum for an opinion, I'm giving you mine. This is an open forum and I am just as entitled to hold an opposing opinion/interpretation that's different to yours. If you feel you need to prove me wrong then so be it.

You are entitled to your opinion and your own interpretations. Ours obviously differ. I specifically said disregard what you will bit this is how I understand it and apply it and the reason I shared it was to articulate better than I can myself.

I actually didn't ask for an opinion if we're being picky - I told a very mildly amusing anecdote about how foul throws are like busses and asked for hints on dealing with players who consistently throw poorly. And while I respect that your personal choice is "I don't like foul throws, so ignore them all and just get shouted at by a ground full of people for 90 minutes", that wasn't quite the type of advice I was hoping for.

I get the whole downward spiking thing that is often called as a foul throw because the player usually doesn't start the throw from behind the head. Doesn't make any variation of spiking as a foul throw.

So your suggestion is that these throws are carried out by the player holding the ball in front of them and then throwing it downwards? I don't think I've ever seen anyone try that! I also can't say I've ever seen anyone appeal for a foul throw based on the idea that it didn't start above the head.
Whether we want to go along with it or not, it is the downwards spiking motion that gets opponents worked up and we need to be realistic in accepting that's what we're addressing when replying to those appeals, one way or the other.

 

[GraemeS]

I think it is far more problematic in theory than in real world application.

Given IFAB’s success rate in correcting things, I’d prefer they leave it alone.

True, but they're also shown a real desire recently to try and bring the law in line with real-world expectations.

I've got a whole thread here where a referee who's opinion I do genuinely respect is telling me that the thing every player, manager and supporter "expects" as a foul throw isn't actually a foul throw in law. If his interpretation is correct, that's actually a significant problem - and if his interpretation is incorrect, then the law is poorly written to allow for differing interpretations. Either way, that causes inconsistency and problems for referees in the real world.

My personal preference would be a re-write that specifies release must be before the ball moves below the top of the head. I'd also happily accept a re-write that goes the other way and specifies that spiking is allowed, but I think that's less preferable just because it means every fan and player would need re-educating.

I'm not really convinced the handball thing is an actual problem, but it is just another example of poor writing and could easily be solved at the same time - "A handball offence should not be called during the act of a throw-in - if a players feet move fully beyond the touchline during a throw, the correct sanction is to reverse the direction of the throw"

 

[JamesL]

Not without having the receiving player move further away or significantly reducing the speed the ball moves - both of which are undesirable because they make it easier for an opponent to intercept. Or of course, significantly expanding the scope of what we consider legal - if the ref is never going to penalise for it then of course it's possible to do without giving away a foul throw.

We aren't going to agree here without a practical demo but the power for what you are talking about can easily be generated from the wrists if needed whilst remaining in keeping with the law.

You brought this point up, I was trying to engage in your terms! "Take a Rory Delap throw for example, they'd all be foul throws as the ball is in his hands beyond the head." I'm telling you it's legal up until the point it's no longer above the head, you're the one trying to suggest the vertical plane is important!

Yes, but even spiking the ball is likely to be released from above the head. Vertical planes were introduced by the USSF actually and to reiterate I only posted that to better articulate my thoughts on the matter.

I actually didn't ask for an opinion if we're being picky - I told a very mildly amusing anecdote about how foul throws are like busses and asked for hints on dealing with players who consistently throw poorly. And while I respect that your personal choice is "I don't like foul throws, so ignore them all and just get shouted at by a ground full of people for 90 minutes", that wasn't quite the type of advice I was hoping for.

Who said I ignore them all? The most egregious are punished in my games. The less severe are managed and then there is obviously a bit of a grey area between our thinking where you think there's a foul and I don't.
And actually when questioned the ones that I think are legal that people have come to expect/believe are foul throws you explain the what the law says and that the ball was thrown from behind and over the head you'll find that vast majority are in agreeance.
I wouldn't put too much thought or worry into what people are appealing and shouting for as it's never exactly clear how genuine that is. To be honest, it's rare that at least one person doesn't shout for. Foul throw even on the most clear of clear legal throws.
Finally if you are posting on a forum you are generally seeking an opinion or debate. Ok, you might not have wanted it on the actual legality of the throw but I legitimately questioned it on the basis of my understanding of law. And to be fair I felt I gave constructive feedback on the other 2 as to how I would manage those proactively, which to your credit you had pretty much done but wasn't mentioned in the OP.

