Read about this earlier and whilst the keeper makes no effort to stop the ball, which I doubt he could, this is hardly fair is it and would have caused a riot at some grounds.
Hard to think it up at the time, but a canny ref should have re-started the re-start, having seen some (spurious) offence back at that time it was taken. Better to have a controversial free kick than a controversial goal
Erhhh... perhaps I'm being a bit thick, but what was wrong with it exactly?
Throw in was taken legitimately, the ball was in play and it looked like the player took a speculative punt at goal - completely lobbing the keeper. Just like Shelvey, Rooney and so on.. Seems entirely fair?
Or was there a break in play and were they expecting the ball to be given back?
Edit - Just seen that they kicked the ball out to allow a player to receive treatment on the opposing team - in that case it's wrong. I think the player was only booting it towards the goalie too.
Nothing wrong with it in my mind. There is nothing in the laws of the game that says that
1) you should kick the ball out of play so that another player gets treatment
2) that the opposing players should give you the ball back if you do.
I stand to be corrected but I dont believe the old days of the ref blowing up for a player to be treated & then giving a drop ball have been outlawed - only change being that play is only stopped if its a head injury or a player is severely injured. If a player kicks the ball out because he wants a team mate treated then what follows is his look-out. What would you want a CAFC player to do if on the last game v Burnley we needed a win to stay up[ & on 90 mins its 1-1 and one of their players boots the ball off because his team mate has gone down injured. I'd hope we kept it & went for goal just like in the clip shown.The laws are in place for this - let the ref decide.
Braintree kicked the ball out for the Guisley player to receive treatment, there is no possible justification for Guisley not to just give the ball back, none. As some have said enough, once the ref has spoken to the lino, he should just signal foul throw and get on with the restart.
Braintree kicked the ball out for the Guisley player to receive treatment, there is no possible justification for Guisley not to just give the ball back, none. As some have said enough, once the ref has spoken to the lino, he should just signal foul throw and get on with the restart.
so the ref is supposed to cheat, lie & tell the lino it was a foul throw.
No ;laws were broken. Hopefully the players have leant from this I always thought that 1 of the first things you are taught is to play to the refs whistle. If he hasn't blown - catty on with the game.
If Guisely had been away they wouldn't have got away with that. The fans would have lost it. Absolutely against the spirit of the game. The same thing happened the other day in a game bury were playing in. They let Leon Clarke walk the ball into the net on the restart.
Scott Minto, FA cup v Bristol City, 1994. Curbs told him not to return the ball. We didn't score from the throw on but it didn't go down well with the opposition players or the home fans.
Scott Minto, FA cup v Bristol City, 1994. Curbs told him not to return the ball. We didn't score from the throw on but it didn't go down well with the opposition players or the home fans.
I thought we did score pretty much immediately from the throw, but that could just be my memory playing tricks.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand. It looks like they Guisley player overhit it, certainly the guy who took the throw-in wondered what he was playing it. What I find interesting, or perhaps that's too politer a phrase, is the reaction of the Guisley supporters.
Scott Minto, FA cup v Bristol City, 1994. Curbs told him not to return the ball. We didn't score from the throw on but it didn't go down well with the opposition players or the home fans.
I thought we did score pretty much immediately from the throw, but that could just be my memory playing tricks.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand. It looks like they Guisley player overhit it, certainly the guy who took the throw-in wondered what he was playing it. What I find interesting, or perhaps that's too politer a phrase, is the reaction of the Guisley supporters.
I seem to remember we scored pretty much from the throw, with that charming man Alan Pardew putting the ball in the net
Bristol City was different, they put it out for their player, not ours. So we were under no obligation, and they had been wasting time pretty much from the moment the second half started. And their last defender was being chased down by our striker and hacked it out, then claimed it was for an injury and not simply a rushed clearance. All in all, Bristol had no right to feel aggrieved.
Braintree kicked the ball out for the Guisley player to receive treatment, there is no possible justification for Guisley not to just give the ball back, none. As some have said enough, once the ref has spoken to the lino, he should just signal foul throw and get on with the restart.
so the ref is supposed to cheat, lie & tell the lino it was a foul throw.
