| Throw In 17:08 - Sep 18 with 3599 views | PinnerPaul |
Sorry, only of interest to a few.
Have now searched the IFAB archive and looked at throw in law, every 10 years back to the 1930s! 
Have to say the part about the feet has NEVER changed, always said part of each foot has to be on the touchline OR outside.
Now as with offside it may been taught/interpretated/read/remembered incorrectly, but it has never been illegal to have part/most of your feet on the fop.
Sorry for boring 98% of you!  |  | | |  |
| Throw In on 09:29 - Sep 20 with 903 views | PinnerPaul |
| Throw In on 21:49 - Sep 19 by LongsufferingR |
Great, that's all clear now. So if the thrower has both feet in the corner arc and the ball is overhanging the edge of the penalty area then an indirect free kick is awarded to the goalkeeper of the team who were in possession when a corner was given. Right? |
Spot on! | | | |
| Throw In on 10:15 - Sep 20 with 846 views | gazza1 |
| Throw In on 18:01 - Sep 19 by PinnerPaul |
I have explained correctly and just 'proved' the law hasn't changed above.
The old laws going back to forever are available on line to check and the wording around feet has never changed, at least for the 90 years I went back! |
Well, you can say what you want but when I played, and I was refereed by Football League officials (Colin Downey, Darrell Reeves, Tony Ward, etc) , if I crossed the white line with the front of my boots they would give a 'foul throw' - 100%, they must have been getting it wrong and we were taught incorrectly. Strange indeed. | | | |
| Throw In on 12:09 - Sep 20 with 793 views | kensalriser |
| Throw In on 21:49 - Sep 19 by LongsufferingR |
Great, that's all clear now. So if the thrower has both feet in the corner arc and the ball is overhanging the edge of the penalty area then an indirect free kick is awarded to the goalkeeper of the team who were in possession when a corner was given. Right? |
If the thrower has both feet in the corner arc and the ball is overhanging the penalty area:
1. It's a foul throw
2. The thrower has unfeasibly long arms. |  |
| |
| Throw In on 12:56 - Sep 20 with 753 views | francisbowles |
| Throw In on 21:49 - Sep 19 by LongsufferingR |
Great, that's all clear now. So if the thrower has both feet in the corner arc and the ball is overhanging the edge of the penalty area then an indirect free kick is awarded to the goalkeeper of the team who were in possession when a corner was given. Right? |
Yes, unless it's Keith Stroud, then f*** knows! | | | |
| Throw In on 15:48 - Sep 20 with 679 views | PinnerPaul |
| Throw In on 10:15 - Sep 20 by gazza1 |
Well, you can say what you want but when I played, and I was refereed by Football League officials (Colin Downey, Darrell Reeves, Tony Ward, etc) , if I crossed the white line with the front of my boots they would give a 'foul throw' - 100%, they must have been getting it wrong and we were taught incorrectly. Strange indeed. |
Well yes and no.
I gave some examples above where referees got it 'wrong' down the years, but I can easily counter with - 'You can say what you like' but the evidence is there in black and white, about 100 LOTG books from the ages - ALL with the wording exactly the same as it is now!
Just one general point, not directed at you - but thinking about it rationally, is it that likely that professional referees are going to get something as basic as this wrong?
Its not really likely that a professional AR is NOT going to know the law around throw ins is it? | | | |
| Throw In on 16:39 - Sep 20 with 645 views | terryb |
| Throw In on 15:48 - Sep 20 by PinnerPaul |
Well yes and no.
I gave some examples above where referees got it 'wrong' down the years, but I can easily counter with - 'You can say what you like' but the evidence is there in black and white, about 100 LOTG books from the ages - ALL with the wording exactly the same as it is now!
Just one general point, not directed at you - but thinking about it rationally, is it that likely that professional referees are going to get something as basic as this wrong?
Its not really likely that a professional AR is NOT going to know the law around throw ins is it? |
They don't appear to understand the law regarding where the throw is taken from Paul! Never mind that it is taken one or two yards from where the ball crossed the line, five yards would be the norm & ten plus is far from unusual.
The most obvious & annoying one is the ball going out of play near the corner spot & the throw being taken virtually level with the penalty area. Yes, that does happen (and frequently). This situation has a bigger effect on the play than taking a free kick from a forward position.