So your suggestion is that these throws are carried out by the player holding the ball in front of them and then throwing it downwards? I don't think I've ever seen anyone try that! I also can't say I've ever seen anyone appeal for a foul throw based on the idea that it didn't start above the head.
Whether we want to go along with it or not, it is the downwards spiking motion that gets opponents worked up and we need to be realistic in accepting that's what we're addressing when replying to those appeals, one way or the other.

Not really, but the bulk of my foul throws that I give are the ones where the thrower doesn't start with the ball behind the head, almost like a push from in front of the head. Hard to describe again without practical demo.

 

[JamesL]

True, but they're also shown a real desire recently to try and bring the law in line with real-world expectations.

I've got a whole thread here where a referee who's opinion I do genuinely respect is telling me that the thing every player, manager and supporter "expects" as a foul throw isn't actually a foul throw in law. If his interpretation is correct, that's actually a significant problem - and if his interpretation is incorrect, then the law is poorly written to allow for differing interpretations. Either way, that causes inconsistency and problems for referees in the real world.

My personal preference would be a re-write that specifies release must be before the ball moves below the top of the head. I'd also happily accept a re-write that goes the other way and specifies that spiking is allowed, but I think that's less preferable just because it means every fan and player would need re-educating.

I'm not really convinced the handball thing is an actual problem, but it is just another example of poor writing and could easily be solved at the same time - "A handball offence should not be called during the act of a throw-in - if a players feet move fully beyond the touchline during a throw, the correct sanction is to reverse the direction of the throw"

I've actually asked IFAB for clarity on the meaning of "thrown from behind and over the head" I do actually appreciate, as is often the case with written language, it can be interpreted by the reader in more than one way and it is clearly apparent that we are reading it in opposite ways.

 

[Max2]

the power for what you are talking about can easily be generated from the wrists if needed

Family website, James!

 

[JamesL]

Had a reply from IFAB, typically I don't actually think this shall resolve anything but here goes...

The question I asked:
Dear IFAB

Can you please clarify the meaning of "throws the ball from behind and over the head" in law 15.

Does this mean:
A) that the player must release the ball from his hands at a point no further than from behind the head with the ball trajectory being over the head
B) the ball must be delivered using a motion where the start point is from behind the head and it is permissible to still have the ball in the hands as the ball goes over the head and released at any point during that motion even if the release is beyond the players head.
C) another answer.

In simple terms, is there an expected release point with the throw in procedure? I see foul throws called where the ball is released from the hands at a point beyond the head, sometimes with a downward trajectory, even though the overall movement starts behind and carries on over the head.

Their reply:
Thank you very much for your e mail and question – there is no expected ‘release point’ for a throw-in.

A throw-in is usually considered to be a ‘foul throw’ because the ball has been dropped from the front of the head at the end of the movement rather than being thrown.

We hope this clarifies matters for you.

Best wishes
The IFAB

 

[GraemeS]

Yeah, that is....not really relevant. Disagree entirely with their core premise that FT's are usually due to being dropped, there's a huge grey area in the middle where things are unclear and ignoring that doesn't help anyone.

 

[JamesL]

Yeah, that is....not really relevant. Disagree entirely with their core premise that FT's are usually due to being dropped, there's a huge grey area in the middle where things are unclear and ignoring that doesn't help anyone.

Agreed with the whole dropping it thing but I know the sort they mean.
But it does strengthen my view that trajectory and release point aren't a consideration with a foul throw.
Also, a fairly minor/simple 1 line addition to the LOTG would clear this up.

 

[Yoda_72]

Haven't given a foul throw in ages, gave 3 in one match yesterday - one for a late/in front of face release, one for lifting the back foot and the third for a player starting in the right place then jogging 20m down the line with the ball above his head before throwing. The last one particularly amused me because the thrower then complained that the opponent was going too far down the line with the reversed throw - no, that's the problem, the throw should have been taken from there in the first place!

Basically had two FB's on one team who didn't know how to throw properly (a lot of them were borderline even outside the two I did give) and the other side who'd clearly got in the habit of stealing yards at a throw (I'd already warned the RB he was pushing his luck before the LB got pinged for moving too far).

Any hints for dealing with just bad throwers? As discussed on here recently, it's only supposed to be a generic restart, I didn't really want to get too involved in it - but when they're so bad that every throw is being greeted with a chorus of appeals, is there anything that can be done other than pinging the really bad ones and using the classic "ugly but legal" line on the borderline ones?

I'd say keep flipping sides until they get it right... Its its wrong, its wrong, not your problem its theirs.