So true (yankism aside). The Nigerian left back today was atrocious - at least half of his throw-ins were foul throws. I saw a couple of ridiculously obvious ones in the South Korea/Greece game as well.
[cite]Posted By: Stone[/cite]Little known throw in fact:
Did you know that you can stand with your heels on the line and the rest of your foot on the field of play and it be a perfectly legal throw-in?
Yes but only if part of the foot is touching the ground behind the line or on the line, and the chances of that occurring are quite low. The forward momentum generated (by bringing the ball forward to launch it) more often than not means the back of the foot leaves the ground, making it a foul throw. Very risky, with not much reward from doing it.
Agree that some of the throws so far have been terrible though. I think I saw one foul throw given in the Argentina-Nigeria game, there could have 6 or 7
[cite]Posted By: AshTray[/cite]If you read the rules you would see they are legal throws.
I don't NEED to read the rules. I KNOW the rules. Having played football for twenty five years, refereed hundreds of matches and watched it for thirty years I know exactly what constitutes a foul throw and what doesn't. There were at least eight foul throws in the Nigeria/Argentina game alone.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]If we are going to get pedantic - There are NO rules in football. Just Laws.
But we weren't getting pedantic. No point having a rule (alright then, a law) that isn't enforced. personally I think the rules (alright, laws) on throw-ins are a bit daft and should probably be changed, but they ARE the rules and they should be enforced.
Its been a bug-bare of mine for sometime now. Believe me this is not restricted to world cups, in all English leagues barely a single throw-in actually follows the rules. Long over-due time for a crack-down on this along the lines of the pull your socks up crack-down of a few years ago.
Agreed, my son has been saying, ' that's a foul throw ' 2 or 3 times a game since he was about 9 (5 years). It has now become an irritant and I huff and puff and say yep.
As a coach it bugs me when 9 year olds can't do it let alone overpaid pros.
[cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite] Long over-due time for a crack-down on this along the lines of the pull your socks up crack-down of a few years ago.
I'm a referee so I like the laws being enforced but equally I like the game to flow and no-one likes pedantic refereeing which is what any crackdown will be called. In the grand scheme of things, minor foul throws have little effect on the game, and any crackdown on that would leave the press with a field day. Crackdown on the obvious foul throws, yes, crackdown so every throw is analysed in microscopic detail to ensure they conform, no. Doesn't need to be anything official, just referees remembering to actually watch the throw-in, because atm many of them don't and leave them to the assistants......
Completely different from the socks things, that's a safety issue, if shinpads aren't covered, they can cause horrific damage
At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower:
• faces the fi eld of play
• has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the
touch line
• holds the ball with both hands
• delivers the ball from behind and over his head
• delivers the ball from the point where it left the fi eld of play
All opponents must stand no less than 2 m (2 yds) from the point at which the
throw-in is taken.
The ball is in play when it enters the fi eld of play.
After delivering the ball, the thrower must not touch the ball again until it has
touched another player.
So nothing about throwing the ball at the ground. Where are these foul-throws then you are talking about?
You should read these seeing as you spend so long watching soccer. Maybe you'd get less wound up and talk less rubbish as a result :-)
I guess the point is, though, that it's hard to comply with the 'delivers the ball from behind and over his head' requirement when the ball is thrown at the ground. If the thrower can achieve that, then fair play. It doesn't matter how high or how low you throw the ball as long as those requirements are met.
I reffed for about five years and found that the more usual source of foul throws was the over-stepping of the line. You see that a lot even at pro level. As you rightly say, part of the foot can be on the line, but none of the foot must touch the field of play. I confess never to having seen anyone throw the ball on (or in) by standing with their heels on the line and the rest of the foot in the field of play but not touching it. And it escapes me as to why anyone would want to do that.
Now on to bigger and more important issues.
The ball is only out of play when ALL of the ball crosses ALL of the line. Why is it that most linesmen (aka linesmen) flag for a throw when only part of the ball is over the line? Do linesmen (aka linesmen) have an instinctive desire to be overtly involved when their moment comes, rather than just remain quietly in the background?
Tough one that Dave. 'The whole of the ball' - Even when I did the ref's course it seemed a grey area and we were advised that if the whole of the apex of the ball was over the line then we should call it out. So if you were looking down on the ball, some of it would still eclipse the line, but it would technically be out. I think it's a rule that needs some more clarity.
Regarding, 'delivers the ball from behind and over his head'. Delivers from is the key here I think. It doesn't refer to when the ball is released. Shorter throws are usually delivered later in the motion and are what many people wrongly assume are foul throws. Aside from their legality, Allez makes a good point when he/she says why would you want to crack down on short throws??