I believe that you have argued in the past that this is something referees don't feel strongly about & is insignificant, but if they ignore this part of the law they are being given licence to ignore any part they feel like. And subconsiously (I hope it's that) give 50/50 decisions to the side they feel less aggrieved by. | | | |
| Throw In on 09:54 - Sep 21 with 552 views | PinnerPaul |
| Throw In on 16:39 - Sep 20 by terryb |
They don't appear to understand the law regarding where the throw is taken from Paul! Never mind that it is taken one or two yards from where the ball crossed the line, five yards would be the norm & ten plus is far from unusual.
The most obvious & annoying one is the ball going out of play near the corner spot & the throw being taken virtually level with the penalty area. Yes, that does happen (and frequently). This situation has a bigger effect on the play than taking a free kick from a forward position.
I believe that you have argued in the past that this is something referees don't feel strongly about & is insignificant, but if they ignore this part of the law they are being given licence to ignore any part they feel like. And subconsiously (I hope it's that) give 50/50 decisions to the side they feel less aggrieved by. |
See your point Terry, but that's not quite the same as getting something factual in law wrong.
As we know the LOTG are a framework to operate in and at the top level that DOES mean contrary to the written law sometimes eg
GK 6 seconds, dissent, offensive etc language, GK colours - no one at the top levels expect those to be enforced (Not passing judgement) its just a fact.
You're right about throw ins though, only ever seen a player (last season) penalised for taking one for the wrong place once at LR - even then the referee told him 3 times to go baclk before giving up and giving us the throw!
I was told not to be so" ****** stupid" once at LR for telling someone that you couldn't be offside from a GK - hardly likely ARs at this level are going to get THAT wrong! | | | |
| Throw In on 12:36 - Sep 21 with 482 views | terryb |
| Throw In on 09:54 - Sep 21 by PinnerPaul |
See your point Terry, but that's not quite the same as getting something factual in law wrong.
As we know the LOTG are a framework to operate in and at the top level that DOES mean contrary to the written law sometimes eg
GK 6 seconds, dissent, offensive etc language, GK colours - no one at the top levels expect those to be enforced (Not passing judgement) its just a fact.
You're right about throw ins though, only ever seen a player (last season) penalised for taking one for the wrong place once at LR - even then the referee told him 3 times to go baclk before giving up and giving us the throw!
I was told not to be so" ****** stupid" once at LR for telling someone that you couldn't be offside from a GK - hardly likely ARs at this level are going to get THAT wrong! |
I do agree with you in the main Paul, but I think you are giving professional officials too much credit!
I recall a professional AR giving offside in the Premier League at Newcastle because the goalscorer only had one defender between himself & the goal. Regarding the fact that he was behind the ball an irrelevance! What made it worse is that the referee didn't overrule him. Both officials had to suffer a few weeks break!
Whether it is sport or work, some "professionals" are not up to the required standard & have limited ability/knowledge. Rather like when I had all the qualifications as a Computer Programmer in the '70's & was useless! [Post edited 21 Sep 2022 12:46]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Throw In on 14:18 - Sep 21 with 440 views | PinnerPaul |
| Throw In on 12:36 - Sep 21 by terryb |
I do agree with you in the main Paul, but I think you are giving professional officials too much credit!
I recall a professional AR giving offside in the Premier League at Newcastle because the goalscorer only had one defender between himself & the goal. Regarding the fact that he was behind the ball an irrelevance! What made it worse is that the referee didn't overrule him. Both officials had to suffer a few weeks break!
Whether it is sport or work, some "professionals" are not up to the required standard & have limited ability/knowledge. Rather like when I had all the qualifications as a Computer Programmer in the '70's & was useless! [Post edited 21 Sep 2022 12:46]
|
Fair enough.
I do think that type of thing as more of a brain fade than ignorance, has to be the explanation for Charlie's 'goal' v Sunderland!
Now Mr Stroud's penalty antics at Newcastle - NO excuse for that I agree! | | | |
| Throw In on 14:44 - Sep 21 with 429 views | LongsufferingR |
....but who is it who's actually looking at the thrower's feet? It's not AR as they are invariably looking at where the ball is thrown, and it's not the ref as he can't see from his position whether the thrower has stepped a couple of inches too far. |  | | |
| Throw In on 14:46 - Sep 21 with 422 views | PinnerPaul |
| Throw In on 14:44 - Sep 21 by LongsufferingR |
....but who is it who's actually looking at the thrower's feet? It's not AR as they are invariably looking at where the ball is thrown, and it's not the ref as he can't see from his position whether the thrower has stepped a couple of inches too far. |
Usually get told as AR to watch the feet, ref will watch hands (Although that is penalised even less than the feet!) | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.