Refs. As long as the ball comes from behind the head, the ball can be released past the head at any point leading to legal throws downwards?
Last edited:
Throw ins - just a couple of things
- Thread starter Wolf_Ref
- Start date
It seems like it. "From over the head" used to mean releasing it while it was over the head, but not now it seems.
I am asking beyond reffing. Both myself and my Son who ref do not penalise throws where the ball comes from behind the head and the ball is released past the head.
I also coach a youth team. Our team is being penalised very frequently for the above for short throws downwards to feet.
The learning I had last year, step 5 game as AR, I penalised thrower for taking throw in behind pitch barrier, my thought process the ball could in theory hit or be blocked by a spectator.
Actually in law you can take throw in as far back from the touchline as you like…..
Actually in law you can take throw in as far back from the touchline as you like…..
Actually law says
• throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from
the point where it left the field of play
if you are stood behind a barrier that is not the point where the ball left the field of play and thus a foul throw is committed
Kes
I'll Decide ...
So long as it starts behind the head it's okay. The ball being thrown down towards a team mate's feet whilst not illegal, is often the natural result of the throw not starting from behind the head, which may be what your team is being penalised for.
If that's not the case, then your referee doesn't know what they're doing ..
So long as it starts behind the head it's okay. The ball being thrown down towards a team mate's feet whilst not illegal, is often the natural result of the throw not starting from behind the head, which may be what your team is being penalised for.
If that's not the case, then your referee doesn't know what they're doing ..
The throws are starting from behind the head. Hence my question. Its not the majority of refs but a consistent theme in games over two seasons.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Maybe politely and casually ask the referee at half time or after the game about the "foul throws" they've been giving and specifically which part of Law 15 they weren't compliant with.
one
RefChat Addict
With limitations. The law doesn't entirely cover this but imagine once the ball is past the head they do a sideways quarter circle with the arms going down and throw the ball sideways from near their waist.
A throw can be downwards but I don't think anyone would accept it if it is 'slammed' right in front of the thrower's feet.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Law 15 doesn't cover this example at all.
To honest, it's difficult to envisage but I understand what you're saying. In this case, I wouldn't consider the ball to have been "thrown from behind and over the head".
This subject always seems to attract debate on here with one or two semantics thrown in.
Slamming the ball down to a player's feet whilst still compliant with Law 15 would just look crap and likely result in possession being lost immediately so I'd likely just play on ...
I have done similar post match. A ref demonstrated his idea of how the ball should be released. A release point that is nowhere in the rules. I did not pursue it.Maybe politely and casually ask the referee at half time or after the game about the "foul throws" they've been giving and specifically which part of Law 15 they weren't compliant with.
The next approach is pre game to ascertain what the refs expectation is.
The throws being penalised doesnt slam the ball down, the player hits his team mates feet with the ball delivered downwards at a controllable speed. Its a more accurate and effective means of retaining possession than just throwing the ball with height dropping it down .. Till refs interevene.
Oh no, not this again! We've had this discussion recently - the law states the ball must be thrown from behind and over the head.
Opinions vary on if that is defining where the ball may be released, or if it simply has to pass through those areas before release.
And if you fall in the first camp, also some further discussion regarding if "over the head" should count as horizontally over the head or should not include in front of the face...
Opinions vary on if that is defining where the ball may be released, or if it simply has to pass through those areas before release.
And if you fall in the first camp, also some further discussion regarding if "over the head" should count as horizontally over the head or should not include in front of the face...
Yes, this is a good old chestnut! The proper 'old chestnut' reply is to say that a throw-in is - almost always - just a means of getting the ball back into play. We therefore shouldn't be too fussy about how that is done. In my world, as long as it looks like a throw-in, and the player isn't actually stepping onto the pitch, I might think it's ugly but I'm normally hard pressed to think it's illegal.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
If you're getting loud appeals for a "foul throw" AND you think it looks awkward, no harm in having a quick word with the thrower, on the run as it were. Often the same few players will take throws. I did that this week and it worked!
Caveat - It was an extremely well behaved public schools match, so although the 'first teams' - eg 17/18 year olds -, they do tend to actually listen to you in those matches, which as we all know is a bit of a novelty!
Caveat - It was an extremely well behaved public schools match, so although the 'first teams' - eg 17/18 year olds -, they do tend to actually listen to you in those matches, which as we all know is a bit of a novelty!
The higher level you go the less anyone is interested in foul throws, except perhaps spectators. Senior players just see it as a way of getting the ball back into play, and unless it is ridiculous you won't get anywhere near the same level of complaints as we see at grass roots level.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
I got what the OP was. I made the slam example as the opposite extreme end that one might say it compliment with law but no one would agree it's a good throw. Where is the middle ground though? And when is that legal line crossed. There is not single factor that determines this and the grey areas will always be debated. But at the end of the the referee on the day makes the call and as long as it is not definitively wrong in law we just have to accept it.
So are you accepting it because it's compliant or because it results in lost posession? I see issues with both but any debate between us usually goes around circles.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The old USSF Advice to Referees said something a bit cryptic/mushy about spiked TIs traditionally not being considered proper. I think the idea is that if it spiked down close to the thrower, it isn’t really being thrown from behind the head, but the actual throw is really coming after it passes the head. Shrug. I’ve got bigger fish to fry and as long as the ball starts it’s path above the head instead of in front of the head, I’m not noticing a problem.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I have to disagree - the law is straightforward, and only on here are people getting into deep discussions about a simple return into play.