A&H

Throwing a ball at a player from the throw in

The Referee Store
If the level of force makes the throw-in a foul, then it is because it exceeds the necessary use of force. Otherwise, it would always be a foul to throw the ball in and hit an opponent.
You seem to be completely ignoring what the law says on this, which is that it is not always a foul to throw the ball so as to intentionally hit an opponent and the level of force does not have to be considered excessive for it to be an offence, it can also be a foul by being merely careless or reckless. Just to remind you, this is what the law says:
If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, intentionally throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but neither in a careless nor a reckless manner nor using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.
 
So by that definition every single foul is a red card then. Your games must not last more than 10 minutes!

I don't see how. Some action is a part of the game, but is done carelessly or recklessly. Throwing a ball at an opponent in a manner which is considered foul is, however, going to be excessive by its nature.

You seem to be completely ignoring what the law says on this, which is that it is not always a foul to throw the ball so as to intentionally hit an opponent and the level of force does not have to be considered excessive for it to be an offence, it can also be a foul by being merely careless or reckless. Just to remind you, this is what the law says:

The law does state that it is not always a foul to throw the ball at an opponent. I agree and have said as much. It does not, however, state that such a thing can be done recklessly or carelessly. It just says that when it is not careless, reckless, or excessively forceful, it is not a foul. Which also agrees with what I have said: that it does not sound like a foul, but if it was a foul, I would wager that it is excessive force, since it is more force necessary than the game would normally allow. This is the same reason that slight contact to the head or face of an opponent is always violent contact: because there is no time during the match when direct and deliberate contact to the face is a part of the game.
 
I don't see how. Some action is a part of the game, but is done carelessly or recklessly. Throwing a ball at an opponent in a manner which is considered foul is, however, going to be excessive by its nature.



The law does state that it is not always a foul to throw the ball at an opponent. I agree and have said as much. It does not, however, state that such a thing can be done recklessly or carelessly. It just says that when it is not careless, reckless, or excessively forceful, it is not a foul. Which also agrees with what I have said: that it does not sound like a foul, but if it was a foul, I would wager that it is excessive force, since it is more force necessary than the game would normally allow. This is the same reason that slight contact to the head or face of an opponent is always violent contact: because there is no time during the match when direct and deliberate contact to the face is a part of the game.
I have read and posted quite a few nonsensical posts on this forum but this one take the cake :)

Why would the law cover a circumstance (a reckless throw) if it can never happen?

And why would the law single out head or face if your logic applied? Is striking the stomach part of the game? I also suggest you read that part of the law in its entirety. Its not just contact, it has to be a deliberate strike and it has to be when not challenging for the ball and it can't be negligible.
 
Last edited:
It does not, however, state that such a thing can be done recklessly or carelessly.
If you are saying that the law doesn't allow for the possibility that the ball, at a throw-in, can be thrown recklessly or carelessly then I think you need to go back and read it again. If you understand the rules of logic and grammar, it clearly does encompass those eventualities.

Let me just remind you - the law says that if a player throws the ball in, "neither in a careless nor a reckless manner nor using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue." The logical and necessary corollary to this is that the referee does not allow play to continue if and when the player throws the ball in carelessly or recklessly or using excessive force. There is no way to logically interpret this, other than it meaning that a player can throw the ball in, in a manner that is careless or reckless or using excessive force. All the three stated manners of throwing the ball are equally allowed for by the wording of the law.
 
. This is the same reason that slight contact to the head or face of an opponent is always violent contact: because there is no time during the match when direct and deliberate contact to the face is a part of the game.

This is again flawed logic. In all circumstances you must consider a players action to be fair, careless, reckless or useing excessive force. They are each given a fairly concise definition and any challenge/action, foul or otherwise, should be categorised into 1 of the 4 outcomes.
We've had this discussion on many occasions but just because a particular scenario may seem excessive in the everyday Collins dictionary sense of the word that does not make it excessive force in context of the LOTG definition.
Yes, okay, in probably 99% of incidents you describe they are probably going to be red cards but there are some where contact is negligible that aren't red cards even though the slight contact to the head or face are deliberate.
The point I am trying to make is your statement is not catch all and you must first apply the definitions given in lotg to determine a relevant sanction. In terms of OP, whilst very difficult to describe I can imagine scenarios where throwing a ball at an opponent meets 1 of the three sanctioned outcomes.
 
Back
Top