No ;laws were broken. Hopefully the players have leant from this I always thought that 1 of the first things you are taught is to play to the refs whistle. If he hasn't blown - catty on with the game.
Virtually every throw in is a foul throw because the throwers feet have to be on or behind the line. If their boot is as much as a millimeter over it is a foul throw. Happens all the time, would be an easy decision to make.
Braintree kicked the ball out for the Guisley player to receive treatment, there is no possible justification for Guisley not to just give the ball back, none. As some have said enough, once the ref has spoken to the lino, he should just signal foul throw and get on with the restart.
so the ref is supposed to cheat, lie & tell the lino it was a foul throw.
No ;laws were broken. Hopefully the players have leant from this I always thought that 1 of the first things you are taught is to play to the refs whistle. If he hasn't blown - catty on with the game.
Virtually every throw in is a foul throw because the throwers feet have to be on or behind the line. If their boot is as much as a millimeter over it is a foul throw. Happens all the time, would be an easy decision to make.
I thought the same, but around 4-5 years ago they changed the rule so as long as part of each boot was on or behind any part of the line it's not a foul throw. So you could have half of each foot on the pitch and it'd now be legal.
Braintree kicked the ball out for the Guisley player to receive treatment, there is no possible justification for Guisley not to just give the ball back, none. As some have said enough, once the ref has spoken to the lino, he should just signal foul throw and get on with the restart.
so the ref is supposed to cheat, lie & tell the lino it was a foul throw.
No ;laws were broken. Hopefully the players have leant from this I always thought that 1 of the first things you are taught is to play to the refs whistle. If he hasn't blown - catty on with the game.
Virtually every throw in is a foul throw because the throwers feet have to be on or behind the line. If their boot is as much as a millimeter over it is a foul throw. Happens all the time, would be an easy decision to make.
Common misconception I'm afraid Seth.
As long as neither foot is completely over the line then the throw in is fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCrUEqThTh0
Comments
Ref could always disallow it for ungentlemanly conduct.
It's a small town just outside of Leeds.
Throw in was taken legitimately, the ball was in play and it looked like the player took a speculative punt at goal - completely lobbing the keeper. Just like Shelvey, Rooney and so on.. Seems entirely fair?
Or was there a break in play and were they expecting the ball to be given back?
Edit - Just seen that they kicked the ball out to allow a player to receive treatment on the opposing team - in that case it's wrong. I think the player was only booting it towards the goalie too.
1) you should kick the ball out of play so that another player gets treatment
2) that the opposing players should give you the ball back if you do.
I stand to be corrected but I dont believe the old days of the ref blowing up for a player to be treated & then giving a drop ball have been outlawed - only change being that play is only stopped if its a head injury or a player is severely injured. If a player kicks the ball out because he wants a team mate treated then what follows is his look-out. What would you want a CAFC player to do if on the last game v Burnley we needed a win to stay up[ & on 90 mins its 1-1 and one of their players boots the ball off because his team mate has gone down injured. I'd hope we kept it & went for goal just like in the clip shown.The laws are in place for this - let the ref decide.
No ;laws were broken. Hopefully the players have leant from this I always thought that 1 of the first things you are taught is to play to the refs whistle. If he hasn't blown - catty on with the game.
We didn't score from the throw on but it didn't go down well with the opposition players or the home fans.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand. It looks like they Guisley player overhit it, certainly the guy who took the throw-in wondered what he was playing it. What I find interesting, or perhaps that's too politer a phrase, is the reaction of the Guisley supporters.
No specific rule in football against this but it is impossible to permit it in a league situation.
Must replay or charge BOTH teams with disrepute and award zero points for game.
As long as neither foot is completely over the line then the throw in is fine.
Can't find anywhere official that confirms this, but the images on this link show this:
http://www.fryclubjfc.co.uk/FCJ_Stuff/LOAF/Throw In/Results/resultspage.htm
http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/what-constitutes-a-foul-throw.6636/