Regarding, 'delivers the ball from behind and over his head'. Delivers from is the key here I think. It doesn't refer to when the ball is released. Shorter throws are usually delivered later in the motion and are what many people wrongly assume are foul throws. Aside from their legality, Allez makes a good point when he/she says why would you want to crack down on short throws??[/quote]
Oooh .. I think 'delivers' does mean 'when the ball is released'. The very essence of many foul throws is the fact that the ball leaves the hands when they are in front of the head. That's irrespective of the fact that the ball may have started from behind the head.
Comments
You're not a Yank by any chance....?
Did you know that you can stand with your heels on the line and the rest of your foot on the field of play and it be a perfectly legal throw-in?
Yes but only if part of the foot is touching the ground behind the line or on the line, and the chances of that occurring are quite low. The forward momentum generated (by bringing the ball forward to launch it) more often than not means the back of the foot leaves the ground, making it a foul throw. Very risky, with not much reward from doing it.
Agree that some of the throws so far have been terrible though. I think I saw one foul throw given in the Argentina-Nigeria game, there could have 6 or 7
I do know the rules.
No there wasnt legal throws. Amateurish throwing the ball AT the ground
You're not a Yank by any chance....?[/quote]
It was 'throw on' when I was a lad. And I'm not a Yank either.
I think the term morphed into 'throw in' sometime in the late 1960's ... and our life is so much better for that now, isn't it?
Have I also noticed that 'contribute' is pronounced differently these days?
CON-tribute or Con-TRI-bute?
What's all that about?
A bloke came up to me in the pub and said he'd like to con-tri-BUTE to the throw on debate....
I thought, 'What the fcuk...'
As a coach it bugs me when 9 year olds can't do it let alone overpaid pros.
It's not fckin hard is it?
I'm a referee so I like the laws being enforced but equally I like the game to flow and no-one likes pedantic refereeing which is what any crackdown will be called. In the grand scheme of things, minor foul throws have little effect on the game, and any crackdown on that would leave the press with a field day. Crackdown on the obvious foul throws, yes, crackdown so every throw is analysed in microscopic detail to ensure they conform, no. Doesn't need to be anything official, just referees remembering to actually watch the throw-in, because atm many of them don't and leave them to the assistants......
Completely different from the socks things, that's a safety issue, if shinpads aren't covered, they can cause horrific damage
Youga is a bad culprit for us.
They always get pulled up in local league football, so why not at the top level?
And does that six second rule for keepers even still exist?
At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower:
• faces the fi eld of play
• has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the
touch line
• holds the ball with both hands
• delivers the ball from behind and over his head
• delivers the ball from the point where it left the fi eld of play
All opponents must stand no less than 2 m (2 yds) from the point at which the
throw-in is taken.
The ball is in play when it enters the fi eld of play.
After delivering the ball, the thrower must not touch the ball again until it has
touched another player.
So nothing about throwing the ball at the ground. Where are these foul-throws then you are talking about?
You should read these seeing as you spend so long watching soccer. Maybe you'd get less wound up and talk less rubbish as a result :-)
This is the key one which players dont follow. They sort of balance the ball on the crown of their head and let it roll forward. That aint a throw!
and its football not soccer.
Why i'm justifying that I know what a fckin foul throw is I dont know.
:-)
I guess the point is, though, that it's hard to comply with the 'delivers the ball from behind and over his head' requirement when the ball is thrown at the ground. If the thrower can achieve that, then fair play. It doesn't matter how high or how low you throw the ball as long as those requirements are met.
I reffed for about five years and found that the more usual source of foul throws was the over-stepping of the line. You see that a lot even at pro level. As you rightly say, part of the foot can be on the line, but none of the foot must touch the field of play. I confess never to having seen anyone throw the ball on (or in) by standing with their heels on the line and the rest of the foot in the field of play but not touching it. And it escapes me as to why anyone would want to do that.
Now on to bigger and more important issues.
The ball is only out of play when ALL of the ball crosses ALL of the line. Why is it that most linesmen (aka linesmen) flag for a throw when only part of the ball is over the line? Do linesmen (aka linesmen) have an instinctive desire to be overtly involved when their moment comes, rather than just remain quietly in the background?
Regarding, 'delivers the ball from behind and over his head'. Delivers from is the key here I think. It doesn't refer to when the ball is released. Shorter throws are usually delivered later in the motion and are what many people wrongly assume are foul throws. Aside from their legality, Allez makes a good point when he/she says why would you want to crack down on short throws??
Regarding, 'delivers the ball from behind and over his head'. Delivers from is the key here I think. It doesn't refer to when the ball is released. Shorter throws are usually delivered later in the motion and are what many people wrongly assume are foul throws. Aside from their legality, Allez makes a good point when he/she says why would you want to crack down on short throws??[/quote]
Oooh .. I think 'delivers' does mean 'when the ball is released'. The very essence of many foul throws is the fact that the ball leaves the hands when they are in front of the head. That's irrespective of the fact that the ball may have started from behind the